What news outlet/resource informs, and doesn't try to influence?

His middle name was "Christ"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

holy south american catholic christmas trees
i didnt notice that.

probably an Argentinian thing
https://www.thoughtco.com/why-did-argentina-accept-nazi-criminals-2136579

i wonder what the long form birth certificate looks like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Parental_citizenship
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Donald_Trump

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"what do we say to old men who ask to see our long-form ?"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

? Bizarre.
Nobody mentioned any titles, or any of "my" threads. You keep going haywire like that - do you know why?
Why not read posts, and reply to what is in them?
Maybe this explains things:

It might be better if you also avoided replying, to those posts you did not read. Your "predictions" of their contents don't work out very well, by the evidence.

I never said you did. That ability to smell a Republican voter around a corner? Reread.
So your accuracy continues to be what it has been - a fantasy of yours. You've been wrong about essentially everything you posted about in this thread - factually in error, making false claims.
Or as noted:

- - -

More guesswork from complete ignorance. No reality check.

Doesn't matter what just happened to the last try - that is how they post, that is how they will continue to post.

The best part: That's why I said I don't post personal info - I literally told the guy I'd been setting him up. And he walks right in.

As noted: the Bandar-log do not learn.

Which is not all bad. Genuinely stupid and reality-free bs from the dumbass is easier to handle than the clever half-truths the pros deal in.

Meanwhile: Reality is diverging from the Republican Party line, is the central problem. Its victims are under stress - they are not ok, and although I much prefer they be obviously and stupidly wrong again when they set about projecting and trolling and focusing on "motivation" so forth, there is real danger in the prospect of the Republican bubbleworld popping - too many believers, too little support for the sane and informed on national media.

The Republican propaganda "bothsides" corruption of the OP search for straight news is crazy-making - that's a sincere search, and its going to fail because the propaganda feed from the American fascist movement has blinded it. Multiply its failure by (say) 40 million - Trump voters looking for a way out, nonvoters put off by the framing of the elections on TV, etc - vaguely aware that they are trapped but unable to see the cage. Frustration is more dangerous than defeat, as a motive for bad stuff.

 

So you don't have a joke to post?

 

For those who follow certain online pubs, do you pay for subscriptions? The Economist is $12 for 12 issues, that seems really reasonable.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-economist/

Think I've found what I'm looking for.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

That is really reasonable. I haven't paid for online subscriptions but over the years I have subscribed to the Economist (including as a kid) as well as the WSJ before the last buyout.

 

It seems cheap for sure, I'm willing to pay for an unbiased news source. lol I really like the tone.

 

I used to get the Economist and another magazine that was called "Atlas:World Press Review".

It was full of articles that were reposted from newspapers and magazines from all over the world so you were getting local stories from more places than just W. Europe and the U.S.

There were sections on Africa, Central America, etc.

 

This is how they post. and this is how they will continue to post.
- - - - -
Nothing to match post #95. Your bar is too high.

You still have that exercise I recommended - posting an accurate paraphrase of one of my posts on this thread.
Just one.
So you can learn what it feels like to read, reason, and reply to an actual post. You might like it.
- - - -

The Economist is a rightwing corporate biased source, that occasionally appears liberal or "balanced" to Americans (and almost nobody else) by comparison with the standard news sources in the US.

That doesn't make it a bad source - it's better imo than ABC. CNN, etc, on many issues - but it's important to realize what one must allow for: Its selection of facts and narrative will be influenced by capitalist economics and theory as framed by business schools and corporate interests.

In general and on average: The Economist will not favor higher minimum wages, will favor tax cuts for the rich, will not be reliable in reporting economic inequality, will tend to support even further deregulation of industry (significantly, international finance, which the Economist apparently believes has no environmental implications) , will favor economic pressures on markets over governmental coercion regardless of likely outcome (climate change, GMOs, bubbles and crashes, monopoly and monopsony, etc), will tend to favor anything that looks like a "market based" solution over anything that looks like governmental coercion, and so forth. It may even favor privatization of Social Security, oppose net neutrality, and similar disasters, "on principle". Also, being nonAmerican, it will be shaky in its comprehension of slavery and the racial aftermath - American racism is poorly understood by European intellectuals. Likewise guns.

The Economist endorsed Reagan, and Bill Clinton - and it describes its endorsement of Clinton as a "liberal" stance, which is one's first clue.
It then endorsed W - both elections - which sets a firm limit on how "unbiased" it can be assumed to be, how aware it is of racial matters in the US, and how reliable one can assume its reports on military contracting and the military/industrial complex are.

On the upside, it does fact check very well - its biases, if any, will be confined to the selection of those facts, and the narrative constructed around them.

 

Okay, good to know. I guess my search will continue. Reuters has been suggested and it too has the same “center” rating as The Economist.
What to think. :/

 

It's fine. Iceaura is going to say everything you mention is Republican Propaganda so no need to go down that road.

Most publications that are not in the U.S. tend to be a little more balanced about U.S. stories because they're not hot button topics for them.

 

Except for Reuters, and The Economist, and so forth, which are not as dominated by R framing as respectable US media. So iceaura is going to do nothing of the sort.

Which makes you wrong again, of course, despite the information on the thread right in front of you. Slow learner, or some other agenda?

What they tend to be - some of them - is a bit more accurate, especially if American peculiarities such as racism or guns are not involved. The "balance" is then a side effect - did they try for "balance" (and some do), they might well end up in the bothsides rut of Republican propaganda.

 

it is not a rut
it is the bully playing the victim to maintain being the bully

it is a social generational cultural intellectual-emotional issue

the mandate of the group compliance is to maintain the power structure that supports the pyramid system of abusive dictatorship maintaining the domination over others to maintain emotional self confidence.

individuation to the state of the individual man from the boy becomes the predator bully that must display and maintain domination over others to maintain self esteem and self worth.

things like archie commics and such like are filled with it.
modern childrens TV programs are built around it reinforcing it as racial & xenophobic stereo type models of forced perceptual compliance for social value, interaction and judgment of others.

in short brain washing children
dealing with the adult is dealing with a brain washed child as an adult
this is much like a hard core drug addict
the psyche is very similar in some aspects while very different in others.
however, the hard core drug addiction is an easy metaphor to explain the compulsion toward the behaviours and how they wont simply change, even in those who may say they wish to change.

 

I would also note the part where, increasingly, conservatives have offered some of the most fascinating reflections on themselves. Generally speaking, a both-sides consideration is a nearly amorphous human behavior in which our fears of others somehow relate to our perceptions of our own weakness; more particularly, though, there is nothing symmetric about its evolutionary tracks in a comparative left-right, conservative-liberal, or tradtionalist-progressive dualism.

To be even more particular, it's gotten to the point that we can kind of tell what is going on with American political conservatives or conservatism according to what the advocates complain about the opposition. It's like the old Rovian reassignment of strengths and weaknesses has become a nearly-delusional living praxis.

The pizza thing, for instance, and then the anonymous conspiracy theory and bizarre rabbitholing, and while pretty much anyone could have told you such things as rumored go on among aristocrats, the emerging actual story will either snare its rumored target in some way or not, but it turns out it's the powerful and infulential these potsherds ostensibly support who appear up to their freaking necks in exposure for enabling.

There is the idea that for all conservative libertarianism railed against institutionalism and dynastic politics, Trump is following a course Republicans have been pursuing at least since the Nixon administration, and some of those people are still around.

And we can reach around for myriad easy examples of conservative self-harm. We're, what, ten years or so past the oil companies busing in support from other facilities, and conservatives still haven't learned? Do we really believe that? And what does it say of conservatives if we do, even more so if they expect we should? To highlight a particular aspect, I suppose, is the point.

Around the internet, you've seen farm produce and botnet content; at Sciforums, we've seen what look like bots rolling through, and the only thing that might make you or I doubt our witness of any occasion resembling farm content is the prospect of why anyone would bother at this backwater. But you know you've seen it, and there now exists a new Poe question, between genuine article, provocateur, organized disinformation, bot, and basket case, and as all of the dumbassed populist illusions slip away, once again we find ourselves wondering:

• Outside agitator? Well, at the British-owned website under the daily administration of this guy from Australia, and subject to any number of internationalist arguments, often tied to VPNs or suspect IPs, that frequently fail to comprehend the basics of American history and contemporary living reality, it's apparently the longtime member who can with reasonable accuracy recall the American history he has lived through and studied, and even according to coherent and realistic application, must necessarily be the outside agitator?

• Paid propaganda? Okay, so the one who keeps coming up with Republican positions but "never voted Republican"—(check his formulation for what is not necessarily, or, at least, explicitly, untrue)—looks past typal neoPoe while fulfilling it? It's a twofer.

↳ More to the point, let us compare the prospects of paid propaganda, and outside agitators implicitly presumed to be somehow organized, according to what we already know about it: The majority of organized, even paid, foreign misinformation and propaganda affecting the American discourse during the Trump years has sought to advance aspects of American conservative populism most discrediting toward and disabling of our nation's function, influence, and prestige. Meanwhile, the reasons you or I might not believe we're actually seeing a farm troll here or there is that it makes no market sense at this valence, and the would-bes are very, very bad at it. I mean, I suppose we could get as conspiracist as our rightist neighbors, but why? Truth is stranger than fiction, and other explanations for people's behavior seem much more realistic.​

Thus, the unsettling question I would prefer not countenance has something to do with whether antisocials fear not simply the prospect of having been so gullible, but for some reason perceive some cause to fear even greater embarrassment.

Last month, I had occasion to consider a particular cycle: Early in his campaign, Trump supporters wouldn't defend his racism directly, but, instead, admired that he said what he thinks. After the election, the point of calling prejudice by its name was, according to some conservative talking points, why Trump was elected in the first place. And as recent Trump rallies achieved new standards of open racism, even the Trump administration tried blaming Trump supporters for the racism at the rallies, as if the President had nothing to do with it.

It is also true that even more recently I encountered an article about Charlotte and the 2020 Republican National Convention a conservative willing to say, on condition of anonymity, that as an Hispanic woman she didn't think President Trump was being racist: "He says it like it is." (Date↱) I think a lot of people, most of whom aren't Hispanic women, have said similar things in ways that weren't anonymous in their own lives, and, really by the enduring question of whether Trump supporters think themselves in on the grift, this particular cycle looks explicitly abusive of those supporters, and no, as a mass phenomenon I simply cannot wrap my head around the scale of it all.

So it does set me to wondering what raises these points to priority. It's already clear that regardless of whether they think they're in on the grift, they are, in the Trump outlook, somem manner of easy marks. That has to be embarrassing; over time, some have tried self-alienation (Nelson↱), while others have whined about the perception that nobody likes them (Schwartz↱). It's kind of sad, but they're also part of something dangerous, and that's so last year; some things have actually gotten worse for the antisocials.

And that's the thing: Is it just that it gets harder and harder to avoid recognizing that they really have behaved deplorably? Is it embarrassment at the growing realization of being suckers? And, sure, there is the possibility of being tried and true, as such, but that only begs the question: This gets worse, doesn't it? I mean, not just the human catastrophe that is the United States right now, but the bald-faced stupidity, the necessary question of how they could fall for it. The ongoing devastation of those populist illusions, and humiliation of its supporters by the very people they support likely has yet to reveal its most punishing and self-satisfying betrayal.

Are they simply lashing out, e.g., since they fell for it that must be all anyone else has? Or do they suspect, because, well, they're human, and thus neurotic, and on some level know the score isn't favorable on this count, that their embarrassment and indictments, both self-inflicted and in the court of public discourse, are about to get worse?

Then again, who says it can't be both? Quite often, that's how these things work.
____________________

Notes:

Date, S. V. "Charlotte Is Starting To Regret Hosting Trump’s Renomination Convention". HuffPost. 31 July 2019. HuffPost.com. 3 August 2019. http://bit.ly/2OtxkC3

Nelson, K. T. "Trump Fans Are Owning Libs by Losing All Their Friends". Vice. 21 November 2017. Vice.com. 3 Austust 2019. http://bit.ly/2oXBZwM

Schwartz, Drew. "Conservatives Are Whining Because No One Wants to Date Them". Vice. 5 March 2018. Vice.com. 3 August 2019. http://bit.ly/2FjrtWQ

 

That is a source of typed text on this forum, one who has misidentified and misrepresented me several times.
Meanwhile, I haven't been addressing anyone's gender here, at least not often, unless I mislaid a pronoun through carelessness.
But I am "attacking" him/her as a woman?
Odd.
But ok. I will take care to avoid responding to that poster.

Can I respond to his/her arguments if I don't quote or otherwise reference their source? Say, could I post something like #130 in the future, if I left off the quote?

 

Just taking your word for it. Misunderstand? Hardly. You've been perfectly clear.
The original complaint, from the poster, was somewhat different of course (it was based partly on my going out of my way to harass, seeing as how I "do not even live in this country" and am a "liar" and so forth). But your complaint is the one at issue here.

I'm sure she can. But you are the sole author of the only posts I am responding to at the moment.

I do indeed understand that - possibly a bit better or more comprehensively than you realize. You - a moderator - have gone out of your way, repeatedly, to so inform me. That is a serious warning, especially since it appears to be based on a general or cumulative assessment of my posting rather than any particular post or specific offense, and includes the observation that I am lacking in understanding overall. And that is why I will never again respond to that poster on this forum - there's no escaping that context, from which all meaning of such posting would be derived.

You issue a warning, warned poster takes it seriously and adjusts their posting behavior accordingly - it's all good, eh?

But that raises a minor side issue, which one hopes can be cleared up fairly easily - what counts as a "response" in a discussion thread, where issues (not posters) are the ostensible focus.

So, as a minor matter of bureaucratic convenience for my future posting if any: is the second section of post #130 of this thread acceptable to you, you personally and in your capacity as moderator, if it is cleared of reference to any particular poster (that is: despite its being in line with the thread and prior postings on it, therefore in connection or "response" to the other relevant postings via reasoning and observation) - yes or no?