War with iran is good for houston economy (Post, Howe: school, live)

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

IMHO, the vast majority TV news is just camped up baby bites of news. It’s show biz, not journalism. Paying to watch commercials is a racket, and it’s a big reason why cable is failing in the age of streaming services.

Sensationalism was not invented in the 21st century or even the 20th. In past era's news was probably more biased than it is today, besides is true objectivity really achievable anyway ? The basic facts are usually in agreement in most news sources, it just when they feed those facts into their respective spin machines that the bias is exposed.

EX: I have no doubt that the Iranian General Soleimani was killed by an American drone strike, do you ?

Now how do you feel about that ?

[lipbalm]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

Trump has gone too far this time to distract his people from his impeachment mess. He's poking a stick in the wrong country, and he is foolishly starting a war.

See, the thing is that BOTH sides of the political divide do it, the military industrial complex is real and they are the ones that call the shots no matter who is in the white house. I have given up, it will take a complete reset (probably a very painful one at that) to change things now. There is no hope.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Sensationalism was not invented in the 21st century or even the 20th. In past era's news was probably more biased than it is today, besides is true objectivity really achievable anyway ? The basic facts are usually in agreement in most news sources, it just when they feed those facts into their respective spin machines that the bias is exposed.

EX: I have no doubt that the Iranian General Soleimani was killed by an American drone strike, do you ?

Now how do you feel about that ?

Relying on TV news is foolish. Just because true objectivity is unachievable doesn’t mean that all information is equal in quality. Not everyone has the education, scientific background, writing skills, or worldly experience to differentiate quality in sources of information, as evidenced by the original person I replied to not even knowing basic constitutional tenets and thinking it was a matter of opinion.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Relying on TV news is foolish. Just because true objectivity is unachievable doesn’t mean that all information is equal in quality. Not everyone has the education, scientific background, writing skills, or worldly experience to differentiate quality in sources of information, as evidenced by the original person I replied to not even knowing basic constitutional tenets and thinking it was a matter of opinion.

There are no news sources , as I'm sure you realize, that haven't been attacked at some point as being biased, or even as fake by some other organization, including those that you listed.

I will take your advise however, and subscribe to a nationally recognized news source, and pay for information and we'll see how much more enlightened I become.

[shanv3]

Actually CD forum is a good source. You have people from all walks here and get different viewpoints and thoughts. especially guys like mircea, ukrkoz etc provide good insights to national and international issues.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

There are no news sources , as I'm sure you realize, that haven't been attacked at some point as being biased, or even as fake by some other organization, including those that you listed.

I will take your advise however, and subscribe to a nationally recognized news source, and pay for information and we'll see how much more enlightened I become.

Sure, but at some point you have to recognize that some outlets are better than others based on how heavy handed and/or dumbed down the language is. Selective reporting is also important to watch out for. Many news sources report continually evolving stories as standalone bits of information, almost intentionally obscuring dots that are being connected.

One important thing to mention is that almost all free news in the US literally is just copied from Associated Press and Reuters articles, trimmed and primped to reflect whatever will get them the most clicks from their cultivated audience. Save yourself the editorializing and go straight to those sources.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch/News Corp., and its editorials mostly lean right. The New York Times is a standalone company, and its editorials mostly lean left. Both are somewhat independent and investigative and bring in a lot of data in their analysis, which is important to me for gauging the scale of many issues. That's why I support their journalism, even though I think Rupert Murdoch is one of the biggest threats on the planet right now.

If all else fails, I think this "media bias chart" does a pretty decent job explaining much of the current media landscape.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

[jfre81]

If you can't think for yourself and use your own common sense to tell fact from fiction, you probably deserve to be the pawn you are and to spend all day on social media defeding people who exploit your ignorance. Who you think represent you and people like you.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Sure, but at some point you have to recognize that some outlets are better than others based on how heavy handed and/or dumbed down the language is. Selective reporting is also important to watch out for. Many news sources report continually evolving stories as standalone bits of information, almost intentionally obscuring dots that are being connected.

One important thing to mention is that almost all free news in the US literally is just copied from Associated Press and Reuters articles, trimmed and primped to reflect whatever will get them the most clicks from their cultivated audience. Save yourself the editorializing and go straight to those sources.

The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch/News Corp., and its editorials mostly lean right. The New York Times is a standalone company, and its editorials mostly lean left. Both are somewhat independent and investigative and bring in a lot of data in their analysis, which is important to me for gauging the scale of many issues. That's why I support their journalism, even though I think Rupert Murdoch is one of the biggest threats on the planet right now.

If all else fails, I think this "media bias chart" does a pretty decent job explaining much of the current media landscape.
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/

I paid $1 for 2 months of the WSJ then $19.95 a month after that for full online digital access. So check back in 2 months to see if I go full monthly paid subscriber

[Gunluvver2]

[quote=jd433;57004995]It's starting to look like were headed for war with IRAN War with Iran would good for the Houston economy Remember the boom that occurred during the IRAQ war.

YES certain segments of our economy may benefit financially. HOWEVER that is the worst reason in the world to go to war IMHO .

I firmly believe that the actions taken by Trump were to prevent a war, he said so and I believe him. Here
are a few things to consider.
First: An embassy is the sovereign territory of the country that it belongs to. That has been the practice for centuries.

Second: I think TRUMP must have had intelligence that made him believe that Suiiemeni (sic?) must have been the mastermind of the previous attack on our USA embassy that killed at least one of our people.

Third: Trump believed that Sukieman (sic?) was planning more actions against the USA.

For those reasons alone I BELIEVE Trump was/is right. That was not a provocative act by trump but a strong warning to Iran to act in a civilized way.

I lay a lot of the blame on actions taken by Iran on Previous leaders (i.e. Presidents). From Carter to Obama former US Presidents have let IRAN get away with murder! I would even say Ronald Reagan was weak against Iran in 1980. The taking of the US embassy and holding the 50+ US citizens hostage was an act of war and even though the hostages were released when Reagan was elected IRAN should have been severely punished.

Iran's actions a few days ago looked like another EMBASSY takeover in the making and at least ONE US marine was killed in that action. Trump PROBABLY prevent actions like those of 1979 from happening again.

Another thing I admire about Trump. The Iranian he killed was according to reports the number 2 man in Iran's leadership. I think taking out a man in the top echelon of leadership is a lot more MORAL than killing a bunch of lower ranking soldiers. Maybe there would be a lot FEWER wars if the leaders at the top KNEW they might die IF/WHEN acts of war were taken.

[jfre81]

Originally Posted by Gunluvver2

I firmly believe that the actions taken by Trump were to prevent a war, he said so and I believe him. Here
are a few things to consider.
First: An embassy is the sovereign territory of the country that it belongs to. That has been the practice for centuries.

Second: I think TRUMP must have had intelligence that made him believe that Suiiemeni (sic?) must have been the mastermind of the previous attack on our USA embassy that killed at least one of our people.

Third: Trump believed that Sukieman (sic?) was planning more actions against the USA.

For those reasons alone I BELIEVE Trump was/is right. That was not a provocative act by trump but a strong warning to Iran to act in a civilized way.

I lay a lot of the blame on actions taken by Iran on Previous leaders (i.e. Presidents). From Carter to Obama former US Presidents have let IRAN get away with murder! I would even say Ronald Reagan was weak against Iran in 1980. The taking of the US embassy and holding the 50+ US citizens hostage was an act of war and even though the hostages were released when Reagan was elected IRAN should have been severely punished.

Iran's actions a few days ago looked like another EMBASSY takeover in the making and at least ONE US marine was killed in that action. Trump PROBABLY prevent actions like those of 1979 from happening again.

Another thing I admire about Trump. The Iranian he killed was according to reports the number 2 man in Iran's leadership. I think taking out a man in the top echelon of leadership is a lot more MORAL than killing a bunch of lower ranking soldiers. Maybe there would be a lot FEWER wars if the leaders at the top KNEW they might die IF/WHEN acts of war were taken.

Is this the same intelligence apparatus that was supppsedly trying to overthrow Donald Trump just a couple weeks ago? Now we're suddenly real quick to believe what they had to say.