You go girl.
Trusting Iranians...
- Thread starter paulnstef39
- Start date
I think it's about time we stopped making fun of people's screen names. It's a little childish, it's pure ad hominem in a debate, and kinda goes against the whole notion about being able to disagree without being disrespectful, since it's, you know, disrespectful.
Let's stick to the post, not the poster.
Let's stick to the post, not the poster.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Ummm ... have you noticed that there are multiple parties ... critiquing ... your "analysis" (slash rationalization slash defense) of the HotAir article with the false assertion ... and that you stand utterly alone in defending it ?
That tell ya anything ?
And if so , what ?
Like I can't recall the last time you and Cheri have ever disagreed on anything. So there's that. And you and Turtle agree on the Iran deal. So any articles I post to the contrary are being dismissed out of hand, nitpicked, and accused of cherry picking. Some bias going on by y'all.
That's incorrect. Articles you post are not being dismissed out of hand. If they were there would be no comments on there. That's what "dismissed out of hand means," to dismiss immediately and with no consideration. Clearly, that hasn't happened with every article you post, so Im not sure why you would make something like that up and then state it as if it's a fact. Oh, wait....
If you post a Blog article of opinion with a political bias (which is what you post most often, because the opinions and bias of the article match yours - confirmation bias it's called), then it will be looked at closely and if it contains inaccuracies, misleading statements or falsehoods, yes, it will be nitpicked. And if it contains cherry picked data at the expense of data that doesn't fit well with the author's agenda, then it will be accused of exactly what it is, namely, cherry picking.
Rather than your standard soul-satisfying go-to right-wing Web sites, or Googling for specific information that you find agreeable, perhaps you should make an effort to seek out factual articles by actual journalists with far less opinion permeating the text. Doesn't really matter where you find it, as long as it's not in the Opinion section of the Web site.
Turtle wrote: 'I stopped reading after the second of the five ways theObama administration has engaged in a baitand switch.'
Ok call it disregarded instead. You say cherry picked. More like it is highlighted data provided in some of the articles to inform the reader. BTW, the one article was from the Boston Globe. Not a righty publication. Why don't you provide a list of acceptable websites, news outlets, and/ or journalists that you don't have a problem with. I wonder if sites like mondoweise and emptywheel and Wonkette will be in there?
In the meantime, this is from Think Progress. Not considered a 'soul satisfying go to right wing website'
They refer to Iran stonewalling too.
Article excerpt :
New IAEA Report Reiterates ‘Serious Concerns’ About Iran Nuke Program
No, I didn't disregard it. To disregard something is to pay no attention to it, to ignore it. I already told you why I stopped reading, because I had already encountered more than enough cherry picking and confirmation bias logical fallacies in the article up to that point that I had no reason to expect I would not encounter more of the same. For that reason I disregarded the remainder of the article because reading it would almost certainly be a waste of my time.
Oh, it's highlighted data provided to inform the reader all right. The problem is that it's cherry picked data used to further an agenda, rather than to inform the reader of the facts or the proper context of the highlighted data.
If you recall, what I said was, "...perhaps you should make an effort to seek out factual articles by actual journalists with far less opinion permeating the text. Doesn't really matter where you find it, as long as it's not in the Opinion section of the Web site."
The article from the Boston Globe was from the Opinion Section, not the News Section, written not by a journalist but by a columnist. Their sole job is to write stories and their opinions, in an entertaining fashion so as to keep readers reading, and as all columnists do when writing about politics, he cherry picks like crazy to get his opinion across to either get people to agree with him or get people mad at him, but mainly to get people to read him. It was written by conservative Op-Ed columnist Jeff Jacoby, who has been with the Globe since 1987. He briefly practiced law and was a commentator for WBUR-FM. His awards include the 1999 Breindel Prize and the 2004 Thomas Paine Award. At least that's what it says on the Globe's Staff Pages.
Like I said, try and stay away from Blog sites with an clear agenda for your news and instead seek out factual articles by actual journalists with far less opinion permeating the text. (I specifically note "far less opinion permeating the text" because even in standard "respected" journalism these days (including major news outlets like Reuters, AP, etc.) it's nearly impossible to find a new story where the journalist can't help themselves and will inject a comment of personal opinion here and there, and then their equally idiotic editor pets it pass).
But it really doesn't really matter where you find it, as long as it's not in the Opinion section of the Web site. I wouldn't recommend limiting yourself to just one site, either. The more the better. You want to get your news from the Boston Globe, that's fine, just stay away from the Op-Ed pages. Fox News is a little iffy, as they present the news, even on their Web site, with a specific political slant, picking and choosing which facts to present based on whether it fosters their political slant. They are far more like a newspaper columnist than they are a hard news organization. A slant is not the same as a bias, like the liberal bias of the mainstream media that we all know and love. You can have a bias and still present the facts objectively, but a slant tailors the news to satisfy an agenda or a political positions, which is what Fox News does. That said, there are plenty of news articles on Fox News that are worth reading (just don't make it your sole source of hard news). Stay away from the pages of Fox Nation, which is a conservative opinion Web site, not a news site, and stay away from Fox News Insider, which is the official Blog of Fox News, and contains stuff presented to satisfy the most die-hard Fox Fan. And obviously, the Fox Opinion section.
Boston Globe, New York Times, LA Times, Washing Post, Wall Street Journal, NBC, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, Fox, CNN, USA Today, Time, Newsweek, AP, Reuters, BBC, even Al Jazeera. All of these news organizations have different biases, so don't let any one or two of them be your go-to source. If you're interested in a particular news story, read the same story at as many of these outlets as you can. Somewhere in all the mix you'll get the full story. Sometimes it's good to look at local newspapers and TV stations for the local information on a story, as well. Often you find information there that isn't in the national reports. If a news story references a court decision, go read the decision instead of reading someone else's opinion of the decision. If the story is about some ridiculous poll, go read the actual poll, the questions asked and the responses, rather than just someone's summary and conclusions of the poll. If a story has links to a source for the story, stop reading what someone else has to say about the story and go read the actual story. "As reported by KQFI...." stop right there and go to the KQFI web page and read it.
Blogs and Opinion pages are fine to read, I read a lot of them all the time, but I don't get my news there. They aren't a source for news. They're a source for opinion. It's just somebody else's opinion, that's all it is. Some friggin' yahoo put their opinion on a Web site. Would you use me as a source for your news? Of course not. Why would you use some other yahoo instead as your source for news?
Wonkette used to be good, and funny (for a satire site). Now it's mostly just stupid and the humor is mean-spirited, written by Bloggers who like to see how many funny little quips they can come up with. It was better before Gawker sold it. Mondoweise I've only been to a couple of times, I think. it's been a long time. I don't remember what it is. And Emptywheel I've never heard of, and I'm not even curious enough to google it.
Golly, they mentioned stonewalled, too? Wow. Unfortunately, that didn't refer to the inspections, so wrong context. Besides, that horse has been beaten to death and is now at the glue factory. But if you like to play with shiny, pretty things, this should keep you busy for weeks.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
More GOP "genius" ... gots to love that strategry !
Key Senators Spurn Planned Revisions to Iran Sanctions Bill
With Mitch at the helm, it might just be possible for him to eliminate any bipartisan support he once had on Iran ... lol ...
Key Senators Spurn Planned Revisions to Iran Sanctions Bill
With Mitch at the helm, it might just be possible for him to eliminate any bipartisan support he once had on Iran ... lol ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Killed:
Dems block amendment linking Iran deal to Israel
And they pick up Cardin, Menedez, and Schumer in the process.
Dems block amendment linking Iran deal to Israel
And they pick up Cardin, Menedez, and Schumer in the process.
I'll tell you the last time RLENT & I disagreed: when we went to Starbucks and he thought two cups of coffee for $10 was reasonable. lol. [I didn't, but the company was excellent, so there's that.]
Seriously: the reason we usually agree is that we both seek the truth, not an echo chamber that reflects what we already think. Wonkette is a riot, but it's not the sole source of info - we go looking for other voices. And we especially go looking for facts, because that's where the truth is. I'm a fan of Wikipedia, because they provide sources in the footnotes, and as Turtle pointed out, it's important to check those too. Also, I like reading the comments responding to articles - it helps me see another perspective, and sometimes offers even more information.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
It's my guess that this will not turn out well for someone - but that someone won't be Sen. Debbie Stabenow:
Has the @FBI seen this?
Has the @FBI seen this?