Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Do you agree with this sentiment?

Do you agree with this sentiment?
Thread Tools
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2015, 10:06 AM
 
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor stop saying you want a country based on Christian values, because you don't".
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2015, 01:21 PM
 
"I want a country based on the rule of law. If you choose to practice Christian values, do it in private." - Me
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2015, 01:28 PM
 
100% secular derived laws?
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2015, 01:50 PM
 
To a large extent, Christian values like helping the poor are not uniquely Christian. The sentiment that we should, when possible, help those in need really doesn't belong to any specific religion, it's humanist and humanitarian. There is no inherent division between purely secular and purely religious sentiments in this area. In fact, there's a huge overlap. The problem lies when either the primarily religious or the primarily anti-religious side tries to claim ownership of humanism (or tries to shove ownership onto the other side).

I'm all for people in a church deciding that they should get together and help their community, but I'm also aware that it is unrealistic to assume that such churches are not only extant everywhere, but also have the intent and ability to take care of everyone. That's where taxpayer money should start; helping people who have no other recourse. This is good for the individuals who need help, and it's also good for the community. If communities have the right amount of support available for people who are down on their luck, those people do not become a burden on the community. Ah, there's the trick! The "right amount" is a delicate and contentious quantity... To say the least, our current US system of providing support for individuals is "flawed."

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2015, 09:55 PM
 
Its not just a case of getting the amount right. You have to take into account that even if Christians and atheists both agree that that helping the needy is the right thing to do, you need them to agree to that being the scope of the law as well otherwise you will tend to get people trying to impose non-secular conditions.

What if the charity and welfare arm of government was completely independent and autonomous from the infrastructure arm of the government and a certain percentage of tax money was earmarked for the welfare arm and the two arms were strictly forbidden from ever sharing or lending cash?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 2, 2015, 09:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
To say the least, our current US system of providing support for individuals is "flawed."

I would say that it is doing an extraordinarily, if not impossible job right now given the high costs of healthcare, education, stagnant lower and middle class wages, etc.
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2015, 08:25 PM
 
I didn't say it wasn't getting the job done. It is, however doing many other things, such as essentially training yet another generation to be dependent on handouts instead of doing for themselves. Not the whole generation, of course, but enough to make it a problem.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 3, 2015, 08:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
I didn't say it wasn't getting the job done. It is, however doing many other things, such as essentially training yet another generation to be dependent on handouts instead of doing for themselves. Not the whole generation, of course, but enough to make it a problem.
I would say that is a symptom of the problem, but we'd be better off addressing the root cause rather than the symptom.

The costs of healthcare alone have to be a significant contributor to the stressing of financial aid.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 12:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would say that is a symptom of the problem, but we'd be better off addressing the root cause rather than the symptom.

The costs of healthcare alone have to be a significant contributor to the stressing of financial aid.
I thought Obamacare was supposed to fix that?

We ought to reform healthcare again to get the costs lower. The billions being wasted in administrative boondoggles and 50 different markets is absolutely killing the costs, plus the disconnect of the buyer (patient) and the costs of minor outpatient care. We could start there, at least.
     
besson3c  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 12:28 AM
 
Nobody claimed it was going to "fix" anything, at least not here to the best of my recollection. Some like myself claimed it would be a step in the right direction. The fact that many people are now insured that weren't before and the pre-existing condition loophole was plugged is indeed a step, but there is a hell of a long way to go.

The disconnect of the buyer is a very big part of the problem, but it is going to take a tremendous amount of education to get buyers pushing for assessment of RoI in their healthcare decisions, and a system where costs are made far more transparent. When you have a system that is built around profit generation outside of Medicare I personally think that this is a fundamental problem that will always exist unless Medicare is expanded and/or the role of insurance providers changes.

The profit motive definitely motivates research, advanced treatments, and many positive things, but I don't think the costs are really going to start falling considerably until changes are made that many politicians (particularly Republicans) interested in preserving all of these current profit motives will not like.

It's the same old story, the country being run by a very small wealthy elite running roughshod on everybody else. It will be interesting to see when enough is enough.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 05:01 AM
 
When you have a system that is built around profit generation outside of Medicare
That's a joke, right? Medicare is corrupt from the top down. It was built to pad politicians' pockets.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 07:30 AM
 
Actually less people are insured. It did not attract the young as assumed by the Obama admin. Remember Mr Gruber saying it was a scam and the regular folks were too stupid to understand it? Most are unhappy with the coverage too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...others-survey/
( Last edited by BadKosh; Aug 4, 2015 at 09:31 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 11:20 AM
 
Aren't more young folks covered under family plans?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 11:22 AM
 
The Washington Times is clearly not a site that would consider publishing the results of any survey saying that Obamacare was good. In any way at all. I call (typical right-wing) BS.

Show me a left-wing source that draws these conclusions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 05:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
The Washington Times is clearly not a site that would consider publishing the results of any survey saying that Obamacare was good. In any way at all. I call (typical right-wing) BS.

Show me a left-wing source that draws these conclusions.
Maybe you could address the arguments the article presents themselves on their merits? I'm more interested in the merits of the arguments, not the political leanings of the publication methods.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 07:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Show me a left-wing source that draws these conclusions.
The left wing press is up Obamas ass so there won't be any. Its against the narrative.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 08:02 PM
 
Ok, for a start the mid range is people who said "somewhat satisfied" and rated 4-7 out of 10. I would say that 7 is a much better score than 4 and these have been lumped in together. In the case of many exams, 40% is barely a pass (if it is) but 70% can be an A or B.

If you then read between the lines where it talks about people who were dissatisfied. 14% for ACA users versus single digit percentage for Medicaid. That could be as little as 6% difference. I think that can be very easily be attributed to the difference between having to pay something and having to pay nothing. Throw in the concerted 8 year hate campaign against the ACA from the GOP and RW media outlets and I think you have more than explained away that discrepancy. So now we have one survey which upon closer inspection is telling us pretty much **** all, in opposition to several other surveys that say very much the opposite.
Do you imagine that maybe Deloitte would benefit from lower corporate tax rates under a conservative government?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 4, 2015, 09:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
The left wing press is up Obamas ass so there won't be any. Its against the narrative.
Here is the thing though: They aren't.

If you were to risk your worldview by watching or reading any "left-wing" press, you would know this.

The thing about the press from the point of view of a right-winger, is that there is right-wing press, and then everything else is part of the liberal-biased, democratic conspiracy.

The "left-wing" press frequently criticises or exposes the behaviour of left-wing or liberal politicians or public figures. They mock, they publicise, they hold them to some account. This does not happen with the right-wing media and right-wing public figures. Instead they justify, they apologise (and forgive), they overlook, deflect and ignore behaviour from the stupid to the downright despicable.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2015, 08:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Here is the thing though: They aren't.

If you were to risk your worldview by watching or reading any "left-wing" press, you would know this.

The thing about the press from the point of view of a right-winger, is that there is right-wing press, and then everything else is part of the liberal-biased, democratic conspiracy.

The "left-wing" press frequently criticises or exposes the behaviour of left-wing or liberal politicians or public figures. They mock, they publicise, they hold them to some account. This does not happen with the right-wing media and right-wing public figures. Instead they justify, they apologise (and forgive), they overlook, deflect and ignore behaviour from the stupid to the downright despicable.
Again you think you know others thoughts? You didn't comment on Snow-i's comments either. Hmmm. Keep projecting you faulty assumptions and you keep illustrating your own incorrect conclusions. Rationalizing the data in the article is another laugh.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 5, 2015, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Again you think you know others thoughts? You didn't comment on Snow-i's comments either. Hmmm.
He explicitly asked me to comment on the arguments in the article, which is what I did. I didn't claim to know anyone's thoughts, though yours are pretty predictable. Not sure I regard them highly enough to call them thoughts though.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Keep projecting you faulty assumptions and you keep illustrating your own incorrect conclusions. Rationalizing the data in the article is another laugh.
As usually all you have is "I know you are but what am I?"

I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 12:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor stop saying you want a country based on Christian values, because you don't".
How do you figure Christian values have anything to do with using taxes to help the poor?

The bible is strictly anti government. Christians are taught not to rely on, or count on government for anything.
Christians are taught that God wants them to choose to give to the poor out of their own free will. Not be forced into it by big government.
They're taught to make real sacrifices, such as volunteering their time (which has proven to be more effective); not simply throw money at a problem through some middle man agency.

The track record of government solutions speaks for itself. Government solutions are exactly what makes people poor. Christians in the US have been way more effective & efficient in solving social problems than government where most the money is lost in a labyrinth of greedy bureaucracies.

It should also be noted that from the Bible's perspective; helping the poor means helping someone who's enslaved, or homeless and willing to work, who literally owns nothing and is struggling to eat. From the bible's perspective simply giving them opportunity would likely be significant charity. In the US we dont have many of that kind of poor.

I realize the L... hates that argument, but it's true. Nothing will please this faction of people. They always want more. You give them more and they still always claim theyer poor and want more.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
He explicitly asked me to comment on the arguments in the article, which is what I did. I didn't claim to know anyone's thoughts, though yours are pretty predictable. Not sure I regard them highly enough to call them thoughts though.



As usually all you have is "I know you are but what am I?"

actually no. You keep stating your opinions as if they were facts and your faulty assumptions stand on their own. Your perception of the media is very flawed, and it shows in your comments.
This is why I don't care too much about the MSM's content.

NewsBusters
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 12:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
It should also be noted that from the Bible's perspective; helping the poor means helping someone who's enslaved, or homeless and willing to work, who literally owns nothing and is struggling to eat. From the bible's perspective simply giving them opportunity would likely be significant charity. In the US we dont have many of that kind of poor.
This is a bold statement. Can you back this up with any specific quotes?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 03:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
actually no. You keep stating your opinions as if they were facts and your faulty assumptions stand on their own. Your perception of the media is very flawed, and it shows in your comments.
This is why I don't care too much about the MSM's content.

NewsBusters
No, you don't care about the non-rw media's comments because they might not tell you things you already want to think. My "opinion" that the rw media is unmatched in its bias and negligent in its accuracy but that other media outlets are capable of being more objective and balanced some of the time is pretty easy to defend. So much so I can't be bothered to spell it out. If you were capable of seeing past the blinkers you'd see it already. You don't even want to look because you have no regard for the truth.

You are an absolute textbook example of my other opinion that many americans on the far right are completely incapable of objectivity to the point that they see objectivity as a liberal plot, just like their "news" sources tell them to.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 07:50 PM
 
This is a bold statement. Can you back this up with any specific quotes?
The thread was started with the premise that the bible supports helping the poor by proxy of government tax dollars; by having our money forcefully taken from us by the government. For the moment I think the burden of evidence lies with the crowd who proposes this.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 08:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
The thread was started with the premise that the bible supports helping the poor by proxy of government tax dollars; by having our money forcefully taken from us by the government. For the moment I think the burden of evidence lies with the crowd who proposes this.
I think an biblical argument could be made that there is no explicit Christian imperative to use the state for charity, but I've never read anything in the good book about only helping the 'right' kind of poor. That's your assertion which is above and beyond the original premise of this thread. Can you back it up?
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 08:26 PM
 
Why can't you just take my word for it?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 09:15 PM
 
It's pretty explicit that you help the poor, not do it by proxy, because it's "the act of charity itself that purifies the heart" (or so says St Ignatius of Antioch).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 6, 2015, 09:40 PM
 
I guess I'll bite
Thessalonians
6 Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living.
So you're suppose to work really hard; day & night for food (if we really want to be biblical). Most modern first world people don't work hard.

Lets put this in perspective: The group of Americans who call themselves poor, it's usually on the basis that they can't afford health insurance/Lacking universal healthcare, cable TV, prepared foods etc.. After all, the government is willing to provide housing, electricity and other utility credits to those who are such awful people they have no network to help them get back on their feet. This is "the kind of poor" that is not actually poor since none of these services (which many sadly think they have a right to...) even existed back in biblical times. Today's American "poor" would be considered kings in biblical times.

So... lets say you see a "poor" man asking for help. You offer him a job. He says "No I'm over qualified" or something to the effect of "its not worth it " or "I just want money". Do you give him money? Or do you save your limited money for people in other parts of the world who truly are poor struggling to survive. 'Cause thats the position this conservative is in. I see liberals asking for demanding luxury items telling others how to spend their money; then I see starving kids in Cambodia. I have a preference for where I want my resources to go; and it's more in line with the bible than the agenda liberals support which, lets be honest, are all materialistic things that conveniently benefit themselves - not others.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 03:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
I guess I'll bite
Thessalonians
This passage is about how believers should behave, not about charity. I'm struggling to find a passage about charity that qualifies those who deserve it beyond noting that they are 'poor' or 'needy'.

Don't get me wrong, as I said above, I don't think the bible necessarily commands state welfare, or that your arguments about 'who needs it more' are wrong, I just think it's a pretty radical claim that the bible commands only helping the 'deserving' poor.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 07:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No, you don't care about the non-rw media's comments because they might not tell you things you already want to think. My "opinion" that the rw media is unmatched in its bias and negligent in its accuracy but that other media outlets are capable of being more objective and balanced some of the time is pretty easy to defend. So much so I can't be bothered to spell it out. If you were capable of seeing past the blinkers you'd see it already. You don't even want to look because you have no regard for the truth.

You are an absolute textbook example of my other opinion that many americans on the far right are completely incapable of objectivity to the point that they see objectivity as a liberal plot, just like their "news" sources tell them to.
Since the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA seems to ignore stories that go against the narrative, leave out facts and lie just like the Obama admin I'd say they are worthless as a news source. They haven't even covered Hillarys CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of her email server/mishandling of secret documents. Instead its lots of coverage about a lion. The list of missteps of this administration, the incompetence and corruption and scandals are ignored by the cheerleading LWM. You, sitting in the UK don't get it. You are already compromised goods.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 08:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Since the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA seems to ignore stories that go against the narrative, leave out facts and lie just like the Obama admin I'd say they are worthless as a news source. They haven't even covered Hillarys CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION of her email server/mishandling of secret documents. Instead its lots of coverage about a lion. The list of missteps of this administration, the incompetence and corruption and scandals are ignored by the cheerleading LWM. You, sitting in the UK don't get it. You are already compromised goods.
Ooh look this news coverage doesn't exist:

Nine unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton's emails | MSNBC

That was the first of many results when I searched "msnbc hillary email scandal". As usual, you don't know your ass from your elbow because Rupert Murdoch hasn't told you which is which.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 10:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Ooh look this news coverage doesn't exist:

Nine unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton's emails | MSNBC

That was the first of many results when I searched "msnbc hillary email scandal". As usual, you don't know your ass from your elbow because Rupert Murdoch hasn't told you which is which.
I see you didn't ACTUALLY READ MY WORDS and compare the subject, That Hillary is under a CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION, and just linked a story of some questions the writer wants to ask. If this is the best you can do in your liberal filtered mind, you should be ashamed. Also your continued assumptions that you somehow can read others minds is getting tiresome.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 10:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Ooh look this news coverage doesn't exist:

Nine unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton's emails | MSNBC

That was the first of many results when I searched "msnbc hillary email scandal". As usual, you don't know your ass from your elbow because Rupert Murdoch hasn't told you which is which.
That wasn't what he was saying. It's a little (re. lot) more serious than that.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 04:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Nobody claimed it was going to "fix" anything, at least not here to the best of my recollection.
What was it supposed to do, then?

Some like myself claimed it would be a step in the right direction. The fact that many people are now insured that weren't before and the pre-existing condition loophole was plugged is indeed a step, but there is a hell of a long way to go.
I'm not sure we needed 2500 pages of legislation to this end.

The disconnect of the buyer is a very big part of the problem, but it is going to take a tremendous amount of education to get buyers pushing for assessment of RoI in their healthcare decisions, and a system where costs are made far more transparent.
If you make them pay for minor care directly this problem should be self-correcting. Much like buying a house or a car.

When you have a system that is built around profit generation outside of Medicare I personally think that this is a fundamental problem that will always exist unless Medicare is expanded and/or the role of insurance providers changes.
Profit Margins in the insurance industry are roughly 3% - I don't think this is a good indicator of whats driving the root problems.

The profit motive definitely motivates research, advanced treatments, and many positive things, but I don't think the costs are really going to start falling considerably until changes are made that many politicians (particularly Republicans) interested in preserving all of these current profit motives will not like.
Again, I don't think the profit motive is a problem in-it-of-itself. The mountains of regulatory bureaucracy multiplied by the 50 different markets, IMO, is. That's the lowest hanging fruit. Give me nationwide options, and I can choose the best insurance for me. The law currently forbids me from signing up for any plans except the ones approved by my state.

It's the same old story, the country being run by a very small wealthy elite running roughshod on everybody else. It will be interesting to see when enough is enough.
Yeah, the very small wealthy elite who are in bed with (and includes) the government itself. More government control will only result in more of these problems. If you could lower the regulatory barrier to entry, you would see more innovation among startups and established players (who're now answering to the consumer, not the government). I agree with you that the country is being run by a small wealthy elite - that's the very definition of every member of congress and most high-ranking unelected officials (and the accompanying lobbies).
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 04:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Ooh look this news coverage doesn't exist:

Nine unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton's emails | MSNBC

That was the first of many results when I searched "msnbc hillary email scandal". As usual, you don't know your ass from your elbow because Rupert Murdoch hasn't told you which is which.
Are you saying MSNBC and the like are covering it equally?

It's funny, since MSNBC's cover page is a political hit and run op-ed (doesn't even really count as news). Yeah, no bias there at all guys.

Waragainstsleep, do you think your choice in consumption of news material is biased at all?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 05:13 PM
 
Sounds like petty semantics to me. Its clearly all the same story.

Hillary Clinton's email server under investigation - CNNPolitics.com
FBI Investigating Security of Hillary Clinton Emails - NBC News
Clinton campaign slams new email controversy as DOJ weighs investigation | MSNBC

One of these even uses the word 'investigate'. Gosh!

So while I was "not actually reading your words", I noticed that I actually was reading your words and refuting them perfectly well.
the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA seems to ignore stories that go against the narrative
Oh, look how they completely ignored the story. Just because they choose to approach a story from a different angle, doesn't make it a different story. I never said they weren't biased at all, I just pointed out that they were prepared to cover or criticise wrongdoing by "their own".

From reading some of the coverage from sites like yours and some of the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA as well, it seems pretty clear to me that no-one who wasn't directly involved has the slightest ****ing clue about whether or not any classified info passed through the server, how secure the server or connected devices were and therefore whether or not any laws have actually been broken. Even the FBI have been careful to be non-comittal by only saying they are investigating whether or not any laws have been broken. If you want to call that a criminal investigation into Hillary then ok, but I see no issue with waiting for the facts. I don't count the ones being clearly embellished by the usual right wing news circle jerk where one loudmouthed lunatic makes an unfounded claim and it gets repeated and rehashed so much and so fast that no-one can track down who they should be suing for it.

Lets look at the best example we currently have of the shoe being on the other foot with good old Rick Perry having actually ben charged with a crime.

Fox seem quite supportive of him:
Tom DeLay calls Texas Gov. Rick Perry's indictment a ‘conspiracy’ | Fox News

What about your guys?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...rs-veto-power/

Oh its an unconstitutional conspiracy. Of course it is.

So the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA covers the story you claim it has ignored, just as I said. Your RW shitpile masquerading as a "news" site defends the Republican who has actually been charged with a crime and shows no outrage at abuse of power whatsoever, just as I said.

Are we done yet?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 7, 2015, 05:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Are you saying MSNBC and the like are covering it equally?

It's funny, since MSNBC's cover page is a political hit and run op-ed (doesn't even really count as news). Yeah, no bias there at all guys.

Waragainstsleep, do you think your choice in consumption of news material is biased at all?
Do you think I read MSNBC? I only picked it as one the right's favourite LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA targets.

When I want news I often start with the BBC, Reuters and AP and ideally one of those via Twitter where they don't have enough characters to exaggerate.

I accept that all media has some bias. Its inevitable, people have opinions. My assertion is that leftish media is substantially more likely to have a stab at being objective than right wing media like Fox and the Washington Post which is difficult for me to separate from Infowars in terms of quality and accuracy. Seriously that shit is laughable as an example of journalism. I can say that very objectively.

The BBC for example is obviously skewed to the left when it comes to UK politics, but it is mandated to be objective so while it is quite obvious, it isn't actually that bad. Not like the Daily Fail is towards the right. But the Fail is in little league in terms of its xenophobia and outrage compared to US right wing outlets.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 12:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
This passage is about how believers should behave, not about charity. I'm struggling to find a passage about charity that qualifies those who deserve it beyond noting that they are 'poor' or 'needy'.
Yes, It could be said the whole bible is about how believers should behave. Im basing it more on an overtone of the whole book. I dont think there's going to be a passage that states it in exactly the way I did. I think the passage I posted essentially does the trick. Lets start with this:
The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.
This doesn't say "except for the poor... for they are excused & Christians should help them". It doesn't say "he who is lazy shall not receive his right to healthcare, electricity or other luxury items". It goes right for the the most basic elements of survival. It's essentially saying he who is lazy shall starve to death, poverty or not. Of course you wouldn't be expected to go hungry if people were expected to, or commanded to give you charity just because you're poor. So Im to assume it means they shall not receive any kind of charity.
we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us
It very clearly says "keep away from the lazy etc". To give charity to these folk would be the opposite of that. It dose not say "stay away from the lazy unless they are poor, then feed them".

The bible doesn't need to categorize kinds of poor, it has already categorized kinds of people which many of the poor fit into. And as such we do know who is more deserving of charity. We already know that lazy, & poor, kind of go together in the US. It's not like this is Ecuador, where American oil companies are raiding their land leaving oil ponds & broken wells all over contaminating the water causing the poor to have deformed babies. The demanding American "poor" are the top 1% on a world scale; and they will have trouble passing through the eye of a needle just like any other rich person who they criticize.

Don't get me wrong, as I said above, I don't think the bible necessarily commands state welfare, or that your arguments about 'who needs it more' are wrong, I just think it's a pretty radical claim that the bible commands only helping the 'deserving' poor.
From memory of most the parables they paint pretty clear pictures of what it is to be poor in biblical times. They also include a number of these poor begging to be slaves and what not while some of the rich refuse their offers. I think it would be obvious that if someone is expecting me to give charity to them and I offer them charity in the form of a $14/hr job doing landscaping which they refuse, then they are clearly less deserving of charity than those who are looking for work to make ends meet.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 12:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Do you think I read MSNBC? I only picked it as one the right's favourite LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA targets.
Lets try to keep the conversation between you and me, instead of immediately invoking the "Argghhh Republicans!" straw man.

Ok, so you picked it because you believe it's biased towards the left? Or because you believe republicans believe it's biased towards the left?

When I want news I often start with the BBC, Reuters and AP and ideally one of those via Twitter where they don't have enough characters to exaggerate.
I hear ya - all sources I would deem credible.

I accept that all media has some bias. Its inevitable, people have opinions.
My assertion is that leftish media is substantially more likely to have a stab at being objective than right wing media like Fox and the Washington Post which is difficult for me to separate from Infowars in terms of quality and accuracy. Seriously that shit is laughable as an example of journalism. I can say that very objectively.
Bias is much easier to identify when the biases diverge from yours. Is it not possible that your left leanings shield you from seeing it so readily? You can't really say that "objectively" - by definition you need to back it up with some sort of empirical dataset. Declaring your opinion as objective is exactly the kind of bias you are decrying (not that you're the only one guilty of it). Opinions aren't objective, nor is there any sort of hard fast "non-biased" standard from which to start from. It's all from where your perspective starts.

The BBC for example is obviously skewed to the left when it comes to UK politics, but it is mandated to be objective so while it is quite obvious, it isn't actually that bad. Not like the Daily Fail is towards the right. But the Fail is in little league in terms of its xenophobia and outrage compared to US right wing outlets.
I guess it depends on your frame of reference - to many on the right the bias is far more readily apparent in the left-leaning news media. All I'm trying to point out here to you is that you're trying to objectify an innately subjective topic - one where your perspective indicates where you're most likely going to end up.

You're a left winger, and you don't think the left wing media is as biased. Shocking!
Badkosh is a right winger, and he thinks the left wing media is far more biased. Again, you shouldn't be surprised and/or angry about this. Perhaps we could move the discussion back towards the merits of the arguments themselves, and quit squabbling over who's providing the more objective (because neither of you are) news sources. As a right/centrist myself, such bickering over non-starters reduces my ability to relate to what your positions are, and I think this thread has a lot of potential for some great discussions.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 01:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Sounds like petty semantics to me. Its clearly all the same story.

Hillary Clinton's email server under investigation - CNNPolitics.com
FBI Investigating Security of Hillary Clinton Emails - NBC News
Clinton campaign slams new email controversy as DOJ weighs investigation | MSNBC

One of these even uses the word 'investigate'. Gosh!

So while I was "not actually reading your words", I noticed that I actually was reading your words and refuting them perfectly well.
Well good for you. You haven't convinced anyone else, though. A bit more tact might help here.

Oh, look how they completely ignored the story. Just because they choose to approach a story from a different angle, doesn't make it a different story.
i.e, a different bias.

I never said they weren't biased at all, I just pointed out that they were prepared to cover or criticise wrongdoing by "their own".
This is where you lose me. There's an obvious and apparent hesitation for LWMSM to criticize or cover stories that hurt the party line. Fast & furious, benghazi, IRS targeting - the list goes on. Just because they covered the story does not mean that they didn't cover it in a biased way. Generally, RW media outlets break the story and the LW outlets must run something or risk losing page-views if the story is trending.

From reading some of the coverage from sites like yours and some of the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA as well, it seems pretty clear to me that no-one who wasn't directly involved has the slightest ****ing clue about whether or not any classified info passed through the server, how secure the server or connected devices were and therefore whether or not any laws have actually been broken.
Exactly why it smells so fishy. Hillary deleted the emails after conducting her own internal review. I am dumbfounded as to why this does not seem like a big deal to you. Many, many people have gone down for less. Thankfully, Hillary's pals in the DOJ won't let her see any real consequences and we'll never have the oversight of her communications mandated by federal law.

Even the FBI have been careful to be non-comittal by only saying they are investigating whether or not any laws have been broken. If you want to call that a criminal investigation into Hillary then ok, but I see no issue with waiting for the facts.
Facts which have already been obfuscated and destroyed by virtue of Hillary's refusal to turn over the private server and the act of deleting a set of emails before anyone could review them.

I don't count the ones being clearly embellished by the usual right wing news circle jerk where one loudmouthed lunatic makes an unfounded claim and it gets repeated and rehashed so much and so fast that no-one can track down who they should be suing for it.
If you think this is inherent only to RW outlets, I've got some bad news for you brother. If you want examples, I'll be happy to provide a number of recent ones.

Lets look at the best example we currently have of the shoe being on the other foot with good old Rick Perry having actually ben charged with a crime.
Being indicted by a politically charged DOJ doesn't count for much in my book, and from the looks of it there doesn't seem to be much on Perry.

Does this surprise you?
Again, I'm not seeing what you're trying to prove here. I thought we already established that there was bias in just about every MSM outlet.

Oh its an unconstitutional conspiracy. Of course it is.
Extravagant rhetoric? Is that really what you think proves your point?

So the LIBERAL LEFTIST MEDIA covers the story you claim it has ignored, just as I said. Your RW shitpile masquerading as a "news" site defends the Republican who has actually been charged with a crime and shows no outrage at abuse of power whatsoever, just as I said.
Show me the facts and I'll show you the outrage.

Are we done yet?
Up to you.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 07:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
"If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor stop saying you want a country based on Christian values, because you don't".
I thought we did this thread already.



Christopher Hitchens loathed Mother Teresa.
( Last edited by Chongo; Aug 8, 2015 at 11:19 AM. )
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 08:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Ok, so you picked it because you believe it's biased towards the left? Or because you believe republicans believe it's biased towards the left?
I picked it because in my experience its the goto reference for right wingers complaining about left wing media bias.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Bias is much easier to identify when the biases diverge from yours. Is it not possible that your left leanings shield you from seeing it so readily? You can't really say that "objectively" - by definition you need to back it up with some sort of empirical dataset. Declaring your opinion as objective is exactly the kind of bias you are decrying (not that you're the only one guilty of it). Opinions aren't objective, nor is there any sort of hard fast "non-biased" standard from which to start from. It's all from where your perspective starts.
Opinions aren't objective, no. Thats usually where the bias is most pronounced. There are also more subtle kinds. For example in the three links I posted for left wing stories about Clinton's email server being investigated, two of them seemed to be avoiding the word "investigation" hence I mentioned that one of them actually used it. It could be pure coincidence, or it could be definite evidence of bias. Trying to avoid using language that incriminates Hillary as much as possible. The right wing pieces about Perry however had a habit of repeating entire paragraphs of comments and opinions from other right wing figures categorically stating that he was totally in the right and that the whole charge was a left wing conspiracy. IMO though, if Hillary gets charged, there will be plenty more stories written by the left wing media taking her to task for it than there will be stories condemning the criminal Perry if he gets locked up for 109 years.

Many people are capable of extracting the data that is likely to be accurate from even the most biased reports. Are MSNBC trying to avoid pissing Clinton off before she is really in trouble? Probably. The last thing they want is to call her a criminal only for the FBI to turn around and say "Actually the server was rock solid and nothing classified ever went through it." and then she becomes president. I'm not saying they will say that, but it seems like its too early to rule it out yet. Meanwhile on the right wing coverage, there are some fairly absolute statements about how guilty she is.

It genuinely seems to me that a lot of RW outlets can make truly scandalous and libellous claims in their publications, and not get sued for it. This can only be because the people that would be suing them will struggle to prove that anyone they care about will believe these claims when they read them.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
I guess it depends on your frame of reference - to many on the right the bias is far more readily apparent in the left-leaning news media. All I'm trying to point out here to you is that you're trying to objectify an innately subjective topic - one where your perspective indicates where you're most likely going to end up.

You're a left winger, and you don't think the left wing media is as biased. Shocking!
Badkosh is a right winger, and he thinks the left wing media is far more biased. Again, you shouldn't be surprised and/or angry about this. Perhaps we could move the discussion back towards the merits of the arguments themselves, and quit squabbling over who's providing the more objective (because neither of you are) news sources. As a right/centrist myself, such bickering over non-starters reduces my ability to relate to what your positions are, and I think this thread has a lot of potential for some great discussions.
Heres the thing, over here I'm often considered to be right wing. As a small business owner I'm pro business, as someone who doesn't ear much yet I have big problems with a welfare system that pays lazy bastards more than I get while I'm getting taxed up the arse to cover it. I'm a realist when it comes to funding our various benevolent initiatives too so I get labelled right wing here because I won't blindly argue against austerity measures, giving free houses to everyone who asks and letting anyone who can get to this country stay forever if they choose. I guess I've even started to consider myself right-minded because of this.
You would consider me staunchly left wing because I simply cannot get behind the parade of ass-backward retards that make up your Republican party. I won't elaborate further on that, it would be a rant.

I am starting to think I am really more of a centrist. Its just that I feel compelled to rail against destructive levels of extremism. In the UK thats the left, in the US its the right.
I believe in promoting business and the economy, but not giving corporations carte blanche because they will abuse it. I believe in having a welfare system, but it needs to be constructed to rehabilitate people into work, not just sustain them outside of it. I believe in socialised healthcare but it has to be done right. I'm moderate on immigration. We need some but we can't just throw the doors open. Its all very centrist really.

Anyway, in the UK media we have a very different situation. I was going to summarise some of it but Russell Howard once did a very good job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq5_joo5l5I

While he makes a big deal about how awful they all are, they are all still very much in danger of expensive lawsuits if they print things they can't back up. Doesn't seem to be the case with the USRW.
And everyone in the UK knows which way every outlet leans for the most part. I get the sense that Badkosh doesn't think his sites are biased, or at least not very. Its clear to anyone they are biased beyond much use to anyone looking to learn whats really going on.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Well good for you. You haven't convinced anyone else, though. A bit more tact might help here.
This is very indicative of the difference in bias between the sides. I'm expected to exercise tact, while Badkosh isn't. Its almost as if even a supposedly neutral centrist like you knows that one side is capable of being rational and objective, and is therefore supposed to behave more calmly and maturely, while the other side just can't help themselves.

I'm not likely to convince anyone who can't immediately see through the shit they are swallowing using patience and reason, so sometimes I lose my patience and I just tell it like it is. Apart from the fact its cathartic, its no different to what the RW do all the time so I don't see why I'm not allowed to do it ever.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
i.e, a different bias.
In theory it could be no bias or a different amount of the same bias. I'd like to see a different amount of the same bias from source on the right. A source that while it makes no bones about who it supports, doesn't invent facts to whip people into a frenzy of outrage over every little thing it can.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
This is where you lose me. There's an obvious and apparent hesitation for LWMSM to criticize or cover stories that hurt the party line. Fast & furious, benghazi, IRS targeting - the list goes on. Just because they covered the story does not mean that they didn't cover it in a biased way. Generally, RW media outlets break the story and the LW outlets must run something or risk losing page-views if the story is trending.
Thats how it ought to work, but often the RW appear to manufacture these stories out of thin air and rhetoric. They don't run stings or investigations, they just print conspiracy theories and every now and then one gets repeated enough that a law enforcement agency decides to look into it and the left then has to comment because it finally becomes news. Thats how little faith I have in these RW sources. Benghazi has been so overplayed I'm not convinced there was ever anything there in the first place. You should expect this to happen when you spend all day every day screaming wolf at the top of your lungs.



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Exactly why it smells so fishy. Hillary deleted the emails after conducting her own internal review. I am dumbfounded as to why this does not seem like a big deal to you. Many, many people have gone down for less. Thankfully, Hillary's pals in the DOJ won't let her see any real consequences and we'll never have the oversight of her communications mandated by federal law.
It becomes a big deal when there is evidence of a crime. Fox News shouting "Benghazi!" isn't evidence. There has been enough shouting that the FBI have decided to take a look now but I can't imagine why it would smell that fishy that a high profile public figure (especially one so beloved by the RW media) would want to exercise control over her own communications.
Its much more likely that she had some embarrassing medical or cosmetic treatment, or said something rude about Donald Trump's hair than it is that she had a conversation about ballistic missiles with the ambassador to Saudi Arabia via Hotmail. Maybe she had an affair or negotiated a book deal. I can think of any number of personal things that aren't even embarrassing that Fox News would make a hug deal out of, let alone things that are embarrassing (but still not illegal).
Its a RW favourite to say "lets wait for the facts/more information." when something they don't like comes up (Like the way they do after every single gun massacre for example) so how about we extend it that courtesy for once?



Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Facts which have already been obfuscated and destroyed by virtue of Hillary's refusal to turn over the private server and the act of deleting a set of emails before anyone could review them.
Would you expect to have some kind of right to read her text messages if she bought her own phone? Like it or not there is a burden of proof here and its not on Hillary. Want to seize her personal property? Get a warrant. But you need genuine evidence for a warrant and if one hasn't been issued then there are certain conclusions you should be drawing from that. And if you think its because the entire government and law enforcement are in her pocket then you are kidding yourself.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
If you think this is inherent only to RW outlets, I've got some bad news for you brother. If you want examples, I'll be happy to provide a number of recent ones.
Bias is bias. I'm saying That where the left will a story or two for or against its own public figures or agendas, the right will defend its own beyond a fault, crying conspiracy and oppression, and when they go on the attack they will publish pages and pages rehashing things that one of them made up in the first place.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Being indicted by a politically charged DOJ doesn't count for much in my book, and from the looks of it there doesn't seem to be much on Perry.
This doesn't paint you as a neutral centrist. It paints you as someone who believes a lot of the same crap as Badkosh.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Does this surprise you?
Of course not, but for some reason you are applying that left/right double standard again. You make out that it is horribly biased that the LW media don't cover the stories accusing Hillary of wrongdoing (accusations that are so far completely unfounded since innocent until proven guilty yes?). Except they do cover them. Meanwhile I say the RW media bias is orders of magnitude worse, one of the pieces of evidence for that being that rather than ignore the crimes of their own, they outright dismiss or deny them. The MSNBC piece about Hillary didn't deny her guilt, and she hasn't even been charged.

Perhaps I haven't adequately summarised what I'm saying. I'm saying that media bias is massively worse on the right than on the left in the US. I'm not saying the left aren't biased. They might even be unreasonably biased, but it is dwarfed by the right. It really is.

Given the two instances of a double standard I've caught you applying in this post alone, it seems obvious to me that you are at least subconsciously aware that I am right.


Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Extravagant rhetoric? Is that really what you think proves your point?
No.

Badkosh claimed that the LW media won't even cover stories that don't suit their agenda such as this one about Hillary, after I claimed that LW media is less biased and more objective than RW media.
I produced a LW media article that can be summarised as "Our girl is being investigated for a crime, lets see how that turns out."
and an article from the RW media about Perry that can be summarised as "Its outrageous that our guy has been charged with this crime that he appears to have committed. It must be a democrat conspiracy"

The first article clearly disproves the claim that the LW media ignored the story completely, the second was a demonstration of the difference in bias given it is the closest equivalent story at the moment where the accused is RW instead of LW and the attitude of the media towards him.

Here is another one about Perry being charged, this time from the LW POV:

Rick Perry indicted for abuse of power by grand jury | MSNBC

You have to get half way down the page before there is a sniff of anything that might be considered biased, where they quote some random organisation who don't like Perry very much. On the other hand, since they just quoted Perry himself and his general counsel above there is an argument that this biased quote is included only for balance. I would contend that all those quotes tell the reader nothing they didn't know or expect already so the bias is irrelevant anyway. The only other bias in the piece is in the last paragraph where they take the chance to have a shot at Chris Christie while they are at it. How does that compare with the uncountable pages of bile about how Hillary is a treasonous witch?

I'll restate my position:

The US RW media is many orders of magnitude more biased and less objective than the LW media. Despite this, many people who like to follow the RW media seem to be convinced that anything that isn't as biased towards the right, is an unforgivably biased left wing conspiracy.
( Last edited by Waragainstsleep; Aug 9, 2015 at 02:29 PM. )
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 02:53 PM
 
If The "left wing media" is unbiased/less biased, why so little coverage on the Planned Parenthood vidoes?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
If The "left wing media" is unbiased/less biased, why so little coverage on the Planned Parenthood vidoes?
Dismembering living, unborn fetuses is progress!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 03:08 PM
 
Same reason they don't address stories from the Enquirer.
There is a difference between being unbiased and ignoring non-stories.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 03:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
I thought we did this thread already.



Christopher Hitchens loathed Mother Teresa.
Unfortunately they don't do any of it without conditions.
An African very recently asked me to consider: "If you think the stories that are surfacing about the abuse of children by Catholic clergy in the developed world is awful, what do you think they have been getting away with in Africa?"
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Same reason they don't address stories from the Enquirer.
There is a difference between being unbiased and ignoring non-stories.
Tearing living fetuses apart while they're alive is a "non-story"? That's the ****ing problem, right there.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 8, 2015, 11:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
My "opinion" that the rw media is unmatched in its bias and negligent in its accuracy but that other media outlets are capable of being more objective and balanced some of the time is pretty easy to defend.
The RW media is biased and pretends they're not.
The LW media is biased and believes they're not.

I guess I give the deluded a slight leg up over the liars, but it's not like there are winners at the end of the day.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:57 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,