Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Well, they are after all....you know....journalists
That's like...you know...a respectable profession.Well, they are after all....you know....journalists
Originally Posted by Husar:
That's like...you know...a respectable profession.
At times, I think "necessary" is a better word.That's like...you know...a respectable profession.
Originally Posted by Husar:
That's like...you know...a respectable profession.
It's like one....vaguely. That's like...you know...a respectable profession.
But would I want my daughter to marry one?
What bugs you about journalists?
It's hard to argue without any actual arguments.
It's hard to argue without any actual arguments.
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html < take this Hus, put a zero for everything that's said and try to make a calculation. I you do so you will find there isn't anything there
Originally Posted by Fragony:
http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html < take this Hus, put a zero for everything that's said and try to make a calculation. I you do so you will find there isn't anything there
I get 463, you're doing it wrong.http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/medi...ing/index.html < take this Hus, put a zero for everything that's said and try to make a calculation. I you do so you will find there isn't anything there
Originally Posted by Husar:
What bugs you about journalists?
It's hard to argue without any actual arguments.
I'm an (American definition) right winger. With the exception of Fox news and the bloviaters of talk radio, the news media in my country is largely and endless low key persuasive effort favoring the intrusive government approach that I have disagreed with more or less my entire life. I am always a little skeptical where journalists are concerned. What bugs you about journalists?
It's hard to argue without any actual arguments.
I admit to playing it up a bit for the humor value.
FOX also is 
, they frame things as they see fit as well, maybe even worse than CNN and the likes. Journalists are whorenanists no matter how you think of things
, they frame things as they see fit as well, maybe even worse than CNN and the likes. Journalists are whorenanists no matter how you think of thingsHumans don't look at data and come up with a conclusion. They have a conclusion and seek data to support it.
For those that thing the Mainstream Media is lying / eeeeeevil then this might even be evidence that they are trying to discredit the small heroes in some way.
For those that thing the Mainstream Media is lying / eeeeeevil then this might even be evidence that they are trying to discredit the small heroes in some way.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
I'm an (American definition) right winger. With the exception of Fox news and the bloviaters of talk radio, the news media in my country is largely and endless low key persuasive effort favoring the intrusive government approach that I have disagreed with more or less my entire life. I am always a little skeptical where journalists are concerned.
I admit to playing it up a bit for the humor value.
That does however not necessarily say anything about how professional they are. After all you're on the same side as Trump in this fight. Government intrustion seems like a weird word as well given that they don't want the government to tell people which toilet to use etc. In the end the left and right want about the same levels of government intrusion, just in different areas. Both Bush and Obama thought it would be fine for the US government to intrude in my life (by sucking up my online data) or the lives of Pakistanis (by droning terrorists in the vicinity) and so on. The US media seem quite divided on that. So for me they're all in a grey area anyway when it comes to government intrusion.I'm an (American definition) right winger. With the exception of Fox news and the bloviaters of talk radio, the news media in my country is largely and endless low key persuasive effort favoring the intrusive government approach that I have disagreed with more or less my entire life. I am always a little skeptical where journalists are concerned.
I admit to playing it up a bit for the humor value.
And where do you see the public ones? Here I find them to be among the most trustworthy ones given that they do not depend on corporate sponsors and aren't owned by billionaires. That's one of the most discrediting things about FoxNews anyway, the owner.
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER:
"I was just trying to be helpful."
"You don't appreciate me enough."
"This is all a conspiracy."
It's really a fascinating character study worthy of an FBI profile.
I prefer talking to Husar over you, at least he refrains from making outright attacks."I was just trying to be helpful."
"You don't appreciate me enough."
"This is all a conspiracy."
It's really a fascinating character study worthy of an FBI profile.
Originally Posted by Husar:
So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?
If you read between the lines you'd realize the insulting, alienating and character assassinating answer to all three insinuations I was referring to was a variation on "no". Your insinuation was a stupid, insulting and uncalled for as the two I made up as example, as well as the one crandar decided to make for real.So you admit that your attempt of character assassination on the entire WaPo staff was a bad idea?
Originally Posted by Kralizec:
If a government body did the same thing, it would be a textbook example of entrapment and nobody would cheer them on, even if the plot worked. Because the perpetrators would walk free.
Sir, You are wrong, and that is becaise you have not looked up how entrapment is determined:If a government body did the same thing, it would be a textbook example of entrapment and nobody would cheer them on, even if the plot worked. Because the perpetrators would walk free.
Originally Posted by Wikipedia paraphrasing the university of minnesota:
In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests.[15]
The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime.
The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
For it to be struck down it you would need to prove that the washington post was either not predisposed to do it or was being coerced. Neither would apply as actually being stupid enough to swallow such frankly amaturish bait would prove, making a government body carrying out such a ploy not guilty of entrapment but carrying out a sting operation, admittedly one the body would be reuctant to advertise upon completion.In the United States, two competing tests exist for determining whether entrapment has taken place, known as the "subjective" and "objective" tests.[15]
The "subjective" test looks at the defendant's state of mind; entrapment can be claimed if the defendant had no "predisposition" to commit the crime.
The "objective" test looks instead at the government's conduct; entrapment occurs when the actions of government officers would usually have caused a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime.
Originally Posted by :
Journalists, left and right, have labeled what O'Keefe does for a living as unethical. And that's just the way he collects his facts - with the way he presents them he does not deserve to be called a journalist himself.
Left or right the journalistic profession is full of prats whose only achievement in thier sorry lives has turned being selective in who they call out for being unethical into a paycheck. Journalists, left and right, have labeled what O'Keefe does for a living as unethical. And that's just the way he collects his facts - with the way he presents them he does not deserve to be called a journalist himself.
These prats incidentally are almost as numerous as those they are blind to.
Journalism is dead and it wasnt the internet that killed it.
Originally Posted by :
If you feel uncomfortable with the way we're slamming O'Keefe (and you clearly are) then maybe you should stop acting as an apologist for people like him.
You need not be an apologist to be uncomfortable to be witness to this thread's opening post anymore than you need to be a conservative to be uncomfortable witnessing Diane Abbot attempt to do math.If you feel uncomfortable with the way we're slamming O'Keefe (and you clearly are) then maybe you should stop acting as an apologist for people like him.
Ok, I must have missed something. When did I make any insinuation, stupid, insulting, self-contradictory or brilliant?
Just for the record, I have already explained what motivated me to daringly press the "Post a New Thread" button:
Just for the record, I have already explained what motivated me to daringly press the "Post a New Thread" button:
Originally Posted by Crandar:
That's O'Gaffe's doctored video:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/s...62597833744384
I had posted Washington Post's uncensored video in the OP, it's the last link.
To Greyblades: I'm just posting stories I find interesting and funny.
Contrary to O'Gaffe's obvious, thanks to his amateurism, agenda, I have no problem laughing at Hilary or alt-right investigators, whose competence doesn't match their malice.
That's O'Gaffe's doctored video:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/s...62597833744384
I had posted Washington Post's uncensored video in the OP, it's the last link.
To Greyblades: I'm just posting stories I find interesting and funny.
Contrary to O'Gaffe's obvious, thanks to his amateurism, agenda, I have no problem laughing at Hilary or alt-right investigators, whose competence doesn't match their malice.
Originally Posted by Greyblades:
If you read between the lines you'd realize the insulting, alienating and character assassinating answer to all three insinuations I was referring to was a variation on "no". Your insinuation was a stupid, insulting and uncalled for as the two I made up as example, as well as the one crandar decided to make for real.
I wasn't the one who called the WaPo staff "mildly competent" in an attempt to discredit the entire topic without actually commenting on the stupidity attempted. I also wasn't the one who rated them such and then pretended not to have an opinion on their competence. The NYT and the WaPo are often cited by Trump and friends as examples of "fake news". Surely as someone who still expected Trump to do great things last time you posted on the topic, you would have an opinion on the WaPo. Or should I take your post as an admittance of complete ignorance on politics? So I'm quite sure what is stupid, ignorant or uncalled for here. Take your first reply to the topic for starters. If you really didn't care about it you could have stayed out of it as I did until I saw your reply...If you read between the lines you'd realize the insulting, alienating and character assassinating answer to all three insinuations I was referring to was a variation on "no". Your insinuation was a stupid, insulting and uncalled for as the two I made up as example, as well as the one crandar decided to make for real.
A governmental analogue to James O'Keefe could be a failed clerical worker attempting to carry out a massacre in order to prove that mass killings are secretly false-flag attacks.
Originally Posted by Husar:
That does however not necessarily say anything about how professional they are. After all you're on the same side as Trump in this fight. Government intrustion seems like a weird word as well given that they don't want the government to tell people which toilet to use etc. In the end the left and right want about the same levels of government intrusion, just in different areas. Both Bush and Obama thought it would be fine for the US government to intrude in my life (by sucking up my online data) or the lives of Pakistanis (by droning terrorists in the vicinity) and so on. The US media seem quite divided on that. So for me they're all in a grey area anyway when it comes to government intrusion.
And where do you see the public ones? Here I find them to be among the most trustworthy ones given that they do not depend on corporate sponsors and aren't owned by billionaires. That's one of the most discrediting things about FoxNews anyway, the owner.
Okay, apparently I wasn't clear in my post. I was NOT saying that Fox or the Right Wing Talk Radio showmeisters were any better or any more professional than their more numerous slanted left mainstream 'opposition.' A quick look at the FOX track record shows them to be the reverse of the coin, not actually any better.That does however not necessarily say anything about how professional they are. After all you're on the same side as Trump in this fight. Government intrustion seems like a weird word as well given that they don't want the government to tell people which toilet to use etc. In the end the left and right want about the same levels of government intrusion, just in different areas. Both Bush and Obama thought it would be fine for the US government to intrude in my life (by sucking up my online data) or the lives of Pakistanis (by droning terrorists in the vicinity) and so on. The US media seem quite divided on that. So for me they're all in a grey area anyway when it comes to government intrusion.
And where do you see the public ones? Here I find them to be among the most trustworthy ones given that they do not depend on corporate sponsors and aren't owned by billionaires. That's one of the most discrediting things about FoxNews anyway, the owner.
And I am one of the more libertarian GOP types. I do not think the federal government should be the agent for enforcing Protestant Baptist morality any more than I think it should be enforcing property redistribution. I acknowledge that all too many of the USA's right wing would be happy to let the government accrue even more power as long as it was using that power for an agenda they favored. I think that just as bogus as a burgeoning left wing government.
So, just because I decry one side, do not assume that I take the simplistic turn favored by the current administration and automatically support the other in some kind of Pavlovian binary choice set.
I am fairly happy calling for a pox on both their houses.
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
And I am one of the more libertarian GOP types. I do not think the federal government should be the agent for enforcing Protestant Baptist morality any more than I think it should be enforcing property redistribution. I acknowledge that all too many of the USA's right wing would be happy to let the government accrue even more power as long as it was using that power for an agenda they favored. I think that just as bogus as a burgeoning left wing government.
While that sounds "fair" at first, and I'm unsure about your exact position, I often find such a position to be full of holes and double standards as well. Some examples:And I am one of the more libertarian GOP types. I do not think the federal government should be the agent for enforcing Protestant Baptist morality any more than I think it should be enforcing property redistribution. I acknowledge that all too many of the USA's right wing would be happy to let the government accrue even more power as long as it was using that power for an agenda they favored. I think that just as bogus as a burgeoning left wing government.
1. If it's okay for someone to use inherited money to amass even more money, even by ruining other peoples' lives, should it not be okay to do the same with an inherited gun? Money is no more inherently moral than a gun and neither is trade inherently more moral than violence. If you want the invisible hand to guide the employment market, the food market, the market for drinking water and so on, why not the market for violence and death? After all, the market knows best in everything, right? Let survival become a function of merit again.
2. When someone from a think tank says unions are ruining the economy it's hilarious. IMO it's the absolute height of a double standard that poor people shouldn't be allowed to organize and pool their resources in order to further their interests while rich people have employers' associations, think tanks and "foundations" (potentially also fraternities and secret societies etc.) where they pool their resources to further their own interests... What is your position on that?
Thread Ratings provided by
Thread Ratings (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO