Former US intelligence analysts: CIA allegations of Russian email hacking are baseless
drummerboy said:
You guys don't have a clue what FoxNews is.
Not. A. Clue.
You get everything wrong. On the Russia story, Fox has far more diversity of opinion than MSNBC or CNN.
drummerboy said:
ha! and Abby Martin is a truther to boot! perfect.
Nan - are you a truther too? Was 911 an inside job? That's what abby says.
Look -- drummerboy's new slur-du-jour!
But, in her opinion, is flouride more or less dangerous than Rachel Maddow?
jamie said:
According to Abby we need to stop using flouride NOW!!
paulsurovell said:
So is the distinction that the rebuttal is "not yours" in the sense that it's something that you're describing as an example of what one might say in rebuttal?
Close enough. I can be pretty cagey about my opinions, but I’m a sucker for stoking discussion.
I posted this myself somewhere else, and gave Smith full credit. Best exposition of the topic I've seen on the MSM.
But, the exception proves the rule, as they say.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
You guys don't have a clue what FoxNews is.
Not. A. Clue.
You get everything wrong. On the Russia story, Fox has far more diversity of opinion than MSNBC or CNN.
anyway, this thread started 11 months ago.
Are we still arguing about the same thing as then?
Have you made any allowances for the myriad of developments on this topic since then?
Do you still contend there is no actual evidence of meddling? Does VIPS?
And also "far more diversity of opinion" doesn't mean that it should be trusted more. After all, if someone said, "There's far more diversity of opinion in our club on racism, because since most are racists, there are a few who aren't", that doesn't make it better than the club with hardly any racists.
drummerboy said:
I posted this myself somewhere else, and gave Smith full credit. Best exposition of the topic I've seen on the MSM.
But, the exception proves the rule, as they say.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
You guys don't have a clue what FoxNews is.
Not. A. Clue.
You get everything wrong. On the Russia story, Fox has far more diversity of opinion than MSNBC or CNN.
South_Mountaineer said:
And also "far more diversity of opinion" doesn't mean that it should be trusted more. After all, if someone said, "There's far more diversity of opinion in our club on racism, because since most are racists, there are a few who aren't", that doesn't make it better than the club with hardly any racists.
On the issue of alleged Russian meddling, one club allows official views as well as dissenting views, while the second club allows only official views and censors dissenting views. The first club allows diversity of views while the second club forbids diversity of views. Ironically, the members of the second group consider themselves to be inclusive and open-minded and intellectually superior to those in the first group.
If you said, "one club tells stories with half-truths and key facts missing, under the 'diversity of views' claim, while the other club provides all the facts and then its viewpoint," then the "Fox Club" would fit the description of the first club. You'll have to provide an example of your second group.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
And also "far more diversity of opinion" doesn't mean that it should be trusted more. After all, if someone said, "There's far more diversity of opinion in our club on racism, because since most are racists, there are a few who aren't", that doesn't make it better than the club with hardly any racists.
On the issue of alleged Russian meddling, one club allows official views as well as dissenting views, while the second club allows only official views and censors dissenting views. The first club allows diversity of views while the second club forbids diversity of views. Ironically, the members of the second group consider themselves to be inclusive and open-minded and intellectually superior to those in the first group.
South_Mountaineer said:
If you said, "one club tells stories with half-truths and key facts missing, under the 'diversity of views' claim, while the other club provides all the facts and then its viewpoint," then the "Fox Club" would fit the description of the first club. You'll have to provide an example of your second group.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
And also "far more diversity of opinion" doesn't mean that it should be trusted more. After all, if someone said, "There's far more diversity of opinion in our club on racism, because since most are racists, there are a few who aren't", that doesn't make it better than the club with hardly any racists.
On the issue of alleged Russian meddling, one club allows official views as well as dissenting views, while the second club allows only official views and censors dissenting views. The first club allows diversity of views while the second club forbids diversity of views. Ironically, the members of the second group consider themselves to be inclusive and open-minded and intellectually superior to those in the first group.
Your second group is unrecognizable. I've already posted the example for the first group that you asked for, here it is again:
Sorry you couldn't think of a way to discuss the second. Since this back-and-forth started with that same video of that one guy at Fox who calls out the BS that is on the rest of the time there, no sense going around in circles. You're not proving your point.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
If you said, "one club tells stories with half-truths and key facts missing, under the 'diversity of views' claim, while the other club provides all the facts and then its viewpoint," then the "Fox Club" would fit the description of the first club. You'll have to provide an example of your second group.
paulsurovell said:
South_Mountaineer said:
And also "far more diversity of opinion" doesn't mean that it should be trusted more. After all, if someone said, "There's far more diversity of opinion in our club on racism, because since most are racists, there are a few who aren't", that doesn't make it better than the club with hardly any racists.
On the issue of alleged Russian meddling, one club allows official views as well as dissenting views, while the second club allows only official views and censors dissenting views. The first club allows diversity of views while the second club forbids diversity of views. Ironically, the members of the second group consider themselves to be inclusive and open-minded and intellectually superior to those in the first group.
Your second group is unrecognizable. I've already posted the example for the first group that you asked for, here it is again:
The opposition to flouridation by the Right is the oldest conspiracy-type Right-wing campaign I know of. We wrote reports about it for High School Health Ed class in the early 60s
jamie said:
According to Abby we need to stop using flouride NOW!!
paulsurovell said:On the issue of alleged Russian meddling, one club allows official views as well as dissenting views, while the second club allows only official views and censors dissenting views. The first club allows diversity of views while the second club forbids diversity of views. Ironically, the members of the second group consider themselves to be inclusive and open-minded and intellectually superior to those in the first group.
That is also true with respect to the Theory of Evolution.
Not to mention "birtherism".
Abby Martin: "Israel uses Hitler's methods to maintain a Jewish majority."
Is this woman a commentator for Russia Today. That is a propaganda outlet for the Kremlin. I watched it on TV in Europe.
Correction: She did work for RT America. She now has a show on the satellite network Telesur English and YouTube.
Abby Martin is a great investigative reporter. RT is a credible news source. Some of you need to get out more often.
"investigative reporter"?
What's been her best investigation? Hope it's better than flouride and trooferism.
The opening in the video presents us with striking observation that the Christian Right has achieved significant power.
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
anyway, this clip appears to be mostly an interview with Chris Hedges. Why should we watch it within the context of this thread?
nan said:
Abby Martin is a great investigative reporter. RT is a credible news source. Some of you need to get out more often.
This video continues the topic that you started of judging Abby Martin's character. I'm defending Abby Martin. She hangs out with Chris Hedges so she can hate floride and question 9/11 all she wants and I'm fine with it. I did post a video of her related to this thread topic and you refused to watch it.
drummerboy said:
uh oh. more fake news.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke
The graphic certainly meets high journalistic standards.
What is new in this article?
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
uh oh. more fake news.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke
The graphic certainly meets high journalistic standards.
What is new in this article?
You can pre-order the book. The piece in The Guardian is an excerpt.
LOST said:
The opposition to flouridation by the Right is the oldest conspiracy-type Right-wing campaign I know of. We wrote reports about it for High School Health Ed class in the early 60s
jamie said:
According to Abby we need to stop using flouride NOW!!
Here's the Harvard study that Abby cited:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustmentHere's the Sierra Club's position on fluoride:
https://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water
There are now, however, valid concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health.
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:You can pre-order the book. The piece in The Guardian is an excerpt.
drummerboy said:The graphic certainly meets high journalistic standards.
uh oh. more fake news.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke
What is new in this article?
https://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Secret-Meetings-Russia-Helped/dp/0525562516/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510803191&sr=1-1&keywords=luke+harding
Thanks, but I wanted to know what drummerboy found that was new in the excerpt.
as I asked you before, you need to clarify what is considered "new". This thread has been going on for almost a year. The OP was based on what we knew last December. What about all that has developed in 2017? Is that all bogus evidence too?
paulsurovell said:
cramer said:
paulsurovell said:You can pre-order the book. The piece in The Guardian is an excerpt.
drummerboy said:The graphic certainly meets high journalistic standards.
uh oh. more fake news.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/nov/15/how-trump-walked-into-putins-web-luke
What is new in this article?
https://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Secret-Meetings-Russia-Helped/dp/0525562516/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1510803191&sr=1-1&keywords=luke+harding
Thanks, but I wanted to know what drummerboy found that was new in the excerpt.
cherry picking two sentences out of a peer-reviewed study (actually, a meta-analysis of other studies) is kind of prima facie evidence that someone is trying to B.S. you.
That someone would be you paul.
paulsurovell said:
Here's the Harvard study that Abby cited:
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/
Conclusions: The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment. Future research should include detailed individual-level information on prenatal exposure, neurobehavioral performance, and covariates for adjustmentHere's the Sierra Club's position on fluoride:
https://www.sierraclub.org/policy/policy-fluoride-drinking-water
There are now, however, valid concerns regarding the potential adverse impact of fluoridation on the environment, wildlife, and human health.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Rentals
Advertisement
ha! and Abby Martin is a truther to boot! perfect.
Nan - are you a truther too? Was 911 an inside job? That's what abby says.