Liberal Media Bias I must point out
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by OlDogger, Mar 9, 2018.
We agree on that it causes harm, but we don't agree on the severity of the damage.
Agree to disagree.
One of those programs is called the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System or AHCCCS. It's incredibly hard to get it, but once you can keep it in some shape or form ,as long as you don't exceed $100,000 in yearly income, in the form of the AHCCCS Freedom to Work program.
It was extremely hard for me to get, or rather it was extremely hard for my mother to get. I've had it since I was a young child. It's great insurance. It covers everything from routine doctor visits and IV treatments to physical therapy and orthotics. The only thing I have to pay for is dental appointments.
That's really the only plan for healthcare I know about in my state. But it would have been impossible for my grandparents to get along with any other private plans.
We, as a species, find a lot of places that have oil. But as a nation we find less and less of it within our boundaries. Which is why we're in the process of drilling in a wildlife refuge.
I do think that we will live in a time without fossil fuels because of the free market. I think that's where it's headed in the not too distant future.
And yeah, Chernobyl fucked that up, but that was years into the past, and technology has come a long way. It was a Soviet plant, so of course it failed.
The exact same can be said about corporate entities. If you give them an inch they will take a mile.
I don't trust either, but right now with our current infrastructure Net Neutrality was the best incentive for ISPs to expand fully into rural America. Now they don't have to, and can charge unreasonable fees to set up infrastructure, that the payer does NOT own, I'm their area.
That's scummy no matter how you look at it.
The internet does work fine, because of NN.
I don't think you quite understand how Google works. It uses an algorithm based upon what people search for, combined with your public search history. If your search history is private then it only offers you what other people have searched for.
When I searched 'Drilling for oil in Alaska' the second article I got was a FOX News article. That's not left wing. The first one was Wikipedia. That's not left wing either.
It depends on what you search. CNN likes to flood the internet with their articles though. Which is why I like YouTube more for news.
I don't know, man. I get it the government isn't trustworthy, but these big ISPs have a set a precedent to control and own the internet. NN was never about government authority; it was more about protecting the people from corporate and government authority.
We do agree on a lot, but we disagree on a lot too. That's great. Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to see each other as needing to be corrected. We are just offering our perspectives to each other in a very human way.
I think it's tragic that more people can't do that anymore.
I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and accountability and also keeping people in positions of power accountable for their actions. Sometimes the private sector has trouble with that, and sometimes the government has trouble with that.
Personal conviction goes a long way in maintaining individuality and understanding what you want. Some people may call that fickle, but I don't really care.
I don't really get on board with anyone in the government. I haven't been proud to call anyone in office my president, my congressman, my senator, ect. ever. There are some presidents, senators, congressmen I'm grateful for, but they were before my time.
I don't really hold much appreciation for elected officials or the office itself.
I have my stance, and that's good enough for me. When I vote I try and pick the person that's closest to my stance is possible.
In that respect Trump has done better than expected, but can still do better. That's my opinion anyway.
My State offers several different plans as well.
Right now I am looking into a private exchange, so far I see several very cheap premiums, with fair to decent coverage.
Chernobyl occurred due to low and or no maintenance, that pretty much was a lesson learned, that is why one of my states nuclear plant will be closing soon, they have been having problems up there
for a the last 4 years, now they find it unreasonable to maintain the plant any longer.
So far there are not any plans to build another one.
With Trumps infrastructure budget coming, maybe they will.
There are alot of places within our borders that have oil, whether its on public land or private land.
Accessibility is the only issue that is involved in getting the oil.
Government is meant to create incentive, that was the purpose of the general welfare clause.
Incentive and competition will regulate the internet, it has for over 30 years, and has done real well.
The Free Market does real well, government does not offer that free market based principle., it's more of a 'one size fits all' scenario.
And no, as I said before, I dont understand alot things about the computer or how much of it works...but I do try.
But what I do understand is that the internet is not a utility that needs to be regulated by the federal fucking government, and it is damn sure not a 'right' to have the internet.
And if I remember correctly, it seems that Europe has a government regulate internet, and costs are much higher for broadband there, then they are here.
I'm not trying or attempting to correct anyone, differing perspectives are vital to a world such as our own, no one is ever 100% right, nor 100% wrong.
I'm in total favor of this nations form of government, I am however not in favor of many that get
elected to represent us in government, many in the GOP I despise, and all on the left I despise as representatives.
I give respect to the founding fathers are all they intended to provide us as a Nation.
The federal fucking government has limited power, I truly believe that is the way it should still be today, I hold the U.S.C. very dear, and should be defended as which it was intended to be, not some horseshit
taken out of context, to get votes in the long run, and that my friend...is my opinion.
I wish you luck with that, man. I only know second hand what it can be like to shop around for insurance. Hopefully it isn't overwhelmingly stressful.
There will be a time when I won't have my healthcare, but that won't be for quite a while.
We have the largest nuclear power plant in the U.S here in Tonopah. It's a great facility that's well maintained (lately at least) and provides power to 4 million people.
That'd be great to have our nation's crumbling infrastructure repaired. That was one of Bernie Sanders' platforms. The roads are really worn and damaged in the city near me, and the dirt roads in the rural areas are constantly changing with monsoon season.
I'd certainly admit to Trump highly exceeding my expectations of we got more nuclear plants providing energy, and more of our roads were repaired.
So, regarding accessibility to the oil I feel like if it's private land they should be able to do with it as they please. Have at it. Public land is a different story. The citizens of that state should get a say in whether or not it happens. If that's the case. I don't really have any grips.
There are better alternatives in my opinion.
I agree that government should create incentive. Authoritarian government is not what think country is about, and not what it will ever be about. Welfare became a political tool to influence minority voters to vote against their biology and human beings. I feel like welfare is akin to feed in a zoo, and everyone that uses welfare is dehumanized and used as a prop to help people in power remain in power by appealing to the peoples' compassion. Not working, not learning, and taking too many handouts makes for miserable people. People need to learn to survive, live, and prosper; that's at the very core of what and who we are.
The internet being a utility didn't make it right a right. It was no more a right than electricity. If I don't turn the lights off I get charged for the power, and if I don't pay that shit gets turned off.
When something is a utility it just means that as a company I wouldn't be able to offer a service and then proceed to 'dim' the lights of you used too much power. If I was an Internet Service Provider I wouldn't be able to 'throttle' your speed of used the internet too much.
It just kept things fair for something that many many people use. Not just for entertainment, but for work, for education, for paying bills, for voting in elections, for enrolling in government programs, for communicating with others, for shopping, for creating art, and much more.
By definition there is a lot of utility in the internet.
Europe does have Net Neutrality laws, and they also pay considerably less than we do on average:
And again, if our market was healthy with more than three main ISPs and fiber optic infrastructure that covered most of the country. I wouldn't care, but it just doesn't yet.
I know you don't. I don't either. I was just musing, and making an observation. I absolutely agree that differing perspectives are vital!
I agree with you, albeit in a different way. I have a more equal disdain for people on the right and left (I don't despise everyone on one particular side), and like you I choose to focus more on policies. Those are easier to understand than the people that lie and cheat to win votes.
I also greatly respect the Founding Fathers and the United States Constitution. The U.S.C in particular is the framework for our nation. In the distant future maybe people will look back and think it's archaic, but until something vastly superior and worthy to surpass the U.S.C comes along, that is what makes the U.S the U.S.
Our constitution is a phenomenal instrument, it is not easily changed or amended and thank God for that. However, it is ambiguous in many ways, opening opportunity for interpretation by a politically motivated court, this can be troubling at times.
I like to think that is by design, so people will still talk, interpret, debate, and try to understand one an other. The more people in on the conversation about interpretations on the U.S.C the easier it is to discern a majority. Disagree or agree talking brings people closer. As long you keep an open mind, and refrain from being too cruel when talking to people.
States certainly have a say in how to regulate the drilling in most if not all cases, as it should be.
As the 'better alternatives', that's fine.
My problem with alternatives is the free market needs to be more involved, and the federal fucking government needs to be less involved, the government has no real need to subsidies it, not a fan of government subsidies at all.
We seen what happened when the government helped green energy business...bankrupt.. in the end, essentially for more reason than need to be mentioned at this point.
If it's not affordable without the government subsidies, the free market should be able to be innovated to make it more competitive, affordable and efficient for the consumer
It's not me claiming that the internet is a right, it was the inter continental advocacy groups that were attempting to claim that, specifically a Soros backed and funded advocacy group.
The internet came along way hasn't it?, folks are permitted to do so much with the internet, perhaps even too much at times.
I'll make the claim that the reasons for that is that it's not being regulated by the federal fucking government.
Innovation alone has created the internet that we know today.
Fairness, in my opinion has nothing to do with creating more regulation, that's where I fall back to personal responsibility and individual choices.
All I'm saying is the internet is not broke and the government has no reason to ''try'' to fix it.
Not really,the definitions were made by those that endorse pro government, if it were, there wouldn't be much competition as there is today.
Utilities are essentially a monopoly, and regulated as such, without any real competition
According to this study, you're 100% correct, but only on the surface.
We are really not comparing apples to apples here.
If we look deeper, it's cheaper service due to Net Neutrality.
Being regulated like a utility, Europe is having a hard time finding private investment, to expand the service, due to lack of incentive.
Why would anyone want to make an investment, with no profit?
It's also cheaper according to the study, as there really isn't a good service packages afforded with very minimal expansion, due to Net Neutrality regulations.
If you want to have an upgraded service, one should pay for that upgraded service.
I really like Elon Musk, and I like what he's doing. He does take government subsidies though, and everyone knows that won't last. The big hurdle in getting renewable energy as a primary source of energy is how it is being sold. I think that's the main point of Tesla and Solar City. Marketing and R&D for the mass consumer market.
Once people start buying that'll take off, but people have to want it first. Until then Musk has taken $4bn in government subsidies. Which, of course, he should stop.
Free market does needs more involvement in this though.
The speeds for are faster in Europe than they are here as well. We pay for an inferior product because Comcast, TWC, and Verizon own most of the market share and they can do that.
In mobile internet speeds we rank 28th.
1. U.K. (26 Mbps)
2. Germany (24.1 Mbps)
3. Finland (21.6 Mbps)
4. France (17.4 Mbps)
5. Norway (17.3 Mbps)
6. Denmark (16.6 Mbps)
7. Belgium (16.2 Mbps)
8. Romania (15.9 Mbps)
9. Australia (15.7 Mbps)
10. Japan (15.6 Mbps)
11. Netherlands (15.0 Mbps)
12. Slovakia (14.0 Mbps)
13. Spain (13.8 Mbps)
14. Kenya (13.7 Mbps)
15. Austria (13.5 Mbps)
16 (tie). Ireland (13.2 Mbps)
16 (tie). Sweden (13.2 Mbps)
18 (tie). New Zealand (13.0 Mbps)
18 (tie). Taiwan (13.0 Mbps)
20. Indonesia (12.8 Mbps)
21. Italy (12.4 Mbps)
22. Egypt (12.2 Mbps)
23. Hungary (12.0 Mbps)
24. South Korea (11.8 Mbps)
25. Greece (11.4 Mbps)
26. Slovenia (11.3 Mbps)
27. Estonia (11.1 Mbps)
28. United States (10.7 Mbps)
29 (tie). Canada (10.3 Mbps)
29 (tie). Turkey (10.3 Mbps)
We fared better in terms of wired broadband service. It ranks #8 worldwide in terms of the percentage of people with broadband speeds of at least 15 Mbps (48%), and #10 for broadband speeds above 25 Mbps (21%).
This is not a free market. Three companies have a stranglehold on it, and there is very little anyone can do.
Most of our wired service is over preexisting lines, over many decades, tough to keep reinventing and updating. Ditto on our wireless service, most is older technology. The US is 176th in population density, 10 times fewer per km2 than Europe, much more costly to provide service.
And while paying 2x as much for inferior service seems like a fair compromise due to the size of the U.S and the difficulty of updating the infrastructure, it isn't really an accurate position to take.
It's not accurate because of the lack of competition in this space. Comcast, TWC, and Verizon own the majority of the infrastructure and hold more influence over public officials in the US.
It makes it incredibly difficult for smaller companies to build new lines and or upgrade old lines and towers without getting blocked from doing so by bigger companies.
In most of Europe the have more choice when it comes to choosing a company to receive internet service.
Except Portugal. Because they don't have Net Neutrality laws the ISPs have taken to splitting up parts of the internet into packages similar to cable.
We need more competition for a healthy market.
No doubt that the competitive part is missing in some markets, but not all US markets. It's mostly up to state and local authorities to decide who is licensed as providers. In our city we have many choices on broadband internet and cable/satellite TV. Comcast, AT&T, Google, Hughes, Blue Yonder, Dish Network & Direct TV.
We only have Centurylink and Comcast, here. Money talks, but the law is irrefutable. If state and local authorities are too greedy ro lookout for the market and the public's best interest then there should be something in place to ensure that consumers are not financially harmed by that greed.
People dont want it now, for 2 reasons, it's not cheap, and it's not reliable, but again, it's fantastic as a supplemental energy source.
Today, The U.S. has an average of 15.3 Mbps.
The federal fucking governemnt order about 100,000 miles of additional internet infrastructure country wide.
Yet there again, the U.S. has private sector investment assisting, Fiber optic is up and coming in the U.S., and will allow faster internet.
So here we go back to describing the internet as a utility, to be regulated by the federal fucking government.
Antiquated phone networks and corporate monopolies do not produce fast Internet.
And as Tenguy stated this is the U.S. we can not compare the U.S. to many, if any countries comparibly, along with an aging infastructure.
I say give big oil a chance to be competitive in the telecom services.
Even the OTC (Ohio turnpike Commision) got involved in renting the center parapet walls dividing the east and west lanes to fiber optic company Level 3.
I agree with that. Green energy is not really reliable, and to get everything set up isn't cheap to do. For the average American it is pretty daunting. In time that will change though, but for now I don't think we are ready.
As I've said before the biggest problem we have with the market is that there is little competition. If big oil came in with their money and influence I would welcome that.
More choice is always a good thing. Placing corrupt individuals in positions of power to push and agenda on behalf of corporations is not.
Just as putting someone in power to push flawed green technology is not.
I agree. Which is why I said the market should decide that. To clarify I hope one day we all collectively decide with our wallets that the alternatives are what we want.
We aren't ready now.
Why didn't you answer my very simple and straight forward questions instead of posting what a bunch of other people said. That really has no bearing on what I asked or what you originally posted for that matter. Here's try again. Here are the two questions. And I am asking what the White House said about this meeting not even 24 hours after the South Koreans made their announcement from in front of the White House.
What they said publicly I imagine is different from what they said privately. I personally do not care or believe what they announce about anything in public, I want to know what's being said privately behind the closed doors, the real stuff. I think.
That is moot to the chronology of my posting BEFORE the White House said anything, which, OBTW, is following a pattern of overstatement by Trump for PR-posturing or his own undirected hyping outside the lines of his political funders and base. To that extent, I do agree with your skepticism of this development. I would hasten to add that one of his unofficial advisors, the Chinese Foreign Ministry, is for this. I'd put my bet with the Chinese (and probably Vlad the Trump whisperer) encouraging him than listening to the orthodoxy of the past.
But your chronology is quite inaccurate isn't it? Doesn't it create the false impression that Trump and/or the White House said anything at all. When the actual chronology was the South Korean diplomats making what was a truly shocking announcement that Trump had agreed to personally meet with Kim Jong Un in May and then simply walking off without taking questions. Leaving the press with no other choice than to speculate what it all means. Isn't that the true and factual chronology?
And if that is the case should anyone in the press, liberal or otherwise, simply accepted this announcement by foreign government and unquestionably praised Trump for a great accomplishment?
Please let's get those points straightened out first because it is quite imperative.
And since you still can't quite seem to answer my question I will and if I am wrong you correct. This was by all accounts a very dramatic and potentially historic announcement. But wasn't the very first official statement from Trump and/or the White House the next day and then to walk back the expectations for this meeting while there were conflicting statements coming out of his administration particularly the State Department? And doesn't that justify some of the skepticism you seem to object to?
But doesn't this just completely defeat your really inaccurate (which I will get to) premise. Aren't you in fact objecting to at least one TV personality casting aspersions on what Trump's true motives might have been but right here you validate that skeptism do you not?
Now I am quite loath to trying to engage in a discussion that simply meanders into totally unrelated tangents that actually create a false scenario. This has nothing to do with my skepticism and I have offered none. Your OP is an attack on what you view as the "liberal press" and how you apparently think they should have reported on an announcement made by the South Korean government.
Which I guess by your OP is that the press and commentators should have been reporting that that announcement made by the South Korean , with absolutely no official announcement made by either our government or North Korea which has still neither confirmed nor denied should have been reported as something worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize. And so I ask you is that the sort of thing a vigilant free press should do? Or is that more the realm of State Controlled media?
I would really like you to clarify exactly what you believe the function of the press should be.
I have not seen any approval from the Chinese at all on this. And since you have aleady demonstrated you can and will copy and paste references please to that here. And did Trump consult with the Chinese, or Putin before this announcement was made? Did he consult with any of his advisors in the White House, the State Department, the Pentagon or anyone else before he agreed to this meeting?
And please let's not just drift off into meaningless tangents. Let's stick to what you contended in your OP because that is all I am willing to address and engage with you about.
Such as, isn't this statement on your part totally false?
This is not what happened at all is it? It was not a case of Kim Jong Un accepting Trump's invitation to meet was it? Wasn't the actual case that the South Koreans said Kim Jong Un would be willing to meet with Trump and Trump without consulting with anyone else accepted that invitation to meet as offered by the South Koreans not Kim Jong Un? Aren't those the actual facts? And if they are aren't you the one who is actually resorting to ad hominem spin by attacking the source instead of what the source actually said?
Also are you confident the way Morning Joe reacted was the over all reaction to the announcement of a possible meeting? Or could the overall reaction by MSNBC and especially the mainstream media been far more nuanced and factual without having anything to do with Stormy Daniels?
And finally I really need you to define what you mean by "the liberal press" as you put in the title to this thread? Are you simply refering to MSNBC or are you contending most of the mainstream press has a liberal bias? We really need to define how you are applying your terms before we can go on.
1-What the Chinese had to say:
In state media, China presents itself as crucial to US-North Korea talks
From United Kingdom Reuters UK Mar 10, 2018
Seoul envoy praises China's role in fostering new nuke talks
ActionNewsJax.com 20h ago
China's goal in Donald Trump-Kim Jong-un talks is to make sure they don't collapse
South China Morning Post Mar 11, 2018
North Korea talks: Now comes the hard part
Opinion USA TODAY Mar 11, 2018
China's Support Of US-North Korea Meeting
In Depth NPR Mar 10, 2018
2-The South Koreans have been orchestrating this and were allowed to make this presentation (probably, as it turned out) so to not directly be seen as bravado by Trump, plus give him the later room for his politically-needed contingencies. As I said in my last post on this, they have been playing to Trumps (and KJU's) ego in giving them the credit, with they being 'just the lucky messengers' of it all from Pyongyang to the White House lawn.
The 'chronology' I was referring to was my placement of the post BEFORE the White House and Tillerson put out their caveats.
3-If you happen to have MSNBC on the prior evening, my impression was a dismissive tone that was affirmed by their email which I used to frame the assertion of my post.
Those THREE are the only things that relate to the accuracy of what I have posted so far about this, as you cherry-picked my reply to you for your answer to my reply
As long as the cherries are picked by hand and have been grown organically I think its ok to cherry pick.
I will have to address this section in more detail tomorrow
This really doesn't have anything to do with what I said I was willing to engage with you on. My argument is based on your OP. And Whether the South Koreans or the Chinese (your sources seem to contradict you here) orchestrated the meeting has nothing to do with "Liberal Media Bias I Must Point Out" and you seem to be dodging what you yourself said.
But this does create one more question. Would you say from just your own observations that Trump ever hesitates to exercise bravado?
But aren't you now engaging in exactly what you accuse Morning Joe of doing. Simply speculating on things that are not in evidence and making up your own motivations?
But your chronology is incorrect isn't it as I clearly pointed out by your direct quote? In fact when Morning Joe made their statement the White House or Trump had still not made any statement. Isn't that correct?
I watched All In with Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnell and the 11th Hour with Brian Williams no I did not get a dismissive tone at all and certainly don't recall any mention of Stormy Daniels. What I saw was stunned reporting and then with nothing else to go on analysis of whether this was a wise move by Trump because I think you are creating a false impression of how MSNBC actually responded specifically and the MSM generally. Which is one of the reasons I wanted to engage you on this topic because I think you are creating a false impression
And don't you have a direct contradiction here? You claim Morning Joe was engaged in ad hominem spin and yet you say you that is affirmed by an email. Did you actually watch Morning Joe? Or are you basing this on a promotional email?
How could I possibly "cherry pick" anything when I took your own actual words and responded to every statement you made? Please show me how I did that and give some specific examples.
Because I think the one engaging in obvious cherry picking is the one who will not answer specific questions about what you yourself said. Why is that? Because as I said I do not believe you want to honestly engage in this discussion with any real intellectual integrity.
The funny thing is, green energy has been used, well, actually for thousands of years.
Sailing vessels have used wind power.
Ancient Egyptians used solar power out the ass, along with Hydro.
Green energy is not a new development, People have used several forms of green energy forever, and they used it as a prime source of energy.
And with the discovery of abandoned oil filed recharging themselves, naturally, from greater depths, I find it hard to fathom that the world will run out of oil.
I compared how today's news reporters get emotional to easy and guys like Walter and Dan would report on JFK his brother Dr.King and Vietnam with little emotion and just the facts.
It has been around for centuries, but only recently would it need to power homes, hospitals, vehicles, and computers.
We could probably sustain ourselves on oil for many many centuries, but that and heavy industrialization will take a toll on the environment. Just look at China.
I'm not in any hurry to go green, it needs to work just as good if not better than oil, but I think keeping the conversation going is a good thing. Eventually it'll be what we need.
I don't think oil shouldn't be used at all though if we used alternative fuels as our primary source of fuel.
Who'd be intimidated by a solar powered tank?
I will have to address these individually as I am actually reading them and I have to wonder if you did. For instance in my previous post I mentioned that the sources you provided in some instances appear to contradict your contention that the Chinese foreign ministry approved of this meeting. Which in some cases they obviously appear to but in others such as this one I think it provides ample evidence that instead of the press in general or MSNBC in particular having a liberal anti Trump bias they are simply reporting and commenting on the known facts in a situation that could be a great accomplishment for Trump but also carries great risks if he fails. And once again I think it is obvious that you create a false impression of how the press actually reported on the announcement of the meeting with Kim Jong Un by conflating opinion pieces and news reporting such as the opinion piece you linked here. So let's look at some of those shall we?
Obviously this accurately recounts the development up until now and gives Trump credit where credit is due wouldn't you say?
Is this a valid question? And if you see "liberal" bias please point it out.
Now I would contend this is an imparative thing to document. You seem to contend that Trump and Kim Jong Un are in line for a Nobel Peace Prize but I don't think it can be understated that on something as monmental and fraught with risks as a meeting between Trump and Kim Jong Un is the Trump administration is making contradictory and conflicting statements.
Is that acceptable to you? Should the press ignore this and simply praise Trump?
Would you say that noting these realities represent liberal or anti-Trump bias? And if so why?
Would you say these are accurate statements or liberal anti-Trump bias?
And again is this thoughtful and worth analysis and valid question or simply liberal/anti Trump bias?
Now specifically since you targeted MSNBC in your OP please explain what liberal bias you perceive in this commentary?
And once again please elaborate on what you consider the liberal bias you believe is present in the source you provided because it obviously never even mentions China's foreign ministry approval of this announced meeting.
And again please explain why you want to conflate opinion pieces with news reporting of events?
PS I think it is also imperative that you answer some of the questions I have asked you. The most important of which right now is: Define what you mean by "the liberal press" as you put in the title to this thread? Are you simply referring to MSNBC or are you contending most of the mainstream press has a liberal bias?
This will probably go over like a lead balloon but here goes:
Can the "liberal media" stop giving Hillary Clinton ANY coverage please? Every time she opens her piehole she fucks shit up for those running in both the midterms and 2020 with her radioactive mentality ...
It's tough to pick on side against the other I voted for trump just cause Clinton was so fake it made me pick but I'm in the 90% of peaple that think everyone in Washington are a bunch of crooks and are out for themselfs what a collective bunch of assholes when can we go back to representives speak for the people who voted for them
Don't hold your breath, at the State level perhaps but once they jump to the federal level there is no saving them from themselves as the old boy network and party line kick in.
Not just you, just under half of the voters voted Trump because the alternative was a gong show.
I think its all the way down to the city dog catcher in the town !!!
Separate names with a comma.