Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Non-Presidential News Stories That Don't Deserve Their Own Thread Thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

    I read a lot of the threads left-siders here put up, knowing beforehand they'll be biased.
    How open minded of you.

    Comment


      Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post

      You're welcome. It's cool if you don't want to read anything that might challenge your point of view.
      If you ever put something up that reads above a junior high level, I’ll consider it. So far, every time you’ve said “good read”, you link to something so poorly written, it’s painful. It’s very weird to blame the media and link to a laughable substack

      Comment


        Originally posted by philleotardo View Post

        If you ever put something up that reads above a junior high level, I’ll consider it. So far, every time you’ve said “good read”, you link to something so poorly written, it’s painful. It’s very weird to blame the media and link to a laughable substack
        A substack showing how much misinformation the media put out. Yes. Correct.

        If you want to put your head in the sand, that's fine.
        Calmer than you are

        7/30/2017: The day the Minnesota Twins bought a prospect from the New York Yankees.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

          How open minded of you.
          I didn't say that in a vacuum. :-)
          Polite Red Sox fan

          Comment


            Originally posted by HfxBob View Post

            I didn't say that in a vacuum. :-)
            Oh? What did you mean then?

            Comment


              Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

              Oh? What did you mean then?
              It was directed to Phil. The meaning was pretty obvious. I was tweaking him because he refused to open Clown Pickle's link. Nothing serious, just banter.
              Polite Red Sox fan

              Comment


                Originally posted by ClownPickle View Post

                A substack showing how much misinformation the media put out. Yes. Correct.

                If you want to put your head in the sand, that's fine.
                lol, “the media” every time it’s something you don’t want to hear is the starting point of head in the sand.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Texsahara View Post
                  One more thing and I'm done with this one. False, let's not lose sight of the fact that this is not about your biases or mine. It's about the members of the Senate. When you look at the make-up of that group, especially on the gop side, knowing what you know about some of the individuals, do you honestly believe that there is no bias (implicit or explicit) toward women, people of color, or foreign born nominees? And if they do hold those biases, that it's unlikely they would be allowing those them to influence their decisions?
                  I believe there is bias - both implicit and explicit - in the GOP. [Bothsidesism warning] I think there's plenty of bias in the Democratic party as well. The conversation wasn't really about whether members of the Senate are biased; more specifically, the implication was that Omarova's nomination was being challenged because of bias, with no consideration allowed around her actual beliefs.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by False1 View Post
                    I believe there is bias - both implicit and explicit - in the GOP. [Bothsidesism warning] I think there's plenty of bias in the Democratic party as well. The conversation wasn't really about whether members of the Senate are biased; more specifically, the implication was that Omarova's nomination was being challenged because of bias, with no consideration allowed around her actual beliefs.
                    And you've implied that she is being challenged solely on her beliefs with no consideration around her sex, race, or country of birth. I say why not both.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

                      And you've implied that she is being challenged solely on her beliefs with no consideration around her sex, race, or country of birth. I say why not both.
                      I didn't say or even imply solely. And I condemned Kennedy's comment. But I will say primarily in this instance. I believe that any person of any gender, race or nationality would (and should IMHO) be deemed unfit for this specific role if they had documented her same exact beliefs.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by False1 View Post
                        I didn't say or even imply solely. And I condemned Kennedy's comment. But I will say primarily in this instance. I believe that any person of any gender, race or nationality would (and should IMHO) be deemed unfit for this specific role if they had documented her same exact beliefs.
                        I think the point of the hearing is too allow the nominee to speak to questions or concerns that the panel has and not to pass judgement until you've heard them. Obviously that didn't happen. Minds were made up before she spoke a word. Yours too apparently. I question if that would have been the same if the nominee were a white dude from the midwest.

                        And while you may or may not be correct about her fitness, I don't believe a white man would have been treated with the same scorn and disrespect.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Texsahara View Post

                          I think the point of the hearing is too allow the nominee to speak to questions or concerns that the panel has and not to pass judgement until you've heard them. Obviously that didn't happen. Minds were made up before she spoke a word. Yours too apparently. I question if that would have been the same if the nominee were a white dude from the midwest.

                          And while you may or may not be correct about her fitness, I don't believe a white man would have been treated with the same scorn and disrespect.
                          The panel isn't a sequestered jury. It's not like this is an introduction. Are they supposed to pretend they haven't read her published takes on matters directly related to the role she has been nominated for? I presume you watched some hearings for the nominees from the past administration. A lot of them were white males, and a lot of them weren't facing a bunch of open minds. Nor should they have where there actions and published views preceded them.

                          My mind was and is made up that I don't think that the Comptroller of Currency should be someone who believes that deposits should be nationalized, that the government and those in power at any given point in time should pick and choose companies it likes or doesn't like and provide/deny them capital on that basis, nor some of her other views that were of recent public record just prior to her nomination. And I would 100% say the same exact thing if she was instead a white dude from the midwest.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by False1 View Post
                            The panel isn't a sequestered jury. It's not like this is an introduction. Are they supposed to pretend they haven't read her published takes on matters directly related to the role she has been nominated for? I presume you watched some hearings for the nominees from the past administration. A lot of them were white males, and a lot of them weren't facing a bunch of open minds. Nor should they have where there actions and published views preceded them.

                            My mind was and is made up that I don't think that the Comptroller of Currency should be someone who believes that deposits should be nationalized, that the government and those in power at any given point in time should pick and choose companies it likes or doesn't like and provide/deny them capital on that basis, nor some of her other views that were of recent public record just prior to her nomination. And I would 100% say the same exact thing if she was instead a white dude from the midwest.
                            Sorry but the government picks and chooses who it likes and doesn’t like and provides/denies them capital all the time. Well at least since the government started lending money and giving subsidies in oh around 1789 and ever since.
                            Baseball is life;
                            the rest is just details.

                            Comment


                              It's getting close to impossible to provide links to major news web sites because they're tucked behind paywalls.
                              Polite Red Sox fan

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Yankee Tripper View Post

                                Sorry but the government picks and chooses who it likes and doesn’t like and provides/denies them capital all the time. Well at least since the government started lending money and giving subsidies in oh around 1789 and ever since.
                                Well that's heartening to know LOL
                                Polite Red Sox fan

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X