MSNBC

[Jersey Girl]

Ceeboo...a guy is getting tanked in a bar on a date and trying to impress some chick. He makes claims.

What is the evidence for those claims? Because some guy said so? HOW is MSNBC trying to get Harris-Walz elected? Does MSNBC shoot lies about Trump out into the newsphere to defame him? Are they unethical in their reporting?

That's what would make for an actual discussion here.

[honorentheos]

Ceeboo...a guy is getting tanked in a bar on a date and trying to impress some chick. He makes claims.

What is the evidence for those claims? Because some guy said so? HOW is MSNBC trying to get Harris-Walz elected? Does MSNBC shoot lies about Trump out into the newsphere to defame him? Are they unethical in their reporting?

That's what would make for an actual discussion here.

One reason I was originally not going to reply to this thread was that it was started by a person who posted about Climate Change as Trump was including it in his rally rants ahead of Helene's predicted impacts. That ceebs included Trump's false claims about the government response in this thread further reinforced he's either ignorant or blatantly disingenuous when it comes to how the information sources he consumes are pushing Trump's message of the day.

Concerned about division and partisanship, my ass.

[ceeboo]

One reason I was originally not going to reply to this thread was that it was started by a person who posted about Climate Change as Trump was including it in his rally rants ahead of Helene's predicted impacts.

One of the reasons I am replying to this nonsense is that I have am perplexed by what your imagination comes up with.

Concerned about division and partisanship, my ass.

I don't recall expressing concern over partisanship, I am a member of this board - a board that is as utterly and blatantly biased and prejudiced as anything I have ever seen in my life.

I do recall expressing concern over division and that concern is entirely sincere - It has to do with what this country might be facing, no matter who wins in November.

As far as you ass is concerned, I think you might be using it more than you head far too often.

[canpakes]

Concerned about division and partisanship, my ass.

I don't recall expressing concern over partisanship, I am a member of this board - a board that is as utterly and blatantly biased and prejudiced as anything I have ever seen in my life.

Your choice of words seems to indicate some concern.

[honorentheos]

One reason I was originally not going to reply to this thread was that it was started by a person who posted about Climate Change as Trump was including it in his rally rants ahead of Helene's predicted impacts.

One of the reasons I am replying to this nonsense is that I have am perplexed by what your imagination comes up with.

Concerned about division and partisanship, my ass.

I don't recall expressing concern over partisanship, I am a member of this board - a board that is as utterly and blatantly biased and prejudiced as anything I have ever seen in my life.

I do recall expressing concern over division and that concern is entirely sincere - It has to do with what this country might be facing, no matter who wins in November.

As far as you ass is concerned, I think you might be using it more than you head far too often.

I will take you at your word you don't realize how your posting on this board parallels the most partisan rightwing outlets pushing their preferred candidate's message of the day. And you somehow view your concern about division as detached from your engagement in bitter partisanship, if blanketed in a passive aggressive veneer.

That just doesn't say much for your reasoning.

[Res Ipsa]

... from what I have seen/read about the unbelievable destruction form Helene, our government seems to be failing on an epic scale,

I'm curious about why you think that. Is there a factual basis for this? (I'll completely understand if you choose not to address this potential derail.)

I have no comment on the video, I'm afraid. (I should mention I only watched the first minute or so.) I'm already aware that MSNBC has a liberal bias. Besides, MSNBC isn't really on my radar as a primary news source.

That said, editorial bias one way or the other doesn't necessarily bother me as long as the reporting is factual and points me to the source material so I can check for myself. This quality is what makes reporting from sources like NPR and WSJ generally reliable despite editorially leaning in opposite directions. After all, "reliable reporting" /= "anything that flatters existing beliefs." Right?

But how 'bout them Tigers? Boy howdy! (Not only is this the second derail in this post, it is also serves as a formal announcement that I will be a Tigers fan for the remainder of the post-season.)

The WSJ is an example of a mainstream media source that has done a pretty good job of separating its reporting and editorial functions. The cable news shows are, in my opinion, terrible at that, which is why I don’t watch them.

[honorentheos]

I'm curious about why you think that. Is there a factual basis for this? (I'll completely understand if you choose not to address this potential derail.)

I have no comment on the video, I'm afraid. (I should mention I only watched the first minute or so.) I'm already aware that MSNBC has a liberal bias. Besides, MSNBC isn't really on my radar as a primary news source.

That said, editorial bias one way or the other doesn't necessarily bother me as long as the reporting is factual and points me to the source material so I can check for myself. This quality is what makes reporting from sources like NPR and WSJ generally reliable despite editorially leaning in opposite directions. After all, "reliable reporting" /= "anything that flatters existing beliefs." Right?

But how 'bout them Tigers? Boy howdy! (Not only is this the second derail in this post, it is also serves as a formal announcement that I will be a Tigers fan for the remainder of the post-season.)

The WSJ is an example of a mainstream media source that has done a pretty good job of separating its reporting and editorial functions. The cable news shows are, in my opinion, terrible at that, which is why I don’t watch them.

A good job, if one where the editorials are extreme enough the tilt still seems to leak over by reputation.

I had a conversation a while back about NPR's evolution from a solidly moderately conservative source to one that is left leaning over the course of the last six years or so. Folks on the right had claimed NPR was liberal leaning for far longer than that, but the reporting didn't support those claims. However, the Trump years created a self-fulfilling prophesy. How does an outlet stay moderate-conservative when issues around human rights and journalistic integrity become polarized, while their traditional audience of the educated white collar, middle- and upper middle class became the Democrat base? How many people on the board who would never vote Republican as long as Trump and his movement own the party would be historically somewhere in the historically center conservative quadrant of US politics?

Ceebs doesn't seem willing to be self-critical when it comes to the central question of why US politics became a moral war of good vs evil.

[ceeboo]

One of the reasons I am replying to this nonsense is that I have am perplexed by what your imagination comes up with.


I don't recall expressing concern over partisanship, I am a member of this board - a board that is as utterly and blatantly biased and prejudiced as anything I have ever seen in my life.

I do recall expressing concern over division and that concern is entirely sincere - It has to do with what this country might be facing, no matter who wins in November.

As far as you ass is concerned, I think you might be using it more than you head far too often.

I will take you at your word you don't realize how your posting on this board parallels the most partisan rightwing outlets pushing their preferred candidate's message of the day.

Very possible - I very rarely watch any major news outlets, they have lost all credibility with me and I don't trust anything they say. - YMMV- I watch a lot of podcasts - Mostly favoring R's - My favorites are Megyn Kelly and PBD - and do some reading (I really like Victor David Hanson - Suprise huh?)

Recently, to hear the other side, I have been watching some of Cenk TYT, The Majority Report Sam Sedar and David Packman (Spelling?) - When I watch Cenk and Packman, especially, I find myself completely disagreeing with almost everything they say but I still watch because I think it's valuable to at least here the other side.

And you somehow view your concern about division as detached from your engagement in bitter partisanship, if blanketed in a passive aggressive veneer.

I don't view partisanship as a direct threat to cities, life, and civilization - I do see division as potentially leading in that direction. Again, YMMV.

As far as your (and others) continued claim about my passive aggressive veneer, all I can say is that I am getting very close to reaching an end with tolerating the constant attacks, and bullying that happens as a organized group around here. What does that mean? I don't know. I try to be kind because I am a believer, but it is getting harder and harder and harder. Perhaps I will sign off one day and resist the temptation to return (If that is what happens, I think I will lose something that I have enjoyed (mostly but much less recently) for well over a decade now.

That just doesn't say much for your reasoning.

Of course.

[ceeboo]

Ceebs doesn't seem willing to be self-critical when it comes to the central question of why US politics became a moral war of good vs evil.

Is it possible for you to make a post on this board without mentioning my name in a derogatory way?

[honorentheos]

Ceeboo, I can't avoid pointing out your posting brings about the consequences you view as pushing you away. From the evolution discussions to the Prager videos to the threads the last few weeks, the trend is the same. You post something that is absolutely blind to the way folks view an issue that you claim to want to discuss, then avoid listening when the reactions don't align with your preconception of how a sincere person would engage. If you aren't willing to engage in actual discussion but want civil engagement, maybe consider listening actively instead of handwaving away the responses as group think. You appear to want people to follow a narrow set of reactions to your posts that don't support your self image of being a nice guy.