The Nehor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 34 minutes ago, longview said: Breitbart has more credibility than CNN. With Nazis and KKK members. 2 Link to comment
BlueDreams Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 24 minutes ago, bsjkki said: What is your source for this? I find it incredibly funny. Slate as a great in-depth source of news and the NPR as minimally partisan. HAHAHAHAHAH! I think that laughter may be based on where you already stand on this. If you're very conservative or liberal minimally biased news sources in the other direction are going to seem extremely biased, because its comparative to where you're standing. Personally, this doesn't seem all that off. Although, i would put Fox news a littler further down on the sesnationalistic news end. But that's based on my biases that are slightly to moderately left of center. When googling this, I found an ultra-right site that also criticized this chart. The funny thing is, they were calling sites that I consider very much right of center as left and the ones slightly left of center as basically socialist. With luv, BD Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 41 minutes ago, longview said: Or maybe they are not so innocent. They just might be weaker terrorists unable to get the upper hand on the stronger terrorists. Factions fighting among themselves. After all, Islam is not so much a religion as it s a totalitarian ideology. It is NOT a race but diverse from many regions of the world. Cute fantasy about weaker terrorists. When you have to make up theoretical reasons to refuse refugees it might be your ban is a bad idea. Islam is more a totalitarian ideology then it is a religion? What paranoid fantasy makes this delusion seem plausible? 1 Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, BlueDreams said: I think that laughter may be based on where you already stand on this. If you're very conservative or liberal minimally biased news sources in the other direction are going to seem extremely biased, because its comparative to where you're standing. Personally, this doesn't seem all that off. Although, i would put Fox news a littler further down on the sesnationalistic news end. But that's based on my biases that are slightly to moderately left of center. When googling this, I found an ultra-right site that also criticized this chart. The funny thing is, they were calling sites that I consider very much right of center as left and the ones slightly left of center as basically socialist. With luv, BD I have met people who think Fox is left wing news designed to be slightly less left wing than other sources to trick true conservative Americans into swallowing their lies. It is all a conspiracy!!!! 1 Link to comment
BlueDreams Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 22 hours ago, rpn said: I am still trying to get my head around why the media is calling it a "muslim ban" at all. The NY Times (and virtually all of the media I have seen) creates the muslim thing, when the order prohibits Syrian refugees (now that ISIS is falling surely we recognize the temptation ISIS would have to encourage their fighters to go elsewhere and slip through these vetting processes) indefinitely, all refugees for a period that allows efforts to review and improve vetting, and blocks those from Iran (supports at least Hezabollah and other record of violent behaviors), Libya (pretty dysfunctional so not a good partner for figuring out who are good people and who are not, and a current home/training for ISIS), Iraq (ISIS holds territory there, but is being overtaken and may want to find a new place to go to); Somalia (chaos and lots of violent terrorist actions --- same as Sudan, Syria and Yemen). They may be majority ISLAM, but they are more importantly countries where terrorism reigns unchecked by stable government. And there a a whole lot of other countries with muslim majorities who are not included in the restrictions. More technical articles are moreso pointing out that its a ban on a number of muslim majority countries. It's also a first step in what Trump is wanting to do, which is to preference christian refugees over muslim ones, as someone else has already pointed out in this thread. These countries were already under concerns lists and had a number of restraints already in hand. This is where you're getting the short hand muslim ban and calls of religious discrimination....becaause it's written right into the clause. No one thinks this is a ban on all muslims. But it's still infringing on the spirit of religious liberties. Quote I would strenuously object too to a ban based on faith. But it seems to me that this ban is based on sound anti-terrorist, desire to protect the USofA. And that our country's media is determined to suggest it to be a religious ban when that is not what the executive order decrees at all. (I do recognize that those enforcing the ban who are biased against and/or afraid of Muslims might impose/infuse their personal ideas into the way they implement the Ex Order, but that can be dealt with by training and firing, when necessary. ETA the full text of the Executive Order. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/us/politics/refugee-muslim-executive-order-trump.html Also note the Washington Post opinion chastising the Mormon Church for not opposing Trump's action complete ignored the actual text and created its own allegation of a "Muslim ban" too. This is by no means sound anti-terrorism. It's based on fear mongering of a religious body and countries. These populations hold a microscopic chance of causing an individual security risk. Especially when they've been vetter already, for months to apply for refugee status and/or visas. Here's some stats for you: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/index.html if you don't trust the news source, just look up the stats themselves. I literally was more in danger from at least 3 of my activities this week (hiking, driving, crossing the street) than this. I keep thinking that this must be what it sounded like in the 1800's to mormons by surrounding populations. Pointing out a sense of risk to security, calls of being overridden or having their laws pushed on the other population, etc. When there was little evidence that this would happen. With luv, BD 1 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 52 minutes ago, Gray said: I'm afraid you're in denial about Breitbart, Darren. not really. more like you are baring false witness against your neighbor. Biased, YES, absolutely. Supremist? Nope. Link to comment
mapman Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, ERayR said: Follow the conversation, Mapman stated he did not understand what Trump was trying to do. Just pointing out that it had something to do with terrorism, nothing more so your speculation is a miss. Just to be clear, I've said that I think that it is obvious that Trump wants his followers to think that this is him delivering on his promised Muslim ban. What I don't know is whether he actually thinks this is going to accomplish anything useful, and his choice of countries is pretty much inexplicable. Edited January 30, 2017 by mapman 1 Link to comment
BlueDreams Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, longview said: Or maybe they are not so innocent. They just might be weaker terrorists unable to get the upper hand on the stronger terrorists. Factions fighting among themselves. After all, Islam is not so much a religion as it s a totalitarian ideology. It is NOT a race but diverse from many regions of the world. What muslims you knew, you obviously did not know well enough. This is ridiculous! I would recommend watching "I am Malala" the documentary, to get an idea of the diversity in islamic thought that certainly doesn't run as a totalitarian ideology...any more than Christianity or Judaism does. You may point out that Malala is exceptional in her experiences and thoughts. But then again you're point to the worst of a religion to also drive a picture home. I think it's only fair there be balance in exceptions. With luv, BD 1 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 56 minutes ago, longview said: Breitbart has more credibility than CNN. Calling Breitbart supremacist simply is an indication of your intolerance for understanding other viewpoints. Nothing more than a smear. You should be ashamed. I'm not one for "shaming" others when they get things wrong but you hit the nail right on the head. Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 25 minutes ago, The Nehor said: With Nazis and KKK members. WRONG! 1 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Cute fantasy about weaker terrorists. When you have to make up theoretical reasons to refuse refugees it might be your ban is a bad idea. Islam is more a totalitarian ideology then it is a religion? What paranoid fantasy makes this delusion seem plausible? Longview is wrong in saying that Islam is not a religion. It most definitely is. What's interesting to me though regarding Islam, and something I've yet to get an answer from anyone, what is it about Islam that wherever Muslims form a majority, the type of government they set up is quite antithical to Western values? Edited January 30, 2017 by Darren10 Link to comment
bsjkki Posted January 30, 2017 Author Share Posted January 30, 2017 8 minutes ago, BlueDreams said: More technical articles are moreso pointing out that its a ban on a number of muslim majority countries. It's also a first step in what Trump is wanting to do, which is to preference christian refugees over muslim ones, as someone else has already pointed out in this thread. These countries were already under concerns lists and had a number of restraints already in hand. This is where you're getting the short hand muslim ban and calls of religious discrimination....becaause it's written right into the clause. No one thinks this is a ban on all muslims. But it's still infringing on the spirit of religious liberties. This is by no means sound anti-terrorism. It's based on fear mongering of a religious body and countries. These populations hold a microscopic chance of causing an individual security risk. Especially when they've been vetter already, for months to apply for refugee status and/or visas. Here's some stats for you: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/immigration-stats-by-the-numbers-trnd/index.html if you don't trust the news source, just look up the stats themselves. I literally was more in danger from at least 3 of my activities this week (hiking, driving, crossing the street) than this. I keep thinking that this must be what it sounded like in the 1800's to mormons by surrounding populations. Pointing out a sense of risk to security, calls of being overridden or having their laws pushed on the other population, etc. When there was little evidence that this would happen. With luv, BD I'm breaking a rule here...and citing a conservative source. This ban is temporary. There is a Christian genocide taking place and those from minority religions should be helped. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444370/donald-trump-refugee-executive-order-no-muslim-ban-separating-fact-hysteria https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/26/magazine/is-this-the-end-of-christianity-in-the-middle-east.html?_r=0 And just an FYI, David French is a never-Trumper. One more exercise for you since my bias as a right of center thinker and my viewing of the chart is only based on my bias and not as fact (that is how I interpreted your comment to me), go read the headlines from all those sources and jot down, where you think they should fall based on their current reporting. As we all know, statistics can be made or interpreted in so many different ways in order to fit whatever agenda people support so understanding the source is vitally important when analyzing the statistics. Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Gray said: It might seem like that if you get your news only from the most extremist of sources. CNN isn't great, but at least it's respectable and not haven for Alt Reit propaganda. But they do provide much ALT Left propaganda and, so far as I can glean, ALT Left organizations have fomented far more violence and chaos in this country than have ALT right groups. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 19 minutes ago, Darren10 said: WRONG! No, it is correct. Just not exclusively them (sadly). Also I believe you are supposed to lean into the mic when you use that line. Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 minute ago, The Nehor said: No, it is correct. Just not exclusively them (sadly). Also I believe you are supposed to lean into the mic when you use that line. You directly implied that Breitbart's racist. They are not...NOT. (leaning into the mic... NOT!!!). Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Just now, Darren10 said: You directly implied that Breitbart's racist. They are not...NOT. (leaning into the mic... NOT!!!). Then why do racists go there to get their news? Go to white supremacist and KKK online locations and see who they cite. Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Then why do racists go there to get their news? Go to white supremacist and KKK online locations and see who they cite. Racists go to CNN to get their news. Who cares? Could you please provide a reference to Breitbart being "more credible than CNN", with "Nazis and KKK members"? I am not going to White Supremacist websites unless you link one here. Link to comment
Gray Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, longview said: Only you can judge the validity of my news sources. Your wisdom is breathtaking. If you think Breitbart is more respectable than CNN, then your perspective is clearly distorted by confirmation bias. Link to comment
Gray Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, bsjkki said: What is your source for this? I find it incredibly funny. Slate as a great in-depth source of news and the NPR as minimally partisan. HAHAHAHAHAH! It's just someone's subjective analysis. I don't fully agree with it - I'd put the Washington Post further left - Slate as well. But it's a pretty good big picture look at media sources. I see a lot of people uncritically posting fake news (both right wing and left wing) all the time on facebook. Link to comment
Gray Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Darren10 said: not really. more like you are baring false witness against your neighbor. Biased, YES, absolutely. Supremist? Nope. Breitbart has admitted to catering to the alt right. Quoting them as a news source is as about as respectable as posting a David Duke for Senator sign on your lawn. Link to comment
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 35 minutes ago, Darren10 said: Racists go to CNN to get their news. Who cares? Could you please provide a reference to Breitbart being "more credible than CNN", with "Nazis and KKK members"? I am not going to White Supremacist websites unless you link one here. I am not linking to a white supremacist site to prove this. Just googling Bannon and David Duke (former wizard of the KKK) will take you to sites talking about how Duke sees Bannon's appointment as progress in normalizing white supremacy. If Bannon disagrees with this he should condemn Duke. More chillingly Trump pretended not to know who Duke is when asked to condemn him and the KKK despite having mentioned him in the past and condemning him then. Maybe he forgot who Duke is since. Doubtful since Trump has said that he has "the world's greatest memory". Of course he forgot he had said that later so who knows? 1 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Here's a very good analysis and critique of Trump's executive order. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2017/01/30/stop-calling-it-a-muslim-ban-n2278347 Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 25 minutes ago, Gray said: If you think Breitbart is more respectable than CNN, then your perspective is clearly distorted by confirmation bias. Distorted, no. biased, yes. We all have biases. Link to comment
thesometimesaint Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, longview said: Or maybe they are not so innocent. They just might be weaker terrorists unable to get the upper hand on the stronger terrorists. Factions fighting among themselves. After all, Islam is not so much a religion as it s a totalitarian ideology. It is NOT a race but diverse from many regions of the world. You do realize that Mormon's have killed Christians? It must be our totalitarian ideology. Christians killing Christians in Syria. SEE https://stream.org/fighting-christians-syria-civil-war-politics/ Link to comment
Darren10 Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I am not linking to a white supremacist site to prove this. Just googling Bannon and David Duke (former wizard of the KKK) will take you to sites talking about how Duke sees Bannon's appointment as progress in normalizing white supremacy. If Bannon disagrees with this he should condemn Duke. More chillingly Trump pretended not to know who Duke is when asked to condemn him and the KKK despite having mentioned him in the past and condemning him then. Maybe he forgot who Duke is since. Doubtful since Trump has said that he has "the world's greatest memory". Of course he forgot he had said that later so who knows? Yes, there are/were those who worked at Breitbart with racist past. Steve Bannon is one of them. He and others still may have a racist tendencies but that does not make Breitbart News, a website I rarely go to, a racist site and it surely does not mean to imply that those who get their news there or find them more credible than CNN are racist, which is precisely what you implied. And we all know Trump's memory is "the best". It is so good that it is simply "the best". It's a beautiful memory, "the best" memory. Link to comment
Recommended Posts