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.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 8, 2016, 01:19 PM
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
At least you're admitting the Left is as bloody and violent as the Right, since you have no actual rebuttal, that's a start.
You keep trying to frame me as a Democrat and a Leftist, and that's pretty dumb, but I guess you can't help but be adversarial like that.
My point was that neither side has a lock on moral superiority and to try and simplify it down to WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS AND THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS is the way that my four year old thinks, but not the way that an actual grown human being should approach a situation.
So do the relatives of the dead. Sorry if a few deaths from incompetence doesn't bother you but liberals don't care about life anyway. They try and kill as many as possible through abortion and euthanasia, and give BS reasons for doing it.
Its my understanding that Hillary was cleared of all wrongdoing. Some people just refuse to let it go. I suppose I should be glad that you are deeming it incompetence and not deliberate.
So now euthanasia is some kind of liberal conspiracy? Always fun to hear about a new one.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
In a way I envy BadKosh's view of the world, it's incredibly simple and concrete.
Something doesn't add up though. He seems to be able to spell and use grammar at a way higher level than 99% of the other people who believe what he believes. It must be a conspiracy of some kind.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
I tell ya what, send Alex an email and ask him if he's part of the MSM, cupcake.
Ah your classic moving the goalpost trick again. I've almost missed it.
You said they didn't categorise themselves as news providers and if you ask them for official comment, perhaps they don't. Yet they do really seem to want people to think they are reading news articles when they consume their content don't they?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
My point was that neither side has a lock on moral superiority and to try and simplify it down to WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS AND THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS is the way that my four year old thinks
You say that and you really should be right, but are you?
It seems to me that whenever I hear about domestic (non-muslim) terrorism in the US, institutional racism, non-institutional racism, extreme corruption, depriving people of their rights, making it hard for poor people to vote, get food, get access to healthcare, poisoned groundwater, business deals trumping environmental concerns, science denial, laws based on medieval religion, armed goons hijacking government buildings or just wandering around their local Walmart to make a point of some kind, gerrymandering, passing legislation to restrict voting, doing anything unconstitutional at all, homophobia, misogyny, the list goes on. Its pretty much always linked to Republicans or the right.
I'm not so naive as to think the Democrats are saints who do no wrong, but it really does pale into comparison when you look at the scope of what each side does, how often it happens, etc etc.
Trust me, to people outside the US, it really looks a lot like good guys versus bad guys. Its why we have traditionally been surprised that you keep voting for the bad guys.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
You say that and you really should be right, but are you?
It seems to me that whenever I hear about domestic (non-muslim) terrorism in the US, institutional racism, non-institutional racism, extreme corruption, depriving people of their rights, making it hard for poor people to vote, get food, get access to healthcare, poisoned groundwater, business deals trumping environmental concerns, science denial, laws based on medieval religion, armed goons hijacking government buildings or just wandering around their local Walmart to make a point of some kind, gerrymandering, passing legislation to restrict voting, doing anything unconstitutional at all, homophobia, misogyny, the list goes on. Its pretty much always linked to Republicans or the right.
I'm not so naive as to think the Democrats are saints who do no wrong, but it really does pale into comparison when you look at the scope of what each side does, how often it happens, etc etc.
Trust me, to people outside the US, it really looks a lot like good guys versus bad guys. Its why we have traditionally been surprised that you keep voting for the bad guys.
I go back and forth on this way of thinking constantly.
On one hand, you are right, there is no equivalency here. On the other hand, generalizations don't seem to accomplish much except to make one side dig their heels in even deeper.
Its my understanding that Hillary was cleared of all wrongdoing. Some people just refuse to let it go. I suppose I should be glad that you are deeming it incompetence and not deliberate.
So now euthanasia is some kind of liberal conspiracy? Always fun to hear about a new one.
She was not "cleared" the democrat political appointees refused to press charges. Get your facts straight, not from what seems to be leftist propaganda. You're pretty much in the tank though.
Hillary wen to Capital Hill to say g'bye to dingy Harry Reid and spent the time whining about fake news. Democrats are horribly tiny people.
Its like President LIAR talking about himself all the time.
Hillary wen to Capital Hill to say g'bye to dingy Harry Reid and spent the time whining about fake news. Democrats are horribly tiny people.
Its like President LIAR talking about himself all the time.
There really is no hope for you if you think Obama is a horrible tiny person and Trump will be an improvement.
Poor judgement doesn't being to cover the extent of your problem.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Dec 9, 2016, 11:34 AM
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep
You say that and you really should be right, but are you?
Trust me, to people outside the US, it really looks a lot like good guys versus bad guys. Its why we have traditionally been surprised that you keep voting for the bad guys.
What it boils down to is that Republicans' priorities are not your priorities. If you have firm beliefs that life begins at conception, that the heterosexual family unit is the foundation of our society, and that the founding fathers intended for Americans to own guns for protection from agressors, then you'd see the people taking that away as the bad guys. Obviously you don't hold those beliefs, and scientifically disproving any of those is a little bit harder, especially when you also see the scientific community and most of the news media as the bad guys as well.
You keep trying to frame me as a Democrat and a Leftist, and that's pretty dumb, but I guess you can't help but be adversarial like that.
Adversarial? Well, all I can tell you is, "you get what you dish out". You certainly aren't a Democrat, at least not a traditional Dem, you're much further to the Left in your economic views than 99% of the party, comrade.
My point was that neither side has a lock on moral superiority and to try and simplify it down to WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS AND THEY'RE THE BAD GUYS is the way that my four year old thinks, but not the way that an actual grown human being should approach a situation.
I don't recall ever sounding like The Young Turks, but I do agree, the rhetoric they indulge in is disgusting.
"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
"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
There really is no hope for you if you think Obama is a horrible tiny person and Trump will be an improvement.
Poor judgement doesn't being to cover the extent of your problem.
LOL!!! Since Liberals by their very nature live in a dream world and are horrid judges of others character you are one to talk. That you think hillary and Trump are similar is proof you are disconnected from the real world. Liars seem to be folks you admire. Incompetent buffoons too. You are too far in the liberal tank to see things clearly.
LOL!!! Since Liberals by their very nature live in a dream world and are horrid judges of others character you are one to talk. That you think hillary and Trump are similar is proof you are disconnected from the real world. Liars seem to be folks you admire. Incompetent buffoons too. You are too far in the liberal tank to see things clearly.
Ummm,
Where did I say Hillary and Trump were similar?
You don't listen to a single thing that doesn't fit your preconceived notions do you? I don't admire Hillary. I don't know her at all. She lacks the warmth that Obama has but maybe she's just a run of the mill old rich lady with a stick up her ass. What with her every move being subject to the most intense scrutiny imaginable, I can forgive her that.
I'm under no illusions though. She's a politician. They all lie. They change direction with the wind, they compromises and deals that I'd like to think I'd never make in their place but I'm not in their place.
I have no particular love or admiration for Hillary other than she has achieved quite a lot as a woman in a male dominated sphere, and against a media onslaught that would phase even the England football manager. But compared to Trump she is hundreds of orders of magnitude better in almost any conceivable way. And it should be obvious to anyone who so much as glances at each of them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Why would I need to? They're obvious based on your behavior. Try to keep up.
"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
You're right, that's becoming more mainstream with the Left each passing day. One of the few good things about Trump being elected is that it's shown your true colors.
"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
You're right, that's becoming more mainstream with the Left each passing day. One of the few good things about Trump being elected is that it's shown your true colors.
When the left do it over justifiable fears of losing their rights, its despicable radicalism. When the right do it (and worse) over irrational fears of losing their privilege, its fine. Gotcha.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
You're right, that's becoming more mainstream with the Left each passing day. One of the few good things about Trump being elected is that it's shown your true colors.
What are the main characteristics of the radical left?
When the left do it over justifiable fears of losing their rights, its despicable radicalism.
The only rights we've lost lately were at the hands of Obama, by extending and strengthening the very laws he was elected (and had a mandate) to repeal. Instead of losing their shit over what could happen, how about holding the Dem leaders' feet to the fire over what they ignored while they were in power?
When the right do it (and worse) over irrational fears of losing their privilege, its fine. Gotcha.
What did the Right do that was worse after Obama was elected? What riots were sparked after the 2008 and 2012 elections?
Just admit that you're talking out of your ass and we can move on.
"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
What are the main characteristics of the radical left?
Did your Google stop working again?
"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
All the media outlets are parading Obama's latest employment numbers, and they're claiming it as a lame-duck success story. But real unemployment is still high, to the point where even CNN explained that a lot of people have dropped out of the workforce. Remember that, under the Obama administration, the labor statistics began being reported differently, leaving out the underemployed and people who gave up.
All the media outlets are parading Obama's latest employment numbers, and they're claiming it as a lame-duck success story. But real unemployment is still high, to the point where even CNN explained that a lot of people have dropped out of the workforce. Remember that, under the Obama administration, the labor statistics began being reported differently, leaving out the underemployed and people who gave up.
And this here good people is a prime example of "fake news". The fact of the matter is that the unemployment rate has been calculated in the same manner for DECADES. This notion that Obama Administration changed the calculation is just pure, unadulterated BS. Here is the bio of the author of this article ...
Nathan D. Lichtman is the Managing Editor of the PJ Video Page at PJ Media. He is a former college leader in the Republican Party, and has worked with Americans for Tax Reform and Generation Opportunity.
Let's not dismiss Mr. Lichtman because of his utter lack of journalism experience. Or because he's just some random dude who manages a single page on a blogging site .... not a professional news gathering organization. He should be dismissed because he's merely stating his ignorant opinion as fact without any evidence to support his assertion. And that's a "kind" assessment. Because it could very well be that he's intentionally misleading his audience banking on them being too lazy to seek out this easily obtainable factual information on their own.
U-3 — This is what BLS calls the “official unemployment rate.” It represents unemployed workers who are actively searching for a new job. That’s the 8.3 percent rate that made headlines last week.
U-4 — This is the total unemployed plus “discouraged workers.” Discouraged workers are those who have given up looking for a job because they are convinced there aren’t any available for them. It was 8.9 percent in January.
U-5 — This is the total unemployed, plus discouraged workers, plus “other persons marginally attached to the labor force.” The marginally attached are people who are neither working nor looking for work, but indicate they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in the last year. But they aren’t counted as unemployed, because they didn’t actively search for work in the last four weeks. That rate was 9.9 percent in January.
U-6 — This is the catch-all of the lot. It includes all of the above groups — total unemployed, discouraged workers and the marginally attached — plus part-time workers who say they would like to be working more, but for economic reasons could only find part-time work. It was 15.1 percent in January.
The U-3 figure is the most commonly accepted and reported figure for the nation’s unemployment rate. But all of the measures have value for those seeking to analyze labor trends. For example, it often happens that even as employment rises after a recession, the unemployment rate may stay the same or rise, as more people sitting on the sidelines decide to get back in the job market. The confusion sets in when politicians selectively cite from this menu of options, or distort them, to suit their political message.
The unemployment rate is developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics based in part on data from interviews of about 60,000 households conducted by the Census Bureau As Trump Jr. indicated, it only includes people who have recently looked for a job.
But that's the way it's consistently been done for decades. Alternative methods have their own limitations.
Other experts joined Baker in dismissing the younger Trump’s allegation about the standard unemployment rate.
"The same basic definition of the unemployment rate has been used (with minor changes) going back almost all the way to World War II, under both Republican and Democratic administrations," said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution.
"This measure has been consistently produced following the same basic methodology in the U.S. and copied around the world for over 50 years," said Tara Sinclair, an economist at George Washington University.
And what about Trump's complaint that the numbers are skewed by not including people who have given up looking for work?
Sinclair said the BLS tries to track that through a variation of the unemployment rate known as U-6, or the "underutilization" rate. This version includes people who have stopped looking for work but say they would start if the market improved, people working part-time because they can't get full-time work, along with the people included in the standard unemployment rate.
By it's nature, the U-6 rate is higher. The June rate was 9.6 percent compared to the conventional unemployment rate of 4.9 percent.
But that estimate has its limitations as well. It doesn’t count recent graduates who never entered the labor market in the first place because they feared there would be no jobs for them, and it doesn’t count people who chose to take care of their kids full-time, went back to school or retired early to avoid having to compete for a job.
But Harvard University government professor Jeffrey Frankel said the important thing "is to be consistent across time in which measure you use. It wouldn't be right to switch from looking at the conventional rate to a measure that includes discouraged workers just because you don't like the incumbent president and want to make things look bad for him."
Other experts were more blunt.
Trump’s comment "is a reprise of the same nonsense his father floated a few months ago. It is yet another conspiracy theory that the Trumps have grabbed onto," said Neil Buchanan, a George Washington University law professor.
The limitations of the unemployment number are well known, he said. "Everyone who reads an article in a decent newspaper about the employment picture each month reads about discouraged workers, part-time workers, and so on."
"There are plenty of grounds for us nerd-types to complain about the accuracy of the BLS numbers," said Dean Baker, co-director of the left-leaning Center for Economic Policy and Research in Washington. "No survey is perfect and there will always be issues with how a survey is conducted and questions are posed. But the idea that BLS cooks numbers is beyond ridiculous."
No but for real. Which behaviors of mine indicate that I have far left socialist economic views?
A Bernie Bro is asking what makes him a socialist? What?
Yes, that's a thing I used to say to you.
You've fallen behind. I blame Trump.
"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
A Bernie Bro is asking what makes him a socialist? What? .
How come you get to make the claim that all Bernie Bros are socialists while we don't get to make the claim that all Trump supporters are okay with sexual assault, or any other number of accusations?
Very few Trump supporters will be in 100% agreement with all of his positions, and this is true for all politicians in all elections. We vote based on alignment in the issues we care most about.
You have no evidence that Laminar wants to transform the economy to a socialist economy.
Fake news is propaganda. Redefining words is getting old.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
Propaganda ≠ Fake
Propaganda ≠≠ Fake
Nice little function that "highlight>lookup"
Dictionary
propaganda |ˌpräpəˈɡandə|
noun
1 chiefly derogatory information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view: he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda.
• the dissemination of propaganda as a political strategy: the party's leaders believed that a long period of education and propaganda would be necessary.
Thesaurus
propaganda
noun
the prophetic novel is about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda: information, promotion, advertising, publicity, spin; disinformation, counter-information; historical agitprop; informal info, hype, plugging; puff piece; the big lie.
Labeling it "NEWS" and it being fake is propaganda. Either the editors are incompetent or looking the other way, and the writers are either in the tank or stupid. Either way, the Democrats are whining because they believed the propaganda and were crushed when Trump won. Sorry the immature little snowflakes got disappointed but riots and tantrums? Seriously? Hillarys supporters are the laughing stock now.
Labeling it "NEWS" and it being fake is propaganda. Either the editors are incompetent or looking the other way, and the writers are either in the tank or stupid.
No, the two are not the same. Propaganda has a political purpose whereas at least some of the fake news sites were solely driven by profit. Moreover, propaganda need not be fake, you can shape a narrative by half-truths and conveniently omitting facts that don't fit your narrative. If we could establish that, say, Russia paid for fake news to tilt the election one way, then you might call it propaganda, although even then I wouldn't use that term as IMHO propaganda is domestic.
Why do you insist on conflating the two? Is your desire to discredit [insert news source here] that strong that you would force it in the same category as a site that solely consists of made-up stories? Because that's what you are doing.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
No, the two are not the same. Propaganda has a political purpose whereas at least some of the fake news sites were solely driven by profit. Moreover, propaganda need not be fake, you can shape a narrative by half-truths and conveniently omitting facts that don't fit your narrative. If we could establish that, say, Russia paid for fake news to tilt the election one way, then you might call it propaganda, although even then I wouldn't use that term as IMHO propaganda is domestic.
Why do you insist on conflating the two? Is your desire to discredit [insert news source here] that strong that you would force it in the same category as a site that solely consists of made-up stories? Because that's what you are doing.
Russia releasing only DNC emails is the definition of propaganda.
Russia releasing only DNC emails is the definition of propaganda.
Good point. So yeah, I should not have excluded that case, propaganda isn't restricted to domestic sources. In any case, the information that was leaked was real, so it still isn't the same
But that isn't fake news, the information is genuine.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Don't you just hate it when those dumb liberals have to resort to labels and generalizations?
So for the third time I'll ask: What are my views and behaviors?
and for the 3rd time I'll brush you off for requesting proof that water is wet. You earned your label, Bernie bro. Didn't you even help with his campaign as a staffer or similar?
"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
So who can prove it was the Russians? Not all the US Intel agencies can agree, and some guy has claimed to be a disgruntled Democrat, sick of Hillarys corruption, and he handed off the emails, which he claims to have legal access to, to the Wikileaks folks. I guess having an unsecure server in your apartment that everybody hacked into was a bad idea. Hillary just never makes sound decisions.
Doesn't matter in the slightest. The Russians (if it was them) didn't make Hillary and the DNC do all that slimy shit first place, at worst they only revealed it. That's something the media would have never done during the election, despite it being their ****ing job. IMO, we owe whoever did it a debt of gratitude.
"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
Doesn't matter in the slightest. The Russians (if it was them) didn't make Hillary and the DNC do all that slimy shit first place, at worst they only revealed it. That's something the media would have never done during the election, despite it being their ****ing job. IMO, we owe whoever did it a debt of gratitude.
I tell ya what, send Alex an email and ask him if he's part of the MSM, cupcake.
Didn't you even help with his campaign as a staffer or similar?
Top