Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Those sites are biased, no doubt. But your claim that they are "anti-American" is idiotic. Having a different opinion than yours is not anti-American. Having opposing points of view is about as American as it gets. Stop being an ass.
I have been telling the "Fake News" crowd that the right media is just as biased but of course they are too stubborn to admit that. That's downright embarrassing. Of course the right wing media shows the same level of bias, and we now have one of them confirming it.
"But your claim that they are "anti-American" is idiotic."
Your OPINION.
I think that whay they do and NOT do IS Anti-American. MY opinion.
"Having opposing points of view is about as American as it gets."
Agree, as LONG as you are HONEST about stating your OPINION rather then telling everybody that what you say is opinion and not "news"
"I have been telling the "Fake News" crowd that the right media is just as biased" but of course they are too stubborn to admit that."
I don't know who you have been talking to but, I AGREE the "right" media is biased, THAT is why it is called the "right" media.
And the LEFT media is just as biased but of course they are too stubborn to admit that. That's downright embarrassing.
Hannity, Rush, etc. ADMIT to being "right" and are opinion" shows
I have not heard ANYBODY on the left admit it.
The MSM "journalist" at ABC, NBC CBS, CNN etc. ARE very LEFT but, NEVER admit it.
Along with the Wash. Post, LA Times, Chicago tomes Balt. Sun etc.
So you get two different perspectives, each biased, but, take out the spin and what do you conclude?
Good observations. As many here have pointed out, it is virtually impossible to find a news report that is without some degree of spin. On any issue of importance, no one should draw strong conclusions without first making a sincere effort to comprehend the best arguments and evidence offered by opposing viewpoints. This means consulting multiple sources. This ought to be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer, but given the dramatic political polarization in America these days, it seems to me that this aspect of critical thinking has become a rare art form. I wish the social media algorithms were the opposite of what they are: Instead of figuring out your comfort zone and feeding you more of the same, I wish the newsfeeds would emphasize and recommend at least some news articles that are from the opposite perspective so that it is as easy as possible for every person to see the best examples of alternative views. Some people would still adamantly ignore those views, but at least they would be easily available.
I must say, however, that when it comes to topics about which I have some level of expertise - i.e., several branches of science - the mainstream news media get a bad rap with the conspiracy-theory attitude that is being so heavily promoted by a lot of conservatives. Despite what a lot of conservatives seem to think, the peer-reviewed structure of science is not a leftwing conspiracy. I also highly doubt that dozens of the top American intelligence-gathering agencies are ganging up on Trump just to make him look bad for mere political reasons. If Trump looks bad, it's because he so frequently ignores or rejects well-verified data that he simply doesn't like. I'm not even remotely a fan of Peters, but I think he clearly sees this aspect of Trump, and is rightfully appalled by it.
My question to you: if there is clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Trump engaged in 'obstruction of justice', would you be for impeachment? Of is the 'person' more important to you than 'the office'?
If it is anything like Nixon with multiple smoking guns and cover-ups, then yes, there should be impeachment proceedings.
But so far, any evidence about Russian collusion or obstruction of justice on the part of Trump looks pretty weak to me. The Mueller investigation should be allowed to play out, but we will see who has the last word.
If it is anything like Nixon with multiple smoking guns and cover-ups, then yes, there should be impeachment proceedings.
But so far, any evidence about Russian collusion or obstruction of justice looks pretty weak to me.
Nixon told others to lie and break the law during the Watergate investigation.....that is not the case here.
The Russian investigation should have never gone to a special counsel.....It should have been done by Congress in a bipartisan investigation to find out what Russia did and how to prevent it.
I don't have an opinion about him other than that his high pitched voice has always bothered me.
I look at him like a POW who has been in captivity for 3 or more years. He's been retired a little too long now to be useful on commenting on current day strategy and tactics. I feel the same way about people who served under George Bush or Bill Clinton. Peters has been out of the military since 1998. That's 20 years. He's been out too long to be useful.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
