Important Announcement regarding the Alternative Views Subforum

[OBW]

I live by convictions, not what everybody in the majority happens to think. Or not.

I can agree. But I also recognize that a government of the people will necessarily respond to the majority. It is through reliance on the decency of people that the majority doesn't just jail everyone else (at a hyperbolic extreme). But it requires a majority to do anything. And sometimes it takes compromise between two or more minorities to achieve a majority.

If there is no majority — by a single group or a collection of groups — then nothing happens. But with a majority, things can, and often do, happen.

And when we are in the majority, we like what happens. But when we are in the minority, we don't like what happens.

But either way, we are not the only ones who comprise the right (correct) or only reasonable course of action. And we are not the only reasonable people on the continent. And all of the reasonable persons do not agree on everything. And, unfortunately, the unreasonable (and ignorant) are part of what helps make almost any group into the majority on any particular issue at any particular moment.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can agree. But I also recognize that a government of the people will necessarily respond to the majority. It is through reliance on the decency of people that the majority doesn't just jail everyone else (at a hyperbolic extreme). But it requires a majority to do anything. And sometimes it takes compromise between two or more minorities to achieve a majority.

If there is no majority — by a single group or a collection of groups — then nothing happens. But with a majority, things can, and often do, happen.

And when we are in the majority, we like what happens. But when we are in the minority, we don't like what happens.

But either way, we are not the only ones who comprise the right (correct) or only reasonable course of action. And we are not the only reasonable people on the continent. And all of the reasonable persons do not agree on everything. And, unfortunately, the unreasonable (and ignorant) are part of what helps make almost any group into the majority on any particular issue at any particular moment.

But what all sides require, regardless of party or policy, is a "somewhat" fair, honest, and unbiased Press. Unfortunately this has slowly deteriorated over the years. Without an honest Press, all we have is unprincipled propaganda. Forget about the two sides working together. We have one side who refuses to admit that the President was democratically elected. Without this, there is no democracy. The people have no ability to peacefully express their will.

Now we have one side, using the power of the Press, and the power of our intelligence community, continually demagoguing every news event. We are constantly subjected to one outrageous accusation after another. Like a revolving door, every day brings fresh charges, and forgotten defenses of old charges. Except for some Trump-polemic websites, there is no way to even know that these endless accusations have been constantly debunked.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But what all sides require, regardless of party or policy, is a "somewhat" fair, honest, and unbiased Press. Unfortunately this has slowly deteriorated over the years.

What we like to think about the near past ignores the more distant history. At the time of the founding of our nation, most newspapers were owned by the wealthy. Generally one wealthy person per paper. His thoughts drove how that paper wrote and reported. There was no such thing as an unbiased press.

To get the news, you had to understand the bias of the owner of each newspaper. Of course, there were many newspapers in those days. It has only been in the past 100 or s years that it began to consolidate into 1 or 2 broadly-published local papers. And even there it was often that one was more to one side of things than the other. That is the way it was in Dallas until the Times Herald folded into the Morning News (in the 90s?). Neither was strongly to either side, but now there is only one. (And depending on the side you are on, you swear it leans to the other.)

So what it really requires is an educated population that is not easily swayed by fake news. And despite my leaning to the right on things, I find much more truly fake news to come from the right (especailly FOX News) than from the others. I may not always like where the editorial content of the others goes, but I trust their basic reporting far above that of FOX. FOXy gets a failing grade from me.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

What we like to think about the near past ignores the more distant history. At the time of the founding of our nation, most newspapers were owned by the wealthy. Generally one wealthy person per paper. His thoughts drove how that paper wrote and reported. There was no such thing as an unbiased press.

To get the news, you had to understand the bias of the owner of each newspaper. Of course, there were many newspapers in those days. It has only been in the past 100 or s years that it began to consolidate into 1 or 2 broadly-published local papers. And even there it was often that one was more to one side of things than the other. That is the way it was in Dallas until the Times Herald folded into the Morning News (in the 90s?). Neither was strongly to either side, but now there is only one. (And depending on the side you are on, you swear it leans to the other.)

So what it really requires is an educated population that is not easily swayed by fake news. And despite my leaning to the right on things, I find much more truly fake news to come from the right (especailly FOX News) than from the others. I may not always like where the editorial content of the others goes, but I trust their basic reporting far above that of FOX. FOXy gets a failing grade from me.

We don't have cable, so I usually only see the cable news channels when I go to the gym. And like you, I lean right (somewhat libertarian), but I get tired of Fox News. They usually have Fox, CNN and MSNBC all playing side by side on screens at the gym, and it is amusing to see how biased they all are! It makes me wish for an outlet that you didn't have to filter constantly, but that's Adam for you - always expressing bias in some way . . .

And to your point about just taking the bias into consideration. I've subscribed to The Week magazine for years, because it gives both sides, quoting sources from left and right news outlets. I've turned various conservative people on to it, but they won't read it any more because it leans too far left. In actuality, though The Week does give both sides, it still skews to the left on many things. One way they do this is in an article, the last word quoted is almost always from a left-leaning source. But I'm aware of this and can filter accordingly.

[TLFisher]

All this talk about Eric Ciaramella being whistleblower. Consider this if he wasn't don't you think he would have filed a defamation lawsuit by now?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Terry

All this talk about Eric Ciaramella being whistleblower. Consider this if he wasn't don't you think he would have filed a defamation lawsuit by now?

I don't see this as defamation since half the country would consider him a hero, and the other half just wants to see him questioned under oath.

Hillary's comments about Tulsi Gabbard being a Russian agent, however, are definitely defaming. I also think they are dissembling, in other words, she is accusing Tulsi of what she has probably become. Standard practice for the intelligence community. Kind of like Putin telling us that he wanted Trump to win because he is a "business man," after Putin was discovered buying our uranium from Hillary for huge cash donations to her "humanitarian" foundation.

[Ohio]

A picture is worth a thousand words ...




It's coming folks! Justice that is.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

. . . it is amusing to see how biased they all are! . . . .

I can agree with the bias. They like their positions. But I do not see in some of the CNN reports/commentators the same kind of attitude that turns a blind eye to everything that contradicts their position. I can't just listen to them all . . . or even the better ones for too long. But I can't stomach the Hannity/Beck/etc view that has any kind of disagreement with them as a mental disorder. I can't find a "quality" "right" commentator that speaks with any serious integrity like I find at CNN.

I had the opportunity to watch some of the hearings a week ago. When the sound bites started up at the lunch break and at the end of each day, I could not figure out if the guys at Fox were actually talking about the same hearing I had watched. Of course, that was probably because the Republican committee members did not actually ask any questions that were relevant to the topic or those providing testimony. Mostly just trying to discover the name of a protected person or rehash tired, old, and disproven conspiracy theories.

I will leave it at that.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I can agree with the bias. They like their positions. But I do not see in some of the CNN reports/commentators the same kind of attitude that turns a blind eye to everything that contradicts their position. I can't just listen to them all . . . or even the better ones for too long. But I can't stomach the Hannity/Beck/etc view that has any kind of disagreement with them as a mental disorder. I can't find a "quality" "right" commentator that speaks with any serious integrity like I find at CNN.

I had the opportunity to watch some of the hearings a week ago. When the sound bites started up at the lunch break and at the end of each day, I could not figure out if the guys at Fox were actually talking about the same hearing I had watched. Of course, that was probably because the Republican committee members did not actually ask any questions that were relevant to the topic or those providing testimony. Mostly just trying to discover the name of a protected person or rehash tired, old, and disproven conspiracy theories.

I will leave it at that.

It's all just mostly a big display of the flesh - right, left or center! Adam at full blossom, old, tired and dying . . . and hallelujah - FADING AWAY!

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

It's all just mostly a big display of the flesh - right, left or center! Adam at full blossom, old, tired and dying . . . and hallelujah - FADING AWAY!

Perhaps then I should stop reading the Bible, since it also can be perceived as "a big display of the flesh ... Adam at full blossom, old, tired, dying."