Political Forum

[smitty]

but look at the absurd things you post. It appears that you are trying to tick people off.

Appearances can be deserving.  I've tried to post things that the left leaning media will not talk about that the left leaners here was not going to see.  But they were true non the less.  Now -- if that ticks people off, then so be it.  I'll assure it was not my intention.  I never got into the goofy discussions.  Now THAT was intentional for reasons I described earlier.

[bullets13]

I think it would beneficial to the site to only allow links from Fox and CNN. I generally ignore them, but I've never clicked on a link to Western Journalism or similar sites and not been able to see a serious flaw in the article, whether it be an intentional misquote to inflame readers, a misrepresenting of numbers, a blanket statement assigned to a group of people with only one or two examples, etc. the sites that hoops used to make his point the other day, as well as some sites that have been used to make Obama look good do the same thing. So I would like to see talking points that are derived from news links actually come from news sources. Because while Fox and CNN are both slanted, they don't blatantly make things up to ignite their readers. There is at least some modicum of journalistic integrity to those sites. It's just a thought, but that's my personal suggestion to improving the political forum.

[bullets13]

Appearances can be deserving. I've tried to post things that the left leaning media will not talk about that the left leaners here was not going to see. But they were true non the less. Now -- if that ticks people off, then so be it. I'll assure it was not my intention. I never got into the goofy discussions. Now THAT was intentional for reasons I described earlier.

You and I have had some back and forth, but it's always been respectful. And I know that you've taken some insults from people, and I give you a lot of credit for the way you've handled it. The only issue I have is that most of the "true" news that you post on here is either not true at all or uses partial truths to paint the left in a bad light. For instance the last article you posted that I actually took the time to read said that "Liberals were mad" about a restaurant charging a fee to help make up for the minimum wage hike. The intent of the article was to make liberals look bad for being upset about this, and I agreed with you that they should not be upset. But in the article, they quoted a grand total of ONE liberal that was "mad", and in truth all he said was that he thought the restaurant was overreacting to the hike, and really didn't sound that mad at all. So when you say you're posting "true" articles that the "left leaning" media won't show us, you need to make sure they're really true. There's a reason that most of these issues aren't showing up on Fox, and that's because it's not really news at all.

[tvc184]

Prime examples of the name change. Smh. *sigh*

 

Yep. It is great when a warning thread turns into a shining example. 

[smitty]

You and I have had some back and forth, but it's always been respectful. And I know that you've taken some insults from people, and I give you a lot of credit for the way you've handled it. The only issue I have is that most of the "true" news that you post on here is either not true at all or uses partial truths to paint the left in a bad light. For instance the last article you posted that I actually took the time to read said that "Liberals were mad" about a restaurant charging a fee to help make up for the minimum wage hike. The intent of the article was to make liberals look bad for being upset about this, and I agreed with you that they should not be upset. But in the article, they quoted a grand total of ONE liberal that was "mad", and in truth all he said was that he thought the restaurant was overreacting to the hike, and really didn't sound that mad at all. So when you say you're posting "true" articles that the "left leaning" media won't show us, you need to make sure they're really true. There's a reason that most of these issues aren't showing up on Fox, and that's because it's not really news at all.

Well there's more to it.  If anything I have posted is wrong, prove it.  That's where discussions are started.  But I post stuff that I feel I can rely on. 

PS -- Thanks for the compliments...

[smitty]

Yep. It is great when a warning thread turns into a shining example. 

Amazing, isn't it!

[thetragichippy]

I think it would beneficial to the site to only allow links from Fox and CNN. I generally ignore them, but I've never clicked on a link to Western Journalism or similar sites and not been able to see a serious flaw in the article, whether it be an intentional misquote to inflame readers, a misrepresenting of numbers, a blanket statement assigned to a group of people with only one or two examples, etc. the sites that hoops used to make his point the other day, as well as some sites that have been used to make Obama look good do the same thing. So I would like to see talking points that are derived from news links actually come from news sources. Because while Fox and CNN are both slanted, they don't blatantly make things up to ignite their readers. There is at least some modicum of journalistic integrity to those sites. It's just a thought, but that's my personal suggestion to improving the political forum.

 

 

I think limiting links because of one persons opinion is handcuffing discussions.  We might as well have a template and have it approved before posting.

 

Sorry Bullets.....I think the posters need to follow the rules.

[EnlightenedChosenOne]

I love how smitty "liked" your post after he comes in the warning topic STILL calling people low information voters.

Yep. It is great when a warning thread turns into a shining example.

[smitty]

I love how smitty "liked" your post after he comes in the warning topic STILL calling people low information voters.
 

Low Information Voter is NOT a cut down!  Just think about it for second.  If it was, I would not use it.  Show me where I have gotten involved in name calling any where else!! 

[bullets13]

I think limiting links because of one persons opinion is handcuffing discussions. We might as well have a template and have it approved before posting.

Sorry Bullets.....I think the posters need to follow the rules.

It should be a reputable link. Links that are proven false time and time again play a major factor in a lot of the conflict on here. But of course, that is just one man's opinion.

[thetragichippy]

It should be a reputable link. Links that are proven false time and time again play a major factor in a lot of the conflict on here. But of course, that is just one man's opinion.

 

It would not affect me usually, but if I wanted to post an off the wall link to support an opinion I could not. I would be tied to CNN or Fox.....or I guess mainstream media.

[bullets13]

It would not affect me usually, but if I wanted to post an off the wall link to support an opinion I could not. I would be tied to CNN or Fox.....or I guess mainstream media.

I see what you're saying. I wouldn't be bothered by a statistical link or something like that, but I wouldn't mind seeing an end to blatantly false or misleading links used to bash the other side.

[PN-G bamatex]

Do we have to ruin it for everyone? Can we just ban specific posters from this part of the board?

 

This site has been a resource in the past. I write for the UA student newspaper, and I frequently participate in public debates. I've utilized this site to discuss topics of interest so that I could consider things from different perspectives, figure out what the "other sides" are thinking and anticipate what I might run into in the real world. On occasion, I've literally copied and pasted from my posts on this board to use things I've already written in papers and articles. It's also allowed me to refine points and have a centralized collection of sources and data. I would really hate to lose that.