Day 1 in Aleppo with Hillary

[marsean]

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/21...le_footer_text

Robbie Mook, Fook Face... Maybe next time Hill will be asked at the next debate and get into explaining how she can do better than Mr. Red Line.

Kudos MSNBC.

[deezguy]

Originally Posted by marsean

http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/09/21...le_footer_text

Robbie Mook, Fook Face... Maybe next time Hill will be asked at the next debate and get into explaining how she can do better than Mr. Red Line.

Kudos MSNBC.

His response was not good. I'm not justifying his response but I could use the "Well, he did it too!" schoolboy response that Trump surrogates use over and over again when they are asked about dealings like Trump University, tax returns, The Trump Foundation and. The Birther movement. Candidates and surrogates should answer the question directly and not pivot and deflect by whining, "Well, he did it too!"

[asiansam]

Originally Posted by Deezguy

His response was not good. I'm not justifying his response but I could use the "Well, he did it too!" schoolboy response that Trump surrogates use over and over again when they are asked about dealings like Trump University, tax returns, The Trump Foundation and. The Birther movement. Candidates and surrogates should answer the question directly and not pivot and deflect by whining, "Well, he did it too!"

Sort of like when Hillary tried to throw Colin Powell under the bus when trying to justify her State Department email practices. Oops.

[marsean]

Originally Posted by Deezguy

His response was not good. I'm not justifying his response but I could use the "Well, he did it too!" schoolboy response that Trump surrogates use over and over again when they are asked about dealings like Trump University, tax returns, The Trump Foundation and. The Birther movement. Candidates and surrogates should answer the question directly and not pivot and deflect by whining, "Well, he did it too!"

Hey Deez,

it's a fucking power play. Surrogates and Campaign Managers who obviously don't know shit def don't help. But in that job he should have been able to quote line and verse from her website that he kept referring MSNBC back to without saying anything. And calling it something new? As if Syria and Aleppo were just a brand new subject of something to look forward to on day 1?

So granted, Trump is brand new as far as politics goes, but he is smart enough to get good advisors and the last thing to worry about would be a trigger finger on the nukes, he has a whole shitload of orientation to do if he gets the nod. Which is doubtful. I don't think Putin having gotten the better of Hillary already with the Uranium has no problem dealing with her. Is she gonna be able to stand up like she has balls? Some can. Thatcher and Merkle(but that is not good) Her, not sure. I am afraid she has to know the kitty (Clinton Foundation) is continually being filled up or else she may lose her nerve. Just a thought.

[deezguy]

Originally Posted by marsean

Hey Deez,

it's a fucking power play. Surrogates and Campaign Managers who obviously don't know shit def don't help. But in that job he should have been able to quote line and verse from her website that he kept referring MSNBC back to without saying anything. And calling it something new? As if Syria and Aleppo were just a brand new subject of something to look forward to on day 1?

So granted, Trump is brand new as far as politics goes, but he is smart enough to get good advisors and the last thing to worry about would be a trigger finger on the nukes, he has a whole shitload of orientation to do if he gets the nod. Which is doubtful. I don't think Putin having gotten the better of Hillary already with the Uranium has no problem dealing with her. Is she gonna be able to stand up like she has balls? Some can. Thatcher and Merkle(but that is not good) Her, not sure. I am afraid she has to know the kitty (Clinton Foundation) is continually being filled up or else she may lose her nerve. Just a thought.

Surrogates involved news discussions and pivoting and deflecting answers are relatively new. It would be nice to go back to the old way news was told from an unbiased perspective. The Walter Cronkite, Huntley/Brinkley days. Answers questions were more direct. The answers weren't pivots to something wrong that the other side did. Answer the question. Don't answer by saying, "What's really awful is how my opponent was able to get away with this or that!"
I say unbiased news but as the political right says, the news is reported by the liberal media. That statement is probably correct! A sociology professor once told me that the media is inherently liberal. To be liberal is to be open and accepting of the existence of all things and points of view. In order for the media to report these things or points of view they must accept its existence without bias. Unbiased reporting of a woman's right to choose, a person's right to marry whatever their orientation, the religion a person chooses to practice is hard to do if you are against it. Not impossible but hard to do.

[asiansam]

Originally Posted by Deezguy

A sociology professor once told me that the media is inherently liberal. To be liberal is to be open and accepting of the existence of all things and points of view.

That may be the classic definition of liberalism, but not an accurate description of liberals. Christianity is supposed to be about love, but look at Christians. Islam is supposed to be about peace, but... well, you know how that ends. In today's world, "liberal" in the ideological sphere simply means "lefty," just as "conservative" means "righty." Period. Might not be the original meanings, but that is how the labels stick nowadays. And sadly, liberals are just as likely as conservatives to shut their eyes, ears and minds to ideas that contradict their lock-step orthodoxy.

Originally Posted by Deezguy

In order for the media to report these things or points of view they must accept its existence without bias. Unbiased reporting of a woman's right to choose, a person's right to marry whatever their orientation, the religion a person chooses to practice is hard to do if you are against it. Not impossible but hard to do.

It's also hard to do unbiased reporting if you are FOR any of those things, wouldn't you agree?

[deezguy]

Originally Posted by asiansam

That may be the classic definition of liberalism, but not an accurate description of liberals. Christianity is supposed to be about love, but look at Christians. Islam is supposed to be about peace, but... well, you know how that ends. In today's world, "liberal" in the ideological sphere simply means "lefty," just as "conservative" means "righty." Period. Might not be the original meanings, but that is how the labels stick nowadays. And sadly, liberals are just as likely as conservatives to shut their eyes, ears and minds to ideas that contradict their lock-step orthodoxy.



It's also hard to do unbiased reporting if you are FOR any of those things, wouldn't you agree?

By what you say, you agree that the media is supposed to follow the classic idealistic definition of liberalism. To a great extent they do. This gives conservatives are very hard time accepting them.
Real world ideology is never the same as a truly idealistic way it should be practiced. Christians are a perfect example. Many Christians practice good to others. It is the Christian way. It is being Christian. In the real world, when you ask a Christian why they do this, their answer is similar to, "to attain Grace". So they can go to heaven. When judgment day comes, they want to be judged a good person to go to heaven. If you break that down, they are being selfish. They're doing good to get to heaven. They must do good in order to get to heaven.
I am not a Buddhist. I don't believe in any dogma. I do find some Buddhists are a little more sensible about doing good. Do good because it's the right thing to do. There are no consequences for doing good. There is no payment or reward for doing good. Do good because it is the right thing to do.

[asiansam]

Originally Posted by Deezguy

By what you say, you agree that the media is supposed to follow the classic idealistic definition of liberalism. To a great extent they do. This gives conservatives are very hard time accepting them.

I'm not as convinced about news media impartiality. That goes for Fox as well as MSNBC. You earlier mentioned the old way news was told from an unbiased perspective. Did you mean as opposed to now? Perhaps we agree more than we realize, although even back in the old days, reporters still had their biases.

Originally Posted by Deezguy

Real world ideology is never the same as a truly idealistic way it should be practiced. Christians are a perfect example. Many Christians practice good to others. It is the Christian way. It is being Christian. In the real world, when you ask a Christian why they do this, their answer is similar to, "to attain Grace". So they can go to heaven. When judgment day comes, they want to be judged a good person to go to heaven. If you break that down, they are being selfish. They're doing good to get to heaven. They must do good in order to get to heaven.
I am not a Buddhist. I don't believe in any dogma. I do find some Buddhists are a little more sensible about doing good. Do good because it's the right thing to do. There are no consequences for doing good. There is no payment or reward for doing good. Do good because it is the right thing to do.

My intent wasn't to evaluate the merits of an ideology, but merely to point out that core ideology and its application can be two different things. Christians going to war should be a contradictory statement. Supposing Islam is a religion of peace, there should be no ISIS, no jihadi terrorists. Likewise, liberals and conservatives quite often do not live up to the alleged tenets of their ideological foundations. Therefore, by saying that good journalism and liberalism share some core values, it doesn't necessarily follow that a modern day so-called "liberal" journalist adheres to those values simply because he is both a "liberal" and a journalist. More likely, if he or she (or trans) has a position on an issue, it will often color any reporting done on that issue. The same is true for conservative reporters. Is it "pro-choice," or "pro-abortion?" "Anti-choice," or "pro-life?"

I think we've beaten this dead horse sufficiently, but you're welcome to respond, and I shall refrain from further comment on this.

[deezguy]

Originally Posted by asiansam

I'm not as convinced about news media impartiality. That goes for Fox as well as MSNBC. You earlier mentioned the old way news was told from an unbiased perspective. Did you mean as opposed to now? Perhaps we agree more than we realize, although even back in the old days, reporters still had their biases.



My intent wasn't to evaluate the merits of an ideology, but merely to point out that core ideology and its application can be two different things. Christians going to war should be a contradictory statement. Supposing Islam is a religion of peace, there should be no ISIS, no jihadi terrorists. Likewise, liberals and conservatives quite often do not live up to the alleged tenets of their ideological foundations. Therefore, by saying that good journalism and liberalism share some core values, it doesn't necessarily follow that a modern day so-called "liberal" journalist adheres to those values simply because he is both a "liberal" and a journalist. More likely, if he or she (or trans) has a position on an issue, it will often color any reporting done on that issue. The same is true for conservative reporters. Is it "pro-choice," or "pro-abortion?" "Anti-choice," or "pro-life?"

I think we've beaten this dead horse sufficiently, but you're welcome to respond, and I shall refrain from further comment on this.

No response necessary.

I would hope that one would call FOX News and MSNBC biased. Unfoortunately there are those who watch those networks exclusively for national and world affairs. They also see no bias. It is unfortunate. Even One America News (OAN) admits to a conservative bias.
A network that considers itself unbiased is CNN. Due to the fact that news programs are no included in TV ratings, a network like CNN needs to make their programs spicier and more entertaining to the average TV viewer. This means bringing on openly biased comentators to discuss their political views and blatantly campaign for their candidate. This creates heated debates by candidate supporters and surrogates. It also makes for a more interesting program for the average viewer. Viewer emotions are stirred. Viewers are glued to their sets. Ratings are increased. That's unfortunate for the unbiased news that I like to see but today's television reality is all about higher ratings for that advertising dollar.