One of those refugees might be a terrorist though, OG, and as you know, one bad apple spoils the barrel (old conservative proverb).
Printable View
One of those refugees might be a terrorist though, OG, and as you know, one bad apple spoils the barrel (old conservative proverb).
Ah the age old 'guilt by association.' I'll remind you I didn't vote for Trump. I didn't support him in the primaries and I didn't vote for him in the general election. I still consider him the lesser of two evils compared to Clinton but I certainly don't support everything he does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
And in reality it is the media that is responsible for this. They destroyed the trust the people had in the institution with their liberal bias and so now people turn to other sources to get their news. Sometimes those sources are great and eye opening and other times they are tabloid trash. It is the media who was to blame for it, they just couldn't call the news straight they had to swing it toward their political preferences.
It isn't a 'Muslim Ban' since it actually doesn't ban Muslims. It is pretty horribly implemented however. I'm generally supportive of restricting immigration from countries that have huge swathes of their population who hate us but this was pretty incompetently done.
Testing the waters. Reportedly, the part about targeting green card holders came from Bannon & Miller. It's not hard to guess what they were trying to pull.Quote:
It isn't a 'Muslim Ban' since it actually doesn't ban Muslims.
Half of the affected visa holders are Iranian. Remind me of the last time a Shi'a Muslim carried out acts of terror in the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand...RAND_TR910.pdfQuote:
Though a majority of the respondents viewed the U.S. government and its policies toward Iran negatively, around half held positive views of the American people: 28*percent reported very favorable views, and 24*percent reported somewhat favorable views. (Another 20*percent of respondents reported neither favorable nor unfavorable views of the American people.) Only 8*percent of the respondents had a somewhat unfavorable view of the American people, and only 9*percent viewed Americans very unfavorably.
The bullshit in your second paragraph is a good illustration of what I was talking about. Trump is just the culmination, the natural consequence, of what you've been doing for over a decade now so whether or not you actually voted for him is pretty irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
It's hilarious to see you complain about guilt by association btw :haha:
I'm sure it is in your eyes. Liberals loved it when people believed the media because they were able to control the story. To you the idea that people don't trust the 'so called' objective news stories is frightening. To conservatives it just means there is a more equal playing field, the downside is that standards for what counts as a 'news story' has dropped with the advent of social media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Given that your favored sources--gleeful purveyors of fake news and bullshit one and all--are the ones that have enabled the Trump presidency I think it's fair to say you're full of it.
"liiiiiibburrl media refuses to pretend there's still a debate about climate change, so I was forced to turn to a new source I know posts outright lies :("
Honestly, I see this shit all the time, from all sides of the political spectrum. 'waaah, [x] pissed me off so I decided to be deliberately wrong out of spite"
I find this attitude entirely baffling.
Never mind climate change, we have tens of millions of Lewk's brethren all across the US convinced Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim hell-bent on destroying Christianity on behalf of Islamist terrorists before selling the survivors as slaves to this Chinese owners.
Name a few conservatively slanted sources you respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Economist, Times, the Telegraph I find mildly revolting but they've done some good investigative journalism over the years including breaking the MP expenses story so I respect them for that.
Now you do some liberal sources you respect.
I love the right-wing obsession with "mainstream media". The mainstream media occasionally makes greater claims than it can substantiate and provides mediocre analysis. The other "media" makes shit up, frequently on purpose. Somehow the flaws of the former provide credibility to the latter.
New Statesman, Independent, Guardian in that order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
All the broadsheets do a reasonably decent job actually reporting the news, it's usually the editorial stances that get people from The Other Side annoyed.
I strongly dislike the Telegraph, but if they report Thing there's a good chance Thing actually happened, which is more than you can say for, e.g. Breitbart or the garbage put out on social media.
Times? NY Times? Or something else?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Generally speaking I don't respect sources that claim to be objective but deliver a liberal slant on reporting. I appreciate individuals like Nate Silver who make it clear where their preferences are but spend a good amount of time explaining how and why they come to their conclusions. (In his case it is limited to polling and election results but I've always found his posts to be relatively clear eyed and respectable.) I generally use multiple sources to determine how 'true' something is, for general fact consumption as opposed to analysis Reuters keeps it relatively objective. It is important to keep in mind that bias is not just about factual/non-factual reporting but on WHAT stories get aired. When they get aired, the adjectives used int he story etc. Also what facts are presented. You could have a crime rate that was 3.4 per 1,000 in 1990, 2.4 in 2000 and 3.3 in 2010. The news piece could say "Crime up almost 50% in 10 years) or it could say "crime lower than it was in 1990" both are true but one is clearly pushing an agenda of some sort.
It goes far beyond that. MSM has done things over the years to push agendas, sure you have out and out hoaxes like Dan Rather's Bush NG service but that's rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...33925#comments
As a reminder folks the media doesn't fact check before throwing out shit these days. Never trust the media. :) While I'm sure some places will cover the story that it turned out to be a lie most won't make it as prominent as the original.
And somehow this negates the fact that alternatives make shit up?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I thought we're not supposed to trust the media, yet you're citing the media correcting the story? Incidentally, the original story was published by...wait for it...Fox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
The media is going to skewer this guy for such an obvious lie. The retraction from fox hit the top spot on reddit's front page, more than double the score of the original claim.
Bullshit! I've seen your posts, there is not even a teensy bit or respect for the Guardian.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Think he called it The Grauniad last time it was used as a source. Not that it says much, name calling is his go to crutch when he has no actual argument or rebuttal to contribute. The time before that he compared it to the daily mail though
I view the Guardian or as I prefer to call it the Grauniad to be a very biased left wing paper comparable to the Mail. I still have a healthy respect for it in a way I don't for The Mirror that is just a tabloid rag. Respect doesn't mean like, I don't like the Guardian. You can respect an enemy.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy
Comparing the Guardian to the Mail puts you in Sean Spicer territory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Another alternative fact by Rand.
You can object to things and hold a measure of respect for them at the same time. As I said in the next post the Grauniad and the Fail both do investigative journalism as well as having extreme biases.
Why because only the right is objectionable to you and not the left? The Guardian are extremely left wing and the mirror image to the Mirror.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The quality of journalism and the type of content differ greatly between the two but you're such a damn' snowflake that you can't parse out the editorial content.
The quality of journalism is similar.
Glad you've accepted that snowflake is an acceptable insult and not racist abuse. You're maturing, credit to you.
The quality of journalism is not similar unless your definition of "similar" is "written more or less in the same language". No-one here has ever thought that snowflake is a racist insult. It is however an identifier of alt-right racists. Because y'all are such snowflakes I've decided to appropriate the term that describes you so well
Show me any objective reason that the Guardian is objectively better quality journalism. Snowflake is not an identifier of anything.
Are you calling me an alt-right racist? If so I'd ask you to defend that, please quote anything racist that I have EVER written here.
Alt right-er racists like Chuck Palahniuk?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
They love that guy
Because he is a member of the alt right and a racist?
Thats cause the morons think he invented the use of snowflake as an insult. Nothing like seeing conservatives using language popularized by an openly gay author who writes shock-value stories about debauched sexual experiences.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Nothing wrong with that.
No because they love Tyler Durden.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red