Also a senior level advisor on the Trump campaign... and Trump wants to complain about "crooked media".
moral hazard.
Random Pish-Posh And Dribblety-Poop #12 |
||
Random Pish-Posh and Dribblety-Poop #12
Also a senior level advisor on the Trump campaign... and Trump wants to complain about "crooked media".
moral hazard. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » I clicked the link and read the first paragraph Quote: Just when one thinks the cavalier cabal of Clinton and her cronies has exhausted all manner of corruption, yet another outrage surfaces, implicating even more people. Yeah I'm supposed to hear this writer as fact and unbiased? What a waste of time. I'll wait to hear it brought up at a debate if it's legit and see how the two candidates react then see how the fact checking goes. (Assuming you people still have further debates to wage) If you want to stick your head in the sand (or in somebody's oriface), by all means go for it. And for anyone who automatically dismisses the article because of where it is published, well, there's no hope for you then. And there you have the quandary. Most of the media outlets are so polarized that they won't report negative things about their own side, and the others that do report it they are immediately dismissed because "bias". If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe?
Offline
Posts: 35422
Bahamut.Ravael said: » And there you have the quandary. Most of the media outlets are so polarized that they won't report negative things about their own side, and the others that do report it they are immediately dismissed because "bias". If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe? You can believe me. However you can't believe I'm not butter. Bahamut.Ravael said: » If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe? Free thinking should be outlawed! You either buy into the line that Clinton is the most honest person in the world, or you are a deplorable!
Offline
Posts: 35422
I just find this funny and reminds me of this forum:
YouTube Video Placeholder Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe? Free thinking should be outlawed! You either buy into the line that Clinton is the most honest person in the world, or you are a deplorable!I remember when the left at least pretended to claim to be "free-thinking" and "tolerant". At some point the curtain fell and it became all about controlled thought, controlled speech, forced "equality", media collusion, and greed... with a sprinkle of progressive glitter to dress it all up. (And yes I know that the right isn't sterling either at this point, but what I said goes along with King's post) Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe? Free thinking should be outlawed! You either buy into the line that Clinton is the most honest person in the world, or you are a deplorable!You don't even make sense any more and this just resmbles the ramblings of a crazy person... Josiahkf said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » forced equality And that's the extremely simplistic interpretation of what I said, not even scratching the surface of what that actually means. But hey, they depend on people to view it as a macro-level platitude instead of, you know, actually thinking and looking at it pragmatically. Bahamut.Ravael said: » And there you have the quandary. Most of the media outlets are so polarized that they won't report negative things about their own side, and the others that do report it they are immediately dismissed because "bias". If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe? Bahamut.Ravael said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » If they're all in the tank, who in the heck are we supposed to believe? Free thinking should be outlawed! You either buy into the line that Clinton is the most honest person in the world, or you are a deplorable!I remember when the left at least pretended to claim to be "free-thinking" and "tolerant". At some point the curtain fell and it became all about controlled thought, controlled speech, forced "equality", media collusion, and greed... with a sprinkle of progressive glitter to dress it all up. (And yes I know that the right isn't sterling either at this point, but what I said goes along with King's post) Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Josiahkf said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » forced equality And that's the extremely simplistic interpretation of what I said, not even scratching the surface of what that actually means. But hey, they depend on people to view it as a macro-level platitude instead of, you know, actually thinking and looking at it pragmatically. Baseless claims? A majority of that was heavily reinforced by revelations from this week. It's what the politics of the left has become. You might not notice it because you seem to view it from some kind of hazy utopian perspective, but that's what is going on whether you're paying attention or not. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » So in KN's world I am a fool for deciding to see what both candidates say about an issue and then see what fact checking turns up about their points. Sure, go ahead and read whatever article you want and come to whatever conclusion you wish. I reported an article that used actual law as evidence to their assertions. And, so far, nobody has challenged the article in question. Well, except for obvious biases, of course. But you know what? If you only read articles from sources biased on one side of the political spectrum (I'm looking at you Chanti), then your viewpoints are going to match said spectrum if it hasn't already. You could read the article, find the errors, or if there's no errors involved, accept the article and base your conclusions therefor. That's generally how I do it. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » I should just focus on what biased articles say and not think or decide for myself at all, according to your logic Senor. That's very unhealthy behavior. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Regardless of who you choose to vote for, please think for yourself and do more research than none at all. Lakshmi.Flavin said: » before I comment on this one could you provide a bit more detail on the controlled thought speech and "forced equality"? Absolutely. But I'm going to be on the road in a few minutes, so if you want to get into it then it would have to be later tonight. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » Josiahkf said: » Bahamut.Ravael said: » forced equality And that's the extremely simplistic interpretation of what I said, not even scratching the surface of what that actually means. But hey, they depend on people to view it as a macro-level platitude instead of, you know, actually thinking and looking at it pragmatically. Asura.Kingnobody said: » And for anyone who automatically dismisses the article because of where it is published, well, there's no hope for you then. Pot meet Kettle. So are you saying you will now stop being an obnoxious *** towards people when they post links from MotherJones or the HuffPost? And that you will stop dismissing their points? Or are you admitting you're hopeless? Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » So to look at your post pragmatically like you requested You are being so gung-ho about a response to an attack on an article only because it's considered biased in your eyes that you are forgetting the article in question. Why don't you look at the article in question with your "pragmatic" mind? Oh, and while you are at it, without the usual bias you portray too. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » 1. Tolerance is pretty much my core. I'm against the death penalty because we're using manslaughter to show society manslaughter is wrong. That isn't how modern civilization works. That's how the romans would run things. And anyone who is outspoken against these notions? Automatically ostracized by the same media. See: Trump. How again is the progressive left "tolerant" in your eyes? Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » 2. Controlled thought and speech: Anyone can think anything they want, but freedom of speech does not include malicious intent to cause harm (like yelling fire in a crowded theatre etc) For example Westboro Baptist church have every right to picket soldier's funerals and protest gay rights because that's what freedom is about. I don't have to support them to support their basic rights. But if you think the progressive left doesn't control thoughts and speech, then explain this new wave of "politically correct" speech coming from the left. Where you have to say what they want you to say or, again, you get automatically ostracized by the left. Case in point: Clinton's accusation of Trump's supporters as "deplorables," which all she knows about these people is that they will never support her (and her "politically correct" speech). Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » 3. Media collusion: this is pretty much inevitable in a free capitalism environment when government lobbying and funding is so unrestricted; it's still far superior to a communist state run system for the media though. But you miss the point of the whole accusation of media collusion. In this society, the media are supposed to be the watchdogs of the federal government. If something is wrong, or if somebody is corrupt, the media is there to point it out and demand an investigation (if they haven't done so already). Who do you think started the Watergate investigations? Actually, all investigations regarding government officials period. What is shocking about this is how the MSM is being silent about this whole Clinton affair, even though the evidence is apparent that multiple federal crimes have been committed by the Clintons and their cronies. And now we are seeing collusion with the media to keep it silent? Where's that investigation?!?!?!? Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » 4. Greed: I'm not sure what to say about this. Yeah personally I'm against it but it's part of human nature and our survival. It will always exist in some form as long as we exist /shrug Josiahkf said: » I don't give any articles who are that biased towards clinton any weight either. Both are not providing facts. All articles are biased one way or another. And seriously, are you saying that their evidence presented is false? Have you even attempted to read it? Or are you going to keep that head implanted in whatever hole you have in front of you? Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Yours was a waste of time from the first paragraph. Why should I care what some idiot writer hoping for clicks thinks when I can just hear what the source says directly by hearing trump and clinton themselves? And then seeing the facts behind their words to decide for myself etc Do you realize how idiotic your statement just made you? "I'm not going to pay attention to anything except what I want to hear, and only if it comes out of the mouths of the people I want to hear them say what I want them to say." I would suggest you actually read the article, but I don't feel like wasting my time on such a closed minded individual such as yourself. Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Just like if the article had started with "well that big dumb piece of ***and his moronic family and staff has *** up again, one prosecutor says. come look at this *** ***right here" targeting trump I'd be equally dismissive. Too bad Chelsea Clinton doesn't own or is married to an owner and publisher of a print rag that writes political hit pieces on her mothers opponents... Then we could have fun with someone's bluff.
Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » Do you hear yourself? I'm trying to approach this issue like it's a courtroom and demanding to hear from all parties before I make a decision and you're screaming "No! listen to this paid witness now and make a decision now like I did! nothing else matters!" You do know that you have the ability to sift through the biases yourself (or in other words, remove the fluff) and get to what the article is really telling you. Then again, this article is all about the crimes committed by Clinton and her cronies. It outlines what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did, and compares it to what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did, using the law itself to show that what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did was illegal because it contradicted with what they said, what they testified under oath, and what they did. In other words, it uses their own words against them to show not only what Clinton did was illegal, but it is also being covered up by the "Justice" Department. Which is so blatantly obvious you have to be completely Amish or completely stupid to not see it. And that is meant to be a mutually exclusive comparison, so no Amish feelings should be hurt. Josiahkf said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » You been reading about the investigations into Trump U. again? Bismarck.Josiahfk said: » "well that big dumb piece of ***and his moronic family and staff has *** up again, one prosecutor says. come look at this *** ***right here" |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|