 |
Instead of trying to be cute, try to answer the points I made in post # 36.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Instead of your typical meanness and stalking, provide rational answers to what I posted in # 36 - if you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Go away.Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
If the story is true, the FBI acted terribly and should be brought to account.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
However, the NY POST is hardly known for Trumpian accuracy, and the victim's comment that "there was no riot" is laughable.
The raid is confirmed in other sources if you bother to look instead of just attacking the source
and of course it has nothing to do with his dispute with Dana Lowey Luttway, who is the daughter of former New York Congresswoman (D) Nita Lowey over renovations she did in the neighborhood. An anonymous neighbor claims he was bragging about being there . (pure speculation on my part about the connection . Luttway's company was fined multiple times during the renovations and was subject to stop work orders because they were a nuisance )
Congresswoman's Daughter Bickers With Neighbors Over 3-Year Home Renovation - Upper West Side - New York - DNAinfo
Awe, and I thought we were friends. You're not very nice. I like it here, this place is fun. Maybe you could relax a bit, take a breather. Now go to your room! Momma Didn't Raise You To Act This WayQuote:
Go away
I hardly need to look for other sources of the raid. My point is the victim's credibility when he said "there was no riot".Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Did your momma raise you to lie about your age? Or hide behind a nickname?Quote:
Originally Posted by waltero
Did your momma raise you to preach long-winded sermons here that even your co-religionists need to have clarified, and nobody else can understand?
Why are you here? You contribute almost nothing to whatever the discussion is. You couldn't even give a coherent response to the issues raised in my post.
Time for you to clear up that confusion in your head.
I thought we were using the 50 is the new 20 rule?Quote:
Did your momma raise you to lie about your age?
My nickname makes me who I am, and I will forever love being "Waltero.Quote:
Or hide behind a nickname?
How long should the sermon series be? The Truly Abundant Life is Meant to Be Lived in the Larger Story.Quote:
Did your momma raise you to preach long-winded sermons here?
Enquiring minds want to know.Quote:
That even your co-religionists need to have clarified?
No harm, no foul...being that nobody else could understand the Topic (John 12:20)anyway...including you.Quote:
And nobody else can understand?
because this is an open forum, and I seek knowledge. Thought I'd see what the educated folks had to say. You contribute almost nothing I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.Quote:
Why are you here?
. Ask your momma what it is.Quote:
To whatever the discussion is
It's not always about you.Quote:
You couldn't even give a coherent response to the issues raised in my post.
If only I had a Brain!Quote:
Time for you to clear up that confusion in your head
This is never about us, but our response to the issues. Some responses are superficial, some provide knowledge and some have nothing to do with the thread, ah well, I don't get it, it isn't as though your own thread costs money
Different, yes. Do you want to rank order them? What are your criteria? Does that criteria stand in all circumstances? How is this the worst since the civil war?Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I keep hearing the mouthpieces saying stuff like this, what is Biden's justification for comparing this event to the Civil War where more than half a million people died, and our country was literally ripped apart? How many on the political left rank Jan 6 with 9/11? We have 3000 dead and wars on wars as consequences from one, do the consequences of the other carry the same weight? Arnold Schwarzenegger ranks this with the Kristallnacht which brought sweeping destruction and put more than 30,000 men into concentration camps. Anderson Cooper thinks this is the same as the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides.
Pearl Harbor, al Qaeda, terrorists, the list goes on.
Maybe my comparisons were off base by severity, as January 6th can only be ranked amongst the worst acts of human indignation. How about you tone down the rhetoric, unless it is your goal to smear and villainize and silence dissenters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Very strong words my friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Athos, as for your Post #36:
Let me clarify: "no one" here, in this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
The next few comments regarding Post #30...mostly vile assumptions about me. This was an attempt to clarify some facts not clearly stated prior. Let me explain in simpler terms.
Point 1: You used Michael Sherwin in Post #21, #28 as an authoritative source to prove the extreme nature of the crimes of the rioters, even as you refuse to accept other sources that show that the judges involved feel quite different. My quote of Michael Sherwin is an authoritative source that Michael Sherwin could care less about actual crimes and would rather send a message using the full weight of the law. Intent matters. I also might point out that the judges and lawyers involved in these cases would have an intimate knowledge of the individual cases and have the proper authority to adjudicate these crimes and assess the risk involved with these individuals.
Point 2: Sarcastic remarks about Kamala's Bail Fund, not whataboutism, but rather evidence to illustrate the hypocrisy of those who support violence when it aligns with their ideology while condemning violence that does not align with their ideology.
Point 3: A list of current charges of those involved in the January 6 riot. I believe regularly updated. This is simply a source we can use to enhance our discussion.
-It was asserted in Post #2 that white supremacist domestic terrorism was involved. No such charges were found in this list related to terrorism or any sort of hate crimes.
-It was asserted in Post #6 that arrests were mostly for trespassing. Can't search by that criteria, however, I believe this to be true. Using the find function on my browser I noted 266 instances of "Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building" charges, 186 instances of "Parading, Demonstrating, or Picketing in a Capitol Building" charges, and 144 instances of "Remaining in any Restricted Building or Grounds Without Lawful Authority" charges (Probably the same people, multiple charges). I also believe this lacks context as nearly all of those charges are accompanied by other charges as well. I was too lazy to write a whole post on this and do a study on the relevancy of the charges with the summary of events that lead to these charges.
-It was asserted in Post #16 that "Even fewer than that got violent," and Post #19 "500 so far is 'fewer that got violent.'" There are only 73 instances of an "Act of Physical Violence" in this list.
-Post #19 also asserts "500+ men (more like 1,000+ men), variously armed, attacked the United States Capitol" and Post #23 states "But 23 people have been charged with having deadly or dangerous weapons during the assault — including a loaded handgun found on a man arrested on Capitol grounds" while the list corroborates 116 instances of "Deadly or Dangerous Weapon."
This link can bring clarity to this discussion.
Point 4: 25 people on the list had nothing to do with the riot, they were violating curfew, with no other charges brought. Less than 5% of those arrested.
Point 5: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they did nothing more than enter and leave.
Point 6: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they committed nothing more than petty theft.
You must understand something about politics. There are seldom good actors, neither on the left nor the right. Most politicians are self serving.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
This particular commission is an attempt to root out failures within the federal government as related to the January 6 attack. In reality, the republicans are afraid it would be a club wielded by liberal media, government leaks, and others on the left side of the isle to smack them with, non-stop, until the 2022 midterms. It is also true that the House of Representatives have already launched an investigative subcommittee, while the Senate has 2 separate investigations, the latest of which was released on June 8th. All of this is ongoing while the FBI, DoJ and other departments conduct their own internal and external investigations.
I see the truth as somewhere between hyperbole and denial. The media are self serving also, they ratchet up the language when it suits them; they ignore things when it suits them; they downplay whatever suits them. Turn off CNN and do some real research.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
See previous statement about hypocrisy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
It is incredibly hard to engage with someone who refuses to analyze and rebut rational arguments. If it is so wrong, try attacking the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunke4Life
That final bit brings us back to Chicago.
The leaders there continually assert that they have a gun problem. From Rahm Emanuel to Lori Lightfoot (and even Joe Biden), they see gun control as a proper remedy to the criminal element of their city. Their gun legislation has not helped one bit. So they blame gun dealers and neighboring states for disseminating the weapons. The trouble is, most of the guns recovered in Chicago are from Illinois, and after investigating them, the ATF rarely busts a FFL dealer. They did nothing wrong. The guns are generally stolen or purchased off the black market.
The real problem is policy.
Criminals are routinely let out of jail early or given lesser sentences just to go on committing crimes.
Prosecution of weapons related charges is falling continually. From 2005 to 2016, these prosecutions fell by almost 35%.
In 2016 Chicago only had 15 attorneys dedicated to violent crime. Lack of proper resources.
Most gun crime convictions are given the lowest possible sentence.
With constant defund the police rhetoric and racism rhetoric, the powers that be, think it is better to let criminals walk that to arrest too many individuals of a specific minority. Many on the left see criminals as disconnected from their actions, rather, a product of their environment. Thus America is to blame, not the felons.
They were off base making a comparison to an attempt to overthrow the duly elected government of the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
YOU started the rhetoric with, "Athos, you are an idiot". Does your outrage apply to yourself, or just to others?Quote:
How about you tone down the rhetoric,
My goal is to tell the truth based on facts. Your goal is to support an ideology led by Trump regardless of facts.Quote:
unless it is your goal to smear and villainize and silence dissenters.
You meant, "Very truthful words".Quote:
Very strong words
This seems to be addressed to me. I have not made any comment or post about Chicago.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
"Gun control" is their only answer ;although during his speech Wednesday Quid actually said that cities with extra covid bucks should invest in their police forces .That is a concession that the year long defund the cops effort has been an unmitigated disaster .His emphasis on so called "assault weapons " is completely irrelevant to the crime way that is hitting America's cities.
Getting ILLEGAL guns off the streets worked in NYC under Rudy and nanny-Bloomy . But that requires more policing not less. It appears based on primary results that NYC is looking for a return to sanity .
Well said, Info. The 1/6 event is now largely being used for political consumption. Thus we see the allegations of "white supremacists" on a rampage of destruction and insurrection, all of which is wild conjecture. On the basis of damage to the country, I would rate the Ferguson riots as more destructive.Quote:
I keep hearing the mouthpieces saying stuff like this, what is Biden's justification for comparing this event to the Civil War where more than half a million people died, and our country was literally ripped apart? How many on the political left rank Jan 6 with 9/11? We have 3000 dead and wars on wars as consequences from one, do the consequences of the other carry the same weight? Arnold Schwarzenegger ranks this with the Kristallnacht which brought sweeping destruction and put more than 30,000 men into concentration camps. Anderson Cooper thinks this is the same as the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides.
Post # 30 is yours, not mine, and, obviously, I made no vile assumptions about you in your own post.Quote:
The next few comments regarding Post #30...mostly vile assumptions about me
I agree with Michael Sherwin who is an authoritative source. The only actual trial so far has resulted in a guilty verdict. A minor offense, it a is a harbinger of more serious charges in the future to be tried.Quote:
Point 1. Yoiu used Michasel Sherwin in Post #21, #28 as an authoritative source to prove the extreme nature of the crimes of the rioters,
Do you accept sources that show the judges involved to feel otherwise than your judges? No, I thought not.Quote:
even as you refuse to accept sources that show that the judges involved feel quite different.
I never said a word, sarcastic or otherwise, about Kamala's bail fund.Quote:
Point 2: Sarcastic remarks about Kamala's Bail Fund
I couldn't make a better argument than that for those Repubs who do EXACTLY that. Completely ignore the violence at the Capitol from that yo-yo who was filmed defending against the rioters while claiming it was like a typical camera and tourist day. What in God's name could possibly make someone say such a thing in front of the whole world? And he's not the only one!Quote:
evidence to illustrate the hypocrisy of those who support violence when it aligns with their ideology while condemning violence that does not align with their ideology.
How can the discussion be enhanced when you leave out the serious charges?Quote:
Point 3: A list of current charges of those involved in the January 6 riot. I believe regularly updated. This is simply a source we can use to enhance our discussion.
I never asserted that charges were filed for white supremacist terrorism. I asserted that white supremacists were part of the crowd based on Jesus banners and the testimony of a minister who was there and said Trump the Inciter was "appointed by God".Quote:
It was asserted in Post #2 that white supremacist domestic terrorism was involved. No such charges were found in this list related to terrorism or any sort of hate crimes.
This is one of those comments that drive truth-seekers crazy. SO-DAMN-WHAT! Does that excuse the hundreds who were charged with far more serious crimes? The FACTS are available - you just need drop your laziness to search for them.Quote:
It was asserted in Post #6 that arrests were mostly for trespassing.
I define violence as the whole crowd swarming and yelling things like "Hang Mike Pence" and "Get Nancy". The fact that many were never caught doesn't change the reality.Quote:
-It was asserted in Post #16 that "Even fewer than that got violent," and Post #19 "500 so far is 'fewer that got violent.'" There are only 73 instances of an "Act of Physical Violence" in this list.
These points are not relevant to the main crime of insurrection. They do not absolve the bad actors. It's unclear why you even brought them up.Quote:
Point 4: 25 people on the list had nothing to do with the riot, they were violating curfew, with no other charges brought. Less than 5% of those arrested.
Point 5: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they did nothing more than enter and leave.
Point 6: There are a fair number of people who are being given leniency because they committed nothing more than petty theft.
Condescending comments are not your strong point.Quote:
You must understand something about politics. There are seldom good actors, neither on the left nor the right. Most politicians are self serving.
The Republicans are afraid of the truth coming out and further damaging their reputation which has sunk near-bottom under Trump and the really bad leadership: I.e., McConnell, McCarthy - and Greene and the assorted other whackos like Greene.Quote:
This particular commission is an attempt to root out failures within the federal government as related to the January 6 attack. In reality, the republicans are afraid
That's your problem right there. You can't see the truth. You think it's in the middle of rhetoric. Wrong, it exists all by itself. You should have learned that in kindergarten.Quote:
I see the truth as somewhere between hyperbole and denial
And what cable channel do you watch?Quote:
Turn off CNN and do some real research.
You are so right. That is why I have such difficulty dealing with the likes of you ("you're a bigot - I love you too - Athos, you're an idiot") and your pals. You rarely answer points I make (this being an exception - thank you), arguments are made that are not arguments at all (they are beliefs that have no basis in fact), and at least one here thinks this is a training ground for giving sermons.Quote:
It is incredibly hard to engage with someone who refuses to analyze and rebut rational arguments.
As for me, I strive to make factual and provable points. This is not that hard to do in today's media-driven society where so much is on video or audio easily retrievable on the internet. Truth can also be in the mind of someone from experience but not readily provable. In that case, take it or leave it.
When I offer opinion, I try to indicate that by saying so or else it's obvious within the context.
That is true to a degree. It's the nature of the beast. However, it's easy to tell which media are the best at reporting the actual events accurately. The problem we've had with mainstream media is that Trump was such a moron it was impossible to show him otherwise. Even his own appointees thought he was a nutcase. When FOX tried to support Trump it became a laughingstock although plenty of ill-informed citizens continued to watch FOX. Trump's newest favorite is OAN and NEWMAX - both as poor as can be reporting facts.Quote:
The media are self serving also, they ratchet up the language when it suits them; they ignore things when it suits them; they downplay whatever suits them.
Media is the chief safeguard against public corruption.
Does anyone actually read these hyper-nuanced and piecemeal replies? It makes me tired just looking at them.
They're not for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Thank goodness! So I don't have to read these kind of well-reasoned, scholarly statements?
"Condescending comments are not your strong point."
"The Republicans are afraid of the truth coming out and further damaging their reputation which has sunk near-bottom under Trump and the really bad leadership: I.e., McConnell, McCarthy - and Greene and the assorted other whackos like Greene."
"That's your problem right there. You can't see the truth. You think it's in the middle of rhetoric. Wrong, it exists all by itself. You should have learned that in kindergarten."
"As for me, I strive to make factual and provable points." I wonder if that includes statements about "white evangelicals", a group that you seem unable to define, and unable to say if their beliefs are somehow different from the beliefs of non-white evangelicals? And if those beliefs do not differ, then why is it so important to you to distinguish "white" evangelicals from other evangelicals? Why the racial aspect?
Athos, you really fail to read my comments. If it wasn't so much fun getting you all worked up, I wouldn't even bother. I spend a great deal of time researching these posts, while you continually misrepresent and only half read what's been written. You lose the chain of conversation and spend your time attacking individuals.
I'll put some of this into context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Lets talk about insurrection for a minute. You continually bring this up.
Wondergirl defined it well, "The definition of an insurrection is a rise against government authority or a revolt."
You agreed in Post #19.
Now you assert that the "main crime" is insurrection.
If you read the language in 18 U.S.C. Section 2383 it is a clear definition of a crime that is punishable. However, the broad scope of such a crime often prevents prosecution, it is limited in scope by many other laws. The regular usage of the code is to define when Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 as defined by the Prize Cases and Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the constitution are properly employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/rebellion-or-insurrection.html
It is clear that there are no "Insurrection" charges leveled against any of the rioters. It is clear that language alone cannot be the qualification for legal insurrection, and that you falsely equate rhetoric with violent crimes.
Speech is not violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I guess you're not an idiot then, you are a liar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Ditto. I might add that I have to use such long posts to address the quantity of your post's I respond to. As a matter of fact, I prefer to respond to your points. I like trolling you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Ditto. You rarely address facts or prove your points, you spew hatred and nonsense regularly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
P.S.
Don't forget that crimes in the US can only be legally charged against individuals. The individual did X, not this group is X. A person commits insurrection, as a crime, not a group. A group of individuals can be implicated in individual insurrectionist behavior when you want to play politics. When you are talking about group mentality and assigning blame to groups as a whole, you are no longer in the realm of the law, but in the realm of rhetoric.
I don't watch much television. I think it rots the brain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Not a single sentence of this is true. and you know it! It's obvious I read your comments with care. It's interesting that your motivation is to annoy me - it should be seeking and presenting the truth. Every one of your comments had been rebuked. Your claim of my losing the conversation is just that - a claim. I note you gave no examples of that. This whole paragraph was nothing more than unfounded accusations. I'm not surprised.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Good. Read it with care and you will see how your own post supports my points.Quote:
I'll put some of this into context.
Rebuke # 1. My curfew comment rebuking yours was absolutely true.
Rebuke # 2. You DID omit the serious crimes. You admitted in a later post you had failed to clarify. Absolutely true.
Rebuke # 3. Your "despicable comment". You added that in a later post after I called you on it. Absolutely true. Your post # 30 read like sarcasm. An opinion, but absolutely true. My calling you on accusing me of vile assumptions in Post 30 was absolutely true. You had the wrong Post #. My definition of violence includes incitement like screaming and yelling. Absolutely true. The irrelevant points you brought up I said were unclear why you even brought them up. Absolutely true.
What is odd here is that you put all the post comments charging me with not reading your comments showing every one of my answers, and you did NOT answer a single one. Your copying the comments SUPPORTS what I said. I think you're very confused, probably blinded by your ideology. I don't know for sure where your confusion lies, but it's there.
Your silly comment about you having fun getting me "all worked up" is just a childish way of denying and hiding your own frustration when exchanging ideas with me. I know this because in our first discussion you bailed out in the middle having run out of answers to my posts. Now there is this comment to which I am responding that is actually supporting my points without you providing any answers other than to throw insults.
What do you call stormng the Capitol of the United States attempting to overthrow the duly elected government with violence, and death threats to the VP of the United States?Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
Is shouting "fire" in a crowded theater false rhetoric?Quote:
and that you falsely equate rhetoric with violent crimes.
See above.Quote:
Speech is not violence.
Is this an example of you condemning others for insults? Here's a saying you badly need to know and apply in your life. People in glass house shouldn't throw stones.Quote:
I guess you're not an idiot then, you are a liar.
YOU were the one who started the long posts. My posts are long to reply to you. Why do you twist things?Quote:
I might add that I have to use such long posts to address the quantity of your post's I respond to.
You're an excellent troll. In fact, you'd be even better if you managed to include answers in your response to my points.Quote:
As a matter of fact, I prefer to respond to your points. I like trolling you.
You know that's not true. It's just you deflecting away from your own inabilities.Quote:
You rarely address facts or prove your points
Is this more of your anti-insult crusade?Quote:
you spew hatred and nonsense regularly.
Pay attention.Quote:
Don't forget that crimes in the US can only be legally charged against individuals. The individual did X, not this group is X. A person commits insurrection, as a crime, not a group. A group of individuals can be implicated in individual insurrectionist behavior when you want to play politics. When you are talking about group mentality and assigning blame to groups as a whole, you are no longer in the realm of the law, but in the realm of rhetoric.
Insurrection is charged against a person who, in this case, is part of a group. The group is not charged but group members are. Your excursion into law is another of your weak points.
Another explanation describing your problem. Cable TV News provides audio and video and commentary and pure news and opinion of all major issues. You even have your pick of which side to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoJunkie4Life
This is a major reason why you are so confused about current events.
Not remotely, I already explained what the purpose of Post #30 was point by point. Then you misrepresented and butchered my statements to try and gain the upper hand. Your quest for truth ends at the point where you wrong. I listed several quotes (yours and others) where the conversation could be enhanced by truth and precision of dialogue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The clarification I offered concerning my statements was about who was involved in the "no one" statement. Post #30 is a clarification of the misinformation that was being propagated here (by you and others). Post #50 explains this clearly. I even offered several evidences of such misinformation and what the truth is concerning those. The link I provided could be a direct source for facts regarding what happened on an individual basis and on the ground at the Jan 6 riot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The omission of "serious crimes" is simply an opinion. Serious is a relative conditional. I accept no rebuke for what I found in the facts as illustrated in my Post #50. It would be a useful rebuttal if you enumerated the "serious crimes" so that there is a fact or two to engage with (like you did in Post #33, minus the nonsensical second half).
It wasn't even in the context of the debate. You accused me and everybody who dares cites facts, of being misleading. I offered no ideology on the matter. It was you who proclaimed that "right-wing evangelists deny the facts," that "they will sell their soul for anything supporting their politics," and "Christian evangelists are so devious." To ensure we were on the same page I offered my belief that these events were despicable, to which you only offered that my previous comments (a list of facts) were absurd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Opinions are not in the domain of fact or reason. They are a belief or judgement drawn without relation to facts. You may believe something because of facts or in spite of facts. Furthermore, you missed the point. The only sarcastic remark was regarding the use of Kamala's bail fund. The rest was a response to assertions made here about Jan 6.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
My words were "The next few comments regarding Post #30." To which you replied: "Post # 30 is yours, not mine." The vile assumptions are concluded from the following statements you made regarding Post #30:Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
"NOW you say it - after you were called on the absurdity of your comment."
"You certainly implied it wasn't much in your post #30. You made it seem like a walk in the park with your sarcasm."
"Then why are you so casual about it (#30)?"
"As to the 'foul language', the media covered it exactly for what it was"
My opinion is, that you have vile assumptions about me, Trump, right wingers, evangelicals, whites, fundamentalists, etc...Can you see how I came to this conclusion?
Incitement is illegal. It is also a crime that has not been charged against any of the Jan 6 rioters. You are accusing, in your opinion, that this is true. Still incitement is not violence, it is a call to violence. Separate issues you continue to conflate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
I'll explain again why they are relevant. Early on in this thread, there were significant assumptions and misinformation stated as fact. I brought them up to show light on said assumptions and misinformation. I even brought more context and clarity to those statements later (Post #50). You only responded (Post #33, #36, #56) by changing definitions, declaring the evil intent of everybody present, and misrepresenting my comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Yes it is childish, but I'm trying to meet you on level ground. I don't think I'm hiding anything, I just stated it openly and plainly. Plus I can multitask. I can "seek truth" and pick on you at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Again, you started calling it a crime in Post #56. That is invoking the law. It remains that there have been no legal charges of insurrection brought against anyone who has been arrested so far. The rhetorical use of insurrection may or may not be fitting (I am inclined to say it is for those who committed acts of violence) but the legal use of the word is hardly relevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Pure news is a list of facts, it would require a lack of opinions and commentary. News is defined as "Information about recent events or happenings" not what people think about those things. This is one of the biggest problems with the MSM, they think opinion counts as fact and that adding a ton of discourse regarding facts is necessary. It is only necessary insomuch as explaining their biases and beliefs. The addition of commentary into the news media was largely non-present until the late 70's. Even the opinion sections generally involved relevant persons, not the opinion of the newscaster. Go look up some old broadcasts or read some old newspapers. They were quite dry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
The news media figured out that they can improve ratings and viewership by adding commentary and unrelated stories, as they enhance the A/V experience. The facts generally lie outside of commentary. The amount and nature of commentary is irrelevant to the content of the facts they choose to report on. I don't need anybody to tell me what to think.
Does that mean you don't watch Faux news either? What do you watch/read if I may enquire? Any talking head can be fact checked in real time.
No news is unbiased, even if that means only providing half the facts, but in particular most news services are biased to a particular political viewpoint. At the time of the invasion of the capitol there were some very biased viewpoints in play leading to political unrest to the point of insurrection.
I stand by every single thing I wrote in those posts.Quote:
Originally posted by InfoJunkie4Life
I already explained what the purpose of Post #30 was point by point. Then you misrepresented and butchered my statement
Don't be ridiculous. You only included the minor offenses. A felony is not opinion, it is a serious crime.Quote:
The omission of "serious crimes" is simply an opinion. Serious is a relative conditional.
I did and I still hold those opinions. Didn't you later agree that the events discussed are "despicable"?Quote:
It was you who proclaimed that "right-wing evangelists deny the facts," that "they will sell their soul for anything supporting their politics," and "Christian evangelists are so devious."
An opinion may or may not be in "the domain of fact". An opinion equally can be reasonable - mine are. They are called opinions because their truth remains to be seen.Quote:
Opinions are not in the domain of fact or reason.
Fine. Do you now admit that I never said it?Quote:
The only sarcastic remark was regarding the use of Kamala's bail fund
The entire post appeared to be a response to my comment about Sherwin. And I certainly didn't say those things you posted.Quote:
My words were "The next few comments regarding Post #30." To which you replied: "Post # 30 is yours, not mine."
They were hardly "vile assumptions". They were questions and comments about what you wrote. Not one vile assumption.Quote:
The vile assumptions are concluded from the following statements you made regarding Post #30:
"NOW you say it - after you were called on the absurdity of your comment."
"You certainly implied it wasn't much in your post #30. You made it seem like a walk in the park with your sarcasm."
"Then why are you so casual about it (#30)?"
"As to the 'foul language', the media covered it exactly for what it was"
According to your own definition in this very discussion, opinions are "beliefs drawn without relation to facts". Does that apply to your opinions, or just everybody else's?Quote:
My opinion is, that you have vile assumptions about me,
I do not have a vile opinion about you. In fact, in the beginning I thought you could turn out to be a civil, intelligent, formidable, and even helpful, correspondent. I no longer hold that based on what I see as nasty attacks and frequent refusal to acknowledge the plain truth.Quote:
Trump, right wingers, evangelicals, whites, fundamentalists, etc...
As to Trump and the rest, I do hold assumptions about those groups (except whites), and I do find the groups vile - always in the case of Trump and sometimes in the politics of the others and also in some of their Biblical beliefs. The assumptions are not vile, they are the truth.
Of course, but it is a misguided conclusion. Exactly what it is based on is a difficult matter. I've given it plenty of thought and I'm thinking it is based in the psychology of the individual, and the ability of the individual to discard fact and/or reason so as not to interfere with a held belief. It's common among religious folk and I believe that is the source. It then translates to politics and any other issues where the belief is challenged. "Religious" is used in its widest sense to include, say, atheists who may be true believers in a philosophy or an economic system like Communism.Quote:
Can you see how I came to this conclusion?
Incitement is illegal and a crime, yet you say it is not violence, it's a "call to violence". OK. That seems to be a distinction without a difference - at least a practical difference. I'm not conflating them. I believe each is a crime, violence and its incitement. I think you agree with me.Quote:
Incitement is illegal. It is also a crime that has not been charged against any of the Jan 6 rioters. You are accusing, in your opinion, that this is true. Still incitement is not violence, it is a call to violence. Separate issues you continue to conflate.
I explained this above. Please refer there for my reply.Quote:
I'll explain again why they are relevant. Early on in this thread, there were significant assumptions and misinformation stated as fact. I brought them up to show light on said assumptions and misinformation. I even brought more context and clarity to those statements later (Post #50).
Not everybody, and perhaps nobody. Misguided is not always evil. You feel I misrepresented your comments because you object to my replies to those comments. If you read as carefully as you want me to read, you would find that I didn't misrepresent you - I disagreed with you.Quote:
(You) declaring the evil intent of everybody present, and misrepresenting my comments.
Yup.Quote:
Yes it is childish
Nope.Quote:
but I'm trying to meet you on your ground.
Quite an accomplishment. I'll remember that next time you accuse me of not playing fair.Quote:
I can "seek truth" and pick on you at the same time.
I went through a CNN phase, a FOX phase, and then some of the foreign and independent stuff (RT, NTD, etc.) The foreign stuff I'll still pay attention to, when they're on, as they tend to list facts, but they all have agendas. Now, I'll hear about news stories from friends and family members, then do some reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
I go through the headlines online at the NYT, WP, NYP, BBC, Guardian, CNN, NBC, FOX, my local paper, etc. I read the articles that pique my interest, then research the talking points. I'm not prejudiced to any one source, I just have learned that, much of what is said or printed is usually unrelated to the facts. I get a list of headlines from google news, and take it from there. In my research I may encounter a dozen or more news sources not present in my feed.
I can cover more ground by reading. Watching videos bothers me, much of what is said in an hour can be read in minutes. Plus, I can readily re-read sentences for context and clarity, I can pause and take rabbit trails, or verify facts.
This is quite true. This is why I try to consume media from a broad selection, to not be stuck in an echo chamber of singular ideas. Often I will find myself surprised by the arguments laid out by the left in what I thought was an air tight case presented on the right, or vise versa. The more common reality is that neither side likes to look at what the other is actually talking about, even though they are often deliberating the same facts 80% of the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Congratulations to Eric Adams . His win in the Dem primary for Mayor of NYC is confirmed . He is almost a shoe in for Mayor because the Dems run the city . Here's hoping he brings some sanity back to a city that has been plagued by the horrible mismanagement of the commie moron Sandinista Bill .Quote:
news update :
Ex cop and anti defund the police candidate Eric Adams has taken a commanding lead in the NYC Democrat primary . He will almost surely be the Dem candidate and as such almost assured to be the next Mayor of NY .
The Repub winner is the founder of the Guardian Angels Curtis Sliwa . You know where he stands on crime issues .
Clearly the people of NYC does not want to defund the police ;and want the police to do their jobs and protect the people from the marauders who have taken over the city streets and subways since Sandinista Bill became Mayor .
pps ranked choice voting is a joke
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:36 AM. |