teaman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 We will probably go through this again in a week when once again the DHS threat is up for another vote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teaman Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Bob Beckel is pro life, how can you be a liberal and pro life? He is just collecting a check from a corporation, plain and simple.Well, for starters, he was Bob Dole's campaign manager. I think Dole was a Republican. Secondly, the list of bonehead remarks this dude has made on TV put him in the Numbskull category, not the so called liberal category. To say this guy represents the liberal view is mostly absurd. Probably just a claim he makes to get his job there. This is too stupid to even be discussing. I get it, he works for FOX. Hmm......he worked for Jimmy Carter and Walter Mondale. Both Dems. Not sure where you get your info... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Well so far, your just making foolish assumptions about their method when they didn't publish the detail. I saw no challenges by anyone of their method or results. I know you are more capable of deductive reasoning than you are putting on above. How can you challenge methods when there is no information on them? All you can do is point out the paucity which leaves the results questionable - not worth considering. Why consider junk like that as proof of anything if they do not disclose their methods? Edited March 1, 2015 by Jeff Matthews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USNRET Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 Remind me to not start another one of these Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Matthews Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Remind me to not start another one of these LOL! Mark and I have been bantering like this for years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Travis In Austin Posted March 1, 2015 Moderators Share Posted March 1, 2015 Lot of good comments and remarks here about where to get your information. Just a couple of observations, after the "networks" were bought up by large corporations the news departments were converted from being "news organizations" to being a business with accountability for their bottom line, and thus they became entertainment. This has been well documented in academic journals and discussed by everyone from Reasoner to Cronkite. We live in the information age now. We all first thought that this meant we would be more informed. What we all discovered is that there is more garbage then truth in the information, on any subject. Are tubes better than solid state, CDs better than LPs, Ford vs. GM, is a place to eat any good, food safety, product safety, teacher ratings, music ratings and anything else you can possibly think of, including hate. This subject doesn't have to be on a recent event in Congress, it could be on any issue that effects a person and/or their family. It take more work to be well informed in the information age. You have to work at it. It there is a blog article on a subject you have to find out about the blogger, if it is a website, about who is behind the website. To be well informed before the information age all you needed to do was read two or three newspapers with different points of view, a couple of national journals with opposing view points like The National Review and The New Republic, and watch the news on one network in the evening and another network at night. It took a couple of hours a day to be well informed, but it wasn't that difficult. You could save some time by subscribing to a news consolidator that summed up articles from around the country, like "This Week." With the information age you are bombarded with email blasts telling you to worry about this, you get news in the form of sound bites of information with catchy phrases borrowed from advertising, tweets from whomever you deem is worth following about their views in 160 characters or less, viral videos, 24 hour news services. The objective now is to try and have you get all of your news from one source. TV, Tweets, Ipad, blogs, whatever, their hope is that you get it all from them, whoever "them" is. You will have information overload, but you will not be well informed. There are about 6 corporations in the US that control about 90% of the media. You have to be extremely skeptical about any "news" article or broadcast, regardless of the source. Skeptical, not, paranoid, there is a difference. It is hard to be well informed in the information age because of the sorting and sifting you have to do. I think people tend to gravitate to publications and television programs that have similar views they do. It is human nature. The problem is that the view points get confused with the facts. The facts get spun, to match the viewpoint. This isn't news, it is advocacy. Everyone does it, some slightly, some very overtly. It is a fantasy that you are getting fair and balanced information from ANY one network or news source. The way they are organized and that humans run them makes it impossible. Whatever the relative merits, bias, etc. of a particular network, there is no way you can get a balanced approach on ANY issue from a single source. I don't care if it is the weather, a movie review, what the local dog catcher is doing, or national news. If they allow the opposing view point to have equal time, equal stature, etc., they will turn off their base, whatever that is, and lose viewers. They cannot have "balance" because they will lose viewers, and you don't last on those network shows if you lose viewers. AP is still the most often cited news organization and enjoys a reputation as still authoritative and trustworthy. I don't know if that is actually the case or not. Mark asked if the AP article was accurate, here is it is you want to read it and decide for yourself: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_HOMELAND?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Fortunately, on the issue of politics, you don't need to rely on ANY news account to get to the truth of the matter. If an issue is important to you and your really want to know what the situation is, what the arguments are, what political maneuvers are being utilized, what the actual testimony was, the House and the Senate DEBATES, the votes, etc. it is all there on C-Span. Uncut, full length, gavel to gavel coverage. http://www.c-span.org/search/?tagid[]=485&sort=Newest Unfortunately, now in order to be fully informed on a issue, whether it is stereo, home theater, turntables, politics, whatever, it usually requires finding trustworthy sources, whether they be forums such as this one, a blog, website, magazine, and to consult multiple sources when possible. In many cases it takes longer to find a trustworthy and authoritative source then it does the answer, but we have all been burned by misinformation and we know it is worth the effort. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gilbert Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Remind me to not start another one of these LMAO......... that'll teach you.... heheheeheheheh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.