sort by best latest
Well put and I respect that you made your points and respected mine. Dang, only 125 characters left. Means that discussion can't happen. Well, it's been real. Suggestion: Write another Hub, only this time format so there can be true give and take!
Lib sol'n to many problems is money. The homeless problem can be solved by building more shelters. Cons see a better sol'n: Give a man a fish, and he'll eat today, Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. I was heretical, unfeeling. $ prob.
Giving a man a fish could also be considered compassionate. If the man is too weak to stand up and learn how to fish, should we ignore him or nurse him back to health?
MT, I was called an incompassionate )_____for not giving the fish. Of course we give the fish UNTIL he learns to fish or if sick and can't learn, other arrancements (SSD can be made, NO CONSERVATIVE, none, are incompassionate boobs. Someone else's $
I didn't mean to imply conservatives were in-compassionate. Rather, the two disagree on where compassion ends and handouts begin.
MT Dremer, what is an example of not agreeing where compassion ends and begins?
I've always trusted politifact (they rate comments false on both sides). And they fact-checked Jon Stewart's "50 Fox News Lies". Link:
lead off for politifact list is hannity. His show and others after news are opinion. News is Shep Smith. THese shows are opinion, ie Rachel Maddow. They try to have balanced viewpoints, (O'Reilly more than others);but OR gets carried away and shouts.
I do remember them making that distinction between news and opinion shows. But they have to know that the most popular talking heads, on a news network, are going to be perceived as reliable. They represent the network just as much as the anchors.
Using that logic, M Dremer, every time Chris, Mika, Steve Rattner or Rachel opens their mouth, I'm going to hear the gospel truth and I'll follow HRC BECAUSE she's a CLlnton who can tell no lies. I know that not to be true. I like Juan and K Powerss
Everyone who works at an organization represents that organization in some capacity. That's why an employee who says something racist will likely get fired. It reflects badly on a news network if its most prominent employees are so often wrong.
MTDremer, Anchors on FOX, right or wrong, have their own following, sort of a cult. They can afford that, given high FOX ratings, higher than all cable news outlests cobined. No, won't wash
You're right, their mistakes don't reflect badly to Fox execs because they line up with Fox's narrative (and what their audience wants to see). But it does hurt their overall credibility to people outside their core demographic.
MT Dremer, gloves are coming off, I see. All networks have narratives, agendas and it is the job of the watcher to buy into it-or not. An example might be the narrative of MSNBC or NBC. Let others do research for you: perpetuated false narrative.
The way I see it is, each of the TV news channels and news/commentary shows has its own choir. And in my case, it just so happens that I am a baritone in the Fox News Channel's choir.
Every network's agenda is the same; get high ratings. Even if it means distorting the truth. Getting to the bottom of things requires more research than just watching one channel. Which is why I referenced a fact-checking website, not msnbc.
Best to use a fact-checking website, CSM, Al Jazeera RCP, RCH, Wikipedia.Polifact has been getting more lib over years. Factcheck remains spins COMMENTARY, but check is ACCURATE, Best thing is to read accurate sources and make up own mind.no blog
There are many fact checking websites (that provide legitimate citations). I can't argue against 'liberal bias' because that's your opinion. But I agree that people should reference many sources before making political conclusions.
WHAT WORKS BEST for an individual.. b/c when you require that candidates pass a litmus test, then you don't listen to the substance of what they have to say, the WHOLE context. Then you'll get more talking points, less substance. I have to disagree