Customer Discussions > Politics forum

A 'Supreme' shock


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 201-225 of 286 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:05:26 PM PDT
Mystére says:
M. Daniel typed: "Ah, so you do recognize bias when you see it (except for Alternet)."

You continue with your reading problems. I said nothing about bias. I know that those sources have had problems with factual accuracy in the past. I might as well read "The Weekly World News".

Posted on Apr 3, 2012 4:07:09 PM PDT
So conservatives stand with SCOTUS in their embrace of strip searches for traffic offenses? Yes/no?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:08:17 PM PDT
Mystére says:
kbw typed: "so, one can't recognize a failure and change their mind... 17 frigging years later."

Fine. Show that Orrin Hatch and his buddies had a change of heart, since you brought it up.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:10:31 PM PDT
Mystére says:
kbw typed: "sounds like a baseless assertion to me"

The evidence is clear and noted and therefore not baseless.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:12:47 PM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
I wish Obama would be shocked at the polls, too bad the Republican party fields no electable candidate. Obama makes a better rightie than the opposition,lol.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:14:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2012 4:17:21 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Mystére says: "ou criticize Alternet for being biased for offering opinions, but strangely, that is all you have done."

That is what these forums are for---giving your opinions. I do not claim to be unbiased. You claimed Washington Times was a biased newspaper yet gave no facts to support your assertion. Any person who has looked at the Washington Times knows is it biased---I don't need you to support it with facts. The same applies to Alternet---everybody but you recognizes its bias.

Again I gave you a factual example and you ignore it. If you see a headline with "left-wing zombies" what do you think that means?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:21:23 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Mystére says: "I said nothing about bias."

"Hysterical right-wing sites" does not sound like support for factual reporting.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:24:11 PM PDT
The Washington Times? Are they still owned by the Moonies? A heretical foreign mind control cult who preyed on vulnerable young people, and yet were embraced by conservatives because they would print any sort of right wing trash regardless of fact?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:26:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2012 4:28:08 PM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
Sounds like the New York times back when that guy was fired for plagiarism.

I only bought and read it for the books section and movies section, occasional read the other sections to follow current events, but its no secret the politics section left leaning and biased.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:28:45 PM PDT
Sounds like an attempt to change the subject from the GOP's long embrace of a foreign mind control cult, who the right embraced because they put partisan hit pieces over their supposed religion or concern for young Americans.

Posted on Apr 3, 2012 4:31:48 PM PDT
M. Gaudet says:
Are you talking about Mormonism or Scientology not that up to date on cults, though i do like reading up on the masons every now and again.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:33:50 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Mystére says: "Your source didn't show what you thought it showed."

OK. Here it is again (from Alternet):

"My problem is not with the Republicans who dominate the court questioning the obviously flawed individual mandate for the purchasing of private-sector health insurance but rather with their zeal to limit federal power only when it threatens to help the most vulnerable."

The sentence expresses opposition (an opinion) with the Supreme Court for "their zeal" (another opinion) for "limiting federal power only when it threatens to help the most vulnerable." Clearly an opinion based on no factual evidence and is liberal because it seeks the use of federal power to help the "most vulnerable" (liberal terminology to evoke emotional response). Do you call that factual, unbiased reporting? It later says the court seeks to "hide behind the commerce clause" which is clearly a pejorative statement, an opinion, and suggesting the power of Congress to regulate commerce has no significance.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:39:44 PM PDT
I was talking about the Unification Church, long time owners of the Washington Times.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/unificat.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:41:08 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Cioran Sellers says: "The Washington Times? Are they still owned by the Moonies? A heretical foreign mind control cult who preyed on vulnerable young people, and yet were embraced by conservatives because they would print any sort of right wing trash regardless of fact?"

I think they still own it (bought by former Times employees). Conservatives did not embrace the Moonies but liked the conservative slant of the paper.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:44:16 PM PDT
Mystére says:
M. Daniel typed: "That is what these forums are for---giving your opinions. I do not claim to be unbiased. You claimed Washington Times was a biased newspaper yet gave no facts to support your assertion. Any person who has looked at the Washington Times knows is it biased---I don't need you to support it with facts. The same applies to Alternet---everybody but you recognizes its bias."

You continually confuse your opinion with a demonstrable fact. Plus you are using the hilarious "Every schoolboy knows" fallacy.

M. Daniel typed: "Again I gave you a factual example and you ignore it. If you see a headline with "left-wing zombies" what do you think that means?"

I don't engage straw men.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:44:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 4, 2012 1:40:20 PM PDT
If he had a camera phone he should have taken pictures of the suspicious activity. what if trayvon was up in close by people's homes? A lot of black people live there. It's not like trayvon was the only one. But you , when the media says gated community. it is code word for a white community. He should have taken pictures if possible. In fact NHwatch people should take pictures, everyone else does.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:46:21 PM PDT
Mystére says:
Yes, I do. I told you that I didn't hear that in the report I saw.
====================

I missed the post

didn't hear what?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:47:23 PM PDT
Mystére says:
M. Daniel typed: "'Hysterical right-wing sites' does not sound like support for factual reporting."

I haven't seen accurate, factual reporting from either source. I say nothing about bias. You still have yet to connect the dots between bias and factual inaccuracy. If you think there is no difference, then what are we talking about? If someone dismisses a site because of bias, doesn't it follow that the person considers the site to be factually inaccurate?

Posted on Apr 3, 2012 4:48:53 PM PDT
here
the Hollywood reporter.

NBC News Admits 'Error' of Edited 911 Call in Trayvon Martin Controversy (Video)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/trayvon-martin-edited-911-call-george-zimmerman-nbc-news-307399

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:49:58 PM PDT
Christopher Gwyn says:
Obama didn't force anything. Congress passed a bill with the necessary votes and the President signed it into law. That's how government works.

------------------------

yes, one party government

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:50:11 PM PDT
'Conservatives did not embrace the Moonies but liked the conservative slant of the paper.'

Actually they did embrace the church, I believe Bush Sr. appeared at various functions and Reagan had kind words for them, they may also have given them some tax breaks. I always thought it spoke volumes about the right that they would embrace such a heretical charlatan because they'd shill for whatever right wing cause was wanted by the GOP.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:52:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 3, 2012 4:55:45 PM PDT
Mystére says:
I still see no facts here, just your opinion of what the writer means. Once again, demonstrate (a) that Alternet is biased and (b) how that bias translates into factual inaccuracy. You might consider a better example, though. That snippet reads like an op-ed, which reflects a point of view. Op-eds are common in journalism. Just because a news source chooses to print an op-ed doesn't automatically mean it is either biased or factually inaccurate.

Let me know when you complile factual statistics indicated that "most of Alternet is biased."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:52:34 PM PDT
Christopher Gwyn says:
C'mon now. You don't believe your pro-Romney talking points for a minute.

===========================

talking points?

people cant change their minds? Romneycare is a failure. you think he should stick to it until his last dying day even if he lives to be 103.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:55:22 PM PDT
Christopher Gwyn says:
What are the winning lottery numbers for next week since you can predict the future so assuredly?

==============================

why would I tell you and dilute my winnings?

I base my number and what is happening right now. On the increases that have happened and are expected to continue. 9% last year, higher the years before.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 3, 2012 4:57:10 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Mystére says: "Plus you are using the hilarious "Every schoolboy knows" fallacy."

So I am wrong? The Washington Times is not biased? You referred to it as "hysterical right-wing." Are you and I the only ones who think it is biased, or do other "schoolboys" also know?

Mystére says: "I don't engage straw men."

It is not a straw man. It is a direct quote from an Alternet headline: "Why the Right's Zombies Lie....."(about gas prices). Is that a factual statement? Are they really zombies? If not, it is an outright lie. If it is just a negative reference, then it shows a clear bias.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  286
Initial post:  Mar 30, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions