Politics and Religion
some refuse to admit to themselves or others, regarding FOX News. But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC ( I'll go even further and include Huffpo in the later group).
-- Modified on 8/15/2014 6:57:57 AM
Related Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/15/tom-coburn-fox-news-not-fair-balanced_n_568143...
JackDunphy
posted
2 / 68
In my opinion you'd need lily white thin skin, to call this horrific racism.
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/black-gop-candidate-in-florida-faces-horrific-racism/53b41adc78c90a28d7000248?cn=tbla
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/highlight/black-gop-candidate-in-florida-faces-horrific-racism/53b41adc78c90a28d7000248?cn=tbla
some refuse to admit to themselves or others, regarding FOX News. But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC ( I'll go even further and include Huffpo in the later group).
-- Modified on 8/15/2014 6:57:57 AM
-- Modified on 8/15/2014 6:57:57 AM
GaGambler
posted
4 / 68
Timbow
posted
6 / 68
JackDunphy
posted
7 / 68
JackDunphy
posted
10 / 68
salonpas
posted
14 / 68
RINOs say the stupidest shit when they think they can gain favor with the Left. I don't know what they're thinking. The Lefties then turn right around and call them racist...
some refuse to admit to themselves or others, regarding FOX News. But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC ( I'll go even further and include Huffpo in the later group).
-- Modified on 8/15/2014 6:57:57 AM
-- Modified on 8/15/2014 6:57:57 AM
JackDunphy
posted
16 / 68
JackDunphy
posted
17 / 68
salonpas
posted
18 / 68
Yes, valid point that the video was edited to cut out the MSNBC, but the story did report that is did include it. Since you seem to be the one and only expert on what he actually said, what do you view as his main point?
So, I guess we'll have to score it, Republicans 1, Democrats 0, for the time being, or, Republicans ahead by a nose!
To focus on the Headline as a statement of fact, which you deem false, you must prove he is a fan of Fox News. I on the other hand, as I imagine many people did, just viewed the headline as a turn of phase which meant that he had some criticism of Fox News; in this case specific segments of it, which indeed the story revealed to be true. You still haven't answered my question. That's probably because, as your MO, you are straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel. The answer to my question is the camel!
"Your question is irrelevant here." Hmmm! Another one of your MO's, dedicating what is relevant or irrelevant to the discussion. I bet you get away with that a lot, in your personal life! Not! You do so here and make believe you've won the argument, but really you're not fooling anyone but yourself. "No wonder you see no problems with the media today, at least the media you agree with." Talk about being dishonest. If you've read my posts in this thread, you'd know what you just said it untrue. I think we'd best call it a night before you spin any further out of control!
"I don't know which if any sport or sports team you follow but let's pick The Dodgers. Let's say you publicly state you can't stand Clayton Kershaw and you refuse to watch when he's pitching. Based on that statement someone comes along and now states that Matt's not exactly a fan of the LA Dodgers. I notice this statement and ask to be shown the proof that Matt doesn't like the Dodgers because none is on the table. At that point this person claims it's my responsibility to prove Matt is a fan. I say to them hogwash, not my job." On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable and well thought out argument, except for one problem. It's not a problem that reveals itself to the untrained eye, but to someone who must use logic and scientific method in their work, it stands out immediately. In your example, I follow the Dodgers. That's what's called a constant, and a reference point around your argument builds. In this case, your reasoning and argument is good. However, there is nothing in what you've produced to make the case, from your posts, that establishes Coburn is a follower of Fox News. You have to make that case before you can use your argument as it applies to the articles headline (a camel). You cannot just assume that to be true. To make it clear, I'm in no way defending the article or the authors use of the headline, that's an error in your interpretation (a gnat). I'm challenging you on: 1. your logic, and 2. how you got stuck on something so inconsequential (a gnat), when the real meat of the issue is Coburn's main point (a camel); we should not try to control what and how the press reports the news, but the press should leave out commentary when doing so, or if commentary is given, it should be clearly stated as being such. I have no idea your views regarding Fox News; whether you watch it or not. But, your continual straining at the gnat makes it easy for me to imagine that it's you who feels a need to defend it. But, of course that's merely my interpretation of how you are coming across. I could be wrong of course. And, I'm not much invested in being right or wrong on the issue.
I have no idea your views regarding Fox News; whether you watch it or not. But, your continual straining at the gnat makes it easy for me to imagine that it's you who feels a need to defend it. But, of course that's merely my interpretation of how you are coming across. I could be wrong of course. And, I'm not much invested in being right or wrong on the issue.
Your post headline was misleading .
"GOP Senator Coburn says what most of us already know"
How did you determine that? I'll take the same liberty with most as you did.
The truth is, "most" of us are uninformed.
The second sentence of your post was also misleading.
"But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC"
In the huffy post link you posted, he did not mention MSNBC. Where did you come up with that?
For the record, my favorite news source when lights are out, MHz WORLDVIEW D.C. – Washington WNVC 30.1
California - Los Angeles KLCS 58.4
Colorado – Denver CPT12 12.3
Direct TV 2183
"GOP Senator Coburn says what most of us already know"
How did you determine that? I'll take the same liberty with most as you did.
The truth is, "most" of us are uninformed.
The second sentence of your post was also misleading.
"But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC"
In the huffy post link you posted, he did not mention MSNBC. Where did you come up with that?
For the record, my favorite news source when lights are out, MHz WORLDVIEW D.C. – Washington WNVC 30.1
California - Los Angeles KLCS 58.4
Colorado – Denver CPT12 12.3
Direct TV 2183
Regarding your points: "Your post headline was misleading .
"GOP Senator Coburn says what most of us already know"
How did you determine that?" Everything I've read indicates to me that most people recognize that fair and balanced reporting is hard to come by. Those on the right view MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream media sources as being biased, while those on the left view Fox News and being biased. Many in both camps, if they are honest with themselves will be able to see acknowledge with their favorite news source reports a story that is biased, and/or is interjecting commentary without acknowledging doing so. In short, I am under the belief that Senator Coburn was stating what most everyone knows already. Again, this is my belief based on what I've read. If you believe otherwise, I can understand, but it wasn't my attempt to mislead anyone, just stating what I thought was common knowledge.
"The second sentence of your post was also misleading.
"But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC"
In the huffy post link you posted, he did not mention MSNBC. Where did you come up with that? "
From the Buzzfeed article referenced in the Huffpo article: "“The truth is somewhere in between the three,” Corbun said of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. (A livestream from local politics blog TheOkie cut out before Coburn made that comment.) I guess one has to trust their report, since the video didn't tape it, or not. However, it seems to fit with the point Coburn was trying to make
"GOP Senator Coburn says what most of us already know"
How did you determine that?" Everything I've read indicates to me that most people recognize that fair and balanced reporting is hard to come by. Those on the right view MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream media sources as being biased, while those on the left view Fox News and being biased. Many in both camps, if they are honest with themselves will be able to see acknowledge with their favorite news source reports a story that is biased, and/or is interjecting commentary without acknowledging doing so. In short, I am under the belief that Senator Coburn was stating what most everyone knows already. Again, this is my belief based on what I've read. If you believe otherwise, I can understand, but it wasn't my attempt to mislead anyone, just stating what I thought was common knowledge.
"The second sentence of your post was also misleading.
"But, also when he says the truth is some where between FOX News and CNN and MSNBC"
In the huffy post link you posted, he did not mention MSNBC. Where did you come up with that? "
From the Buzzfeed article referenced in the Huffpo article: "“The truth is somewhere in between the three,” Corbun said of MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. (A livestream from local politics blog TheOkie cut out before Coburn made that comment.) I guess one has to trust their report, since the video didn't tape it, or not. However, it seems to fit with the point Coburn was trying to make
Related Link: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/gop-senator-some-of-fox-news-totally-not-fair-a...
hoist by your own petard on. "Say goodnight Gracie!"
1. That's in your mind, not mine! The fact that you even imagine it, let alone say it speaks to the level of grandiosity you harbor. 2. I choose to read the Huffpo heading as a common turn of phrase, not a statement regarding the absolute state of Senator Coburn being a fan or not of Fox News. You can choose to do so, but I'm under no compunction to do so. The arguments you use to do so are full of holes, which you are blind to. I have said to some of my family members, "I'm not exactly a fan of Olive Garden." This is no hypothetical example, like yours. However, some of my grandkids love going there. So, when one of them wants to go there, I attend with them, enjoy their company, find something on the menu that usually turns out to be agreeable to my tastes. I would never choose to go there, if I'm making the decision for myself. But, here's the rub; I'm no fan of any particular restaurant! Particularly when you compare it to sports fans. I have one sister who is a Seattle Seahawks fan, while the other is an Oakland Raider fan. Now, get in the same room with the two of them during a Seahawks-Raider game, then you can talk about fan-ship in absolute terms. Usually, in my experience, it's just a common turn of phrase, or statement that is not meant to be debated in absolute terms. You, demanding to do so says more about you than me.
2. I choose to read the Huffpo heading as a common turn of phrase, not a statement regarding the absolute state of Senator Coburn being a fan or not of Fox News. You can choose to do so, but I'm under no compunction to do so. The arguments you use to do so are full of holes, which you are blind to. I have said to some of my family members, "I'm not exactly a fan of Olive Garden." This is no hypothetical example, like yours. However, some of my grandkids love going there. So, when one of them wants to go there, I attend with them, enjoy their company, find something on the menu that usually turns out to be agreeable to my tastes. I would never choose to go there, if I'm making the decision for myself. But, here's the rub; I'm no fan of any particular restaurant! Particularly when you compare it to sports fans. I have one sister who is a Seattle Seahawks fan, while the other is an Oakland Raider fan. Now, get in the same room with the two of them during a Seahawks-Raider game, then you can talk about fan-ship in absolute terms. Usually, in my experience, it's just a common turn of phrase, or statement that is not meant to be debated in absolute terms. You, demanding to do so says more about you than me.
me explaining my point of view. I'm not asking or demanding anyone accept my point of view, just trying to clarify. It does show, despite the differences Ed and I have with each other, I respect him enough to try to explain my point of view, and say where I think his logic is flawed, which as you've probably noticed, I seldom do with you!
the difference is he has the patience to explain it while i just cut to the chase and call you out as the smug dickhead you are. (insert passive aggressive smiley face) Go ahead, have a blast at the last word, I know you are compelled to have it.
me explaining my point of view. I'm not asking or demanding anyone accept my point of view, just trying to clarify. It does show, despite the differences Ed and I have with each other, I respect him enough to try to explain my point of view, and say where I think his logic is flawed, which as you've probably noticed, I seldom do with you!
"The title of your linked article was extremely dishonest. Also their video was edited in attempt to reflect a dishonest characterization of the event," It may not have been accurate according to how you interpreted it, but going from inaccurate to dishonest is to claim intent, which you have not proved.
"Sen. Coburn never said he was not a fan of Fox News." True, But, did the headline say that he said he was not a fan of Fox News? No! Did you ever prove he was?
"Then there is the edit they made where he criticized MSNBC by name, but they cut that out, GEE WHIZ." Wrongo bongo by your own admission! P.S. Was that your "Checkmate" post that got pulled?
"Sen. Coburn never said he was not a fan of Fox News." True, But, did the headline say that he said he was not a fan of Fox News? No! Did you ever prove he was?
"Then there is the edit they made where he criticized MSNBC by name, but they cut that out, GEE WHIZ." Wrongo bongo by your own admission! P.S. Was that your "Checkmate" post that got pulled?
I had every "intention" to stop. You still haven't refuted my last points. And, I know someone who hasn't proved his point!
"the language." And, you can make a declaration on someone's intent, and are free to decide what is relevant or irrelevant to the discussion. You're sounding pretty high and mighty to me!
And, saying my analogies suck is a far cry from explaining in what way you see them as not useful, as I did with yours; which I showed blew your arguments and logic out of the water. And, no you've touched on very few of the points I've brought up.
No doubt you are hoping I'll read something into it, and share that with you. Nope! I know that game. You've played it often in this thread!
Point out where it seems I have been looking for your ulterior motives. I've just been refuting your logic!
Sounds like refuting it to me! See link below! Keep digging! It a long way to China, and I don't see how you'll ever get out of this hole otherwise! ;
Keep digging! It a long way to China, and I don't see how you'll ever get out of this hole otherwise! ;Related Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
Re-read the definition from Merriam-Webster. They call that refuting. I'll trust them more than you, so I'll go with their definition.
Related Link: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/refute
Wouldn't something have to be untrue before it could be considered dishonest or misleading? Can something be dishonest or misleading if it's true?
I dare you to run your opinion, on how women argue, by all the women in your life!
It's so much fun watching you twist yourself into knots trying to wiggle out of the 'refute' definition. Good luck with that. I think you know that I haven't changed the subject. You're just hoping I will! -- Modified on 8/22/2014 10:30:45 AM