Posted: Sat, 15. Sep 18, 04:05
Not at all. And please don't go.BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave
goodbye..
Not at all. And please don't go.BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave
goodbye..
Don't leave on my account BugMeister. I love your point of view. I only encourage you to expound your own thinking; as much as the links to others that you favor. I find no objection to your presence here. Quite the contrary. Please forgive me if I have offended or hurt in any way.BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave goodbye..
Nothing is over until we decide it is. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell No!BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave
goodbye..
Perhaps I am missing as new found USA facility for irony... well I hope so.Masterbagger wrote:Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell No!
stick around, bugsBugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave
goodbye..
TLDR: Democrat says Kavenaugh had to have known about some Democratic talking-point notes that were stolen from her office by someone else while Kavenaugh was serving in the Bush White House. Claims that his denials are "implausible" and that is enough to impeach him because he has denied knowing anything about these stolen documents.BugMeister wrote:read it here - I haven't time to write it all out..
http://www.nationalmemo.com/stolen-memo ... peachment/
Golly! I don't know... They'd.. Well, maybe they would have to say something of "substance?" Not sure, since that word isn't normally associated with politicians.Observe wrote:I wonder what we'd be left with, if we could filter out the hyperbole from all sides. Silence?
I won't tell you to leave or not to leave, rather I will ask you: why leave? Sure, you had come under a bit more scrutiny recently, but comparing to people like #Masterbagger or #Skism, these two are antagonized with just about everything they posted, especially the latter had to face outright hostility (often undeserved). Yet they're still here, just as they should. As long as they don't break any rule, they can post what they want, defend their POV if they care enough, or ignore all criticism as if they don't exit, and so can you. No one can make you leave ... except the mods with their banhammers. But leave only if because you want to, and not because any other people want you to. Be ready to accept challenge, criticism and even scrutiny is something we all have to accept before making our post, and not after it.BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave.
goodbye..
Mind if I ask who include in this they you are referring to? Seem this bugged you enough that you had to throw shade at it even when posting in a different thread, calling this they "trolls", again, using plural form. I wonder if you're talking about that one particular link posted by Skism in response to your two other links. Yes, one link, posted by one person. So far there is only one response to it (from me), in which the post was clearly and explicit rebuking that Breibart article. Btw, I rebuked simply due to the quality of the writing, that article would get the same score from me anywhere it appears. That post got a couple of nods, so I would assume they agreed with my assessment. Actually, there was another post in response to the Breibart's link from a different poster, who also denounced it. What your posts (here and in the other thread) seem to imply that there are a lot of people linking Breibart's articles left and right or giving it their endorsement. So ... dramatic much? Or ...Hank001 wrote:@ BugMeister
Mind if I join you?
When Breitbart starts being considered journalism it's time to opt out.
Next they'll comparing their tinfoil hats...
^ Wikipedia.Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike.[11] The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories,[12][13][14][15][16] and intentionally misleading stories.[17][18]
Not a news websiteOn November 30, 2016, Breitbart News announced plans to boycott the Kellogg's brand after its decision to stop advertising on the site because Breitbart is not "aligned with our values".[61] Later, Breitbart News announced they would be willing to go to "war" with Kellogg's over its decision to remove ads from the site.
BugMeister wrote:so, as it appears I am no longer welcome here
I shall take my leave
goodbye..
I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon, held a pretty important position in the Trump White House for some time. Breitbart is basically a propaganda website for Bannon and like minded people. I explicitly say propaganda because they resort to pretty lazy lies. My favourite one was (and I think I mentioned this before), when they took a picture of world cup winning footballer Lukas Podolski and implied hey was a refugee arriving illegally in Europe via jetski.Mightysword wrote:[...]
Setting that aside though, I don't know what Breibart is or why you hate it. [...]
It's just a thing with me ... I never really bother about the "who" detail. I judge the article based not on who wrote it, but its content, in this case the content is simply bad, and would still be bad even if it was published on a different platform. And it's not like I have not seen something just as bad on another platform. I mean ... if you had found that same article on ABC or CNN or FOX ... would you think it will make it ... less bad?clakclak wrote: I am happy to see that you managed to avoid it so far, altough I am fairly suprised as one of its co-founders, Steve Bannon ...
The other, and probably bigger problem is how do we define 'news'. I'm very harsh on the current state of mainstream media, but I'm not foolish enough to think they're alone taking the blame. Anyone here still read print newspaper? The thing with them is at the very least, it's plenty clear on a newspaper where is journalism and where is the columnist, basically you can see the line between reporting and opinionated. Now, take a look at CNN front page and sometime I feel HALF of it is opinionated pieces. Sure, they give it different name: opinion, analysis, op-edin ...etc... but ... that's not reporting. The problem from the reader side though, is often when people link or quote something from a news site, they automatically think them as news.Santi wrote: "news that you may be interested in" "content that you may like" "information based in your preferences" Are the staple of today news, sure, they are at the end of the articles (just above the clickbaits) but it does reinforce the point that the press is trying to manipulate the way you think, or trying to sell you something, so becoming that less trustworthy.
Is it hard though?Mightysword wrote:Sure, they give it different name: opinion, analysis, op-edin ...etc... but ... that's not reporting. The problem from the reader side though, is often when people link or quote something from a news site, they automatically think them as news.
That's not the right way to read news, and neither it was ever the right way to read when it was all printed.Mightysword wrote: We live in a days and age where we impulsively treats anything on the internet as 'news' as long as we find it agreeable with our point of view while in reality it's just another opinion on the internet.
That depends on a linkMightysword wrote: mean, looking at the history of this thread, links can be found plenty, but do even half of them can be counted as news?