Top Putin aide named by MH17 airliner investigators

[spurraider21]

That’s not the reason. It’s the absurd nature of control. The same biases are inferred at company levels as they are on personal ones. What’s foolish is the notion that anything or anyone outside of absolute truth itself can dictate the veracity of sources. The same biased dynamic plays out with so called "fact checking" sites or services. Their bias can be pointed out time and time again but they won’t change their ways anymore than they can change who they are. I would call out the naivety of believing that such a task can be objectively performed if not for the fact that most of you all honestly believe it and take them at their word. It’s textbook cognitive dissonance. At least I’m not in denial about evaluating motives, and people’s backgrounds when evaluating a source on a case by case basis.

Every single POLITICO article I’ve read is laced with ideological bias. You all don’t see it because you all agree with those biases. But that is the reason I refuse to read their op-eds anymore. Most of you all don’t embrace the concept of absolute truth either - which is ironic because most of you all approach Christians with absolute disdain. Predictably, without exception, every time.

So yeah forgive me if I don’t buy Chump's “this is a discussion board” excuse for the manner in which he demands that his questions be answered. He has a penchant for being combative and argumentative; which wouldn’t be such negative traits if not for the fact that he's never once on these boards admitted to being wrong about anything. His ways fray on people and I don't have to oblige his rude demands.

you were linked to one of their news pieces, not their op-ed, and you brushed that one aside as illegitimate as well

[Phenomanul]

Defining bias as *only* one side of the ideological spectrum and imputing malicious will and credulity exclusively to it looks like bias to me. So does excluding Fox and Sinclair from media consolidation.

For myself I doubt truth or virtue -- or any human frailty -- is distributed according to political orientation. Everyone's flawed and biased.You seem to think the side you're on has a monopoly on everything good.

Vive la difference.

I'm not defining bias as being "only" one sided. I'm saying we all have it, but those on the left-leaning side of the ideological spectrum revel in the fact that most published sources in the last 30-40 years have come to embrace left-leaning ideology as well. They commit the fallacy of consensus gentium thinking that their position is superior simply because "more" embrace it. When that happens they subconsciously believe that their viewpoints are unbiased. The subsidiary fallacy is assuming that said ideology is representative of a broader swath of society simply because most media sources have come to echo each other. But media perspective is not necessarily indicative of society's perspective. What we are seeing now is ideological fascism - especially with the seething vitriol that people have in their plea to silence opposing views. <-- and THAT behavior is almost exclusively coming from those on the left.

[ChumpDumper]

Bottom line: Trump supporters are ashamed of their news sources.

[Phenomanul]

you were linked to one of their news pieces, not their op-ed, and you brushed that one aside as illegitimate as well

Well...

1) SpurHomer kept on ranting on Trump's culpability before these hearings have run their course. I don't have tolerance for that type of personality. Yes, I get it, he hates Trump, and wishes he was impeached.

2) I was at work, so my time was limited (was on hold on a conference call).

3) I don't trust Politico period. If they would just stick to reporting the "what", "how", "where", and "when" questions then their biases might not be as obvious. I don't need their writers interpreting events for me, they don't get to surmise on the "why". At THAT point "news pieces" become op-ed.

[Winehole23]

I'm not defining bias as being "only" one sided. I'm saying we all have it, but those on the left-leaning side of the ideological spectrum revel in the fact that most published sources in the last 30-40 years have come to embrace left-leaning ideology as well. They commit the fallacy of consensus gentium thinking that their position is superior simply because "more" embrace it. When that happens they subconsciously believe that their viewpoints are unbiased. The subsidiary fallacy is assuming that said ideology is representative of a broader swath of society simply because most media sources have come to echo each other. But media perspective is not necessarily indicative of society's perspective. What we are seeing now is ideological fascism - especially with the seething vitriol that people have in their plea to silence opposing views. <-- and THAT behavior is almost exclusively coming from those on the left.

You paint pictures with a very broad brush, that much is clear. You put a lot of weight on a totally undifferentiated they.

I can buy that the "centrism" and "common sense" are more or less an artificial crocks of , no matter who sells them. I can also buy that the (by now somewhat outmoded) gatekeeper legacy media represents either a phony consensus, or else the consensus of the talking heads.

Not sure what you mean about the ideological fascism -- who is silencing you, Phenomenul? Be as specific as you can.

[Phenomanul]

I didn't call you a until you demonstrated how much the question scared you.

I said it was a simple question. It remains a simple question. You aren't willing to engage in a discussion you started.

Basically every Trump supporter does it. They want to stay in their safe space bubbles. That's OK. But don't pretend you're doing it out of some high principle.

You're scared.

Period.

You still don't get it. You don't get to demand answers from me or anyone here. I don't owe you anything, much less respect. You haven't earned it. Your lame "it's a discussion board" excuse doesn't change the fact that the tone of your requests is condescending. You're rude and snide 100% of the time. As I said before your penchant for combative argumentation is tiresome, and you don't get to speculate as to my motives for choosing to reply or not reply. Last but not least, our dynamic here on this board is very different. You make a living on these forums. I frequent them and participate if I have time. My wife and I adopted 3 children two years ago (I have a total of 5 children now), therefore I have even less time than before. Yes I'm indoctrinating them. (sorry, not sorry).

Now that I'm no longer working. I can reply with an answer. I read pieces from Reuters, the AP, NPR, The Wall Street Journal , The New York Post, BBC, among others - including several Spanish speaking news outlets. The point is, I have to read them for bias and I certainly don't go running around suggesting that their word is absolute truth. Writing styles have morphed over the past 3 decades where more and more of the author's opinion has made its way into the writing. It's not a trend that I like, and especially not for news.

[spurraider21]

Well...

1) SpurHomer kept on ranting on Trump's culpability before these hearings have run their course. I don't have tolerance for that type of personality. Yes, I get it, he hates Trump, and wishes he was impeached.

2) I was at work, so my time was limited (was on hold on a conference call).

3) I don't trust Politico period. If they would just stick to reporting the "what", "how", "where", and "when" questions then their biases might not be as obvious. I don't need their writers interpreting events for me, they don't get to surmise on the "why". At THAT point "news pieces" become op-ed.

1) spurs homer is a nut

2) no worries, im here during the work day as well, and do the same

3) you called BS as to the claim that ukraine stopped cooperating with mueller in order to receive weaponry, and were presented 2 different non op-ed sources which referenced that dynamic. what's the basis for brushing those specific articles off? or more specifically, as to your concern that they just stick with the reporting and not delve into their writers' interpretations, why not at least take those articles at face value in those segments which do the reporting, and then brush off the paragraphs which do the interpreting? both articles have pretty clear matter of fact reporting on the issue... but you cant be bothered to even consider them?

[Phenomanul]

1) spurs homer is a nut

2) no worries, im here during the work day as well, and do the same

3) you called BS as to the claim that ukraine stopped cooperating with mueller in order to receive weaponry, and were presented 2 different non op-ed sources which referenced that dynamic. what's the basis for brushing those specific articles off? or more specifically, as to your concern that they just stick with the reporting and not delve into their writers' interpretations, why not at least take those articles at face value in those segments which do the reporting, and then brush off the paragraphs which do the interpreting? both articles have pretty clear matter of fact reporting on the issue... but you cant be bothered to even consider them?

I'm reading them now. Cause of point #2. Also I have to ensure the kids do their homework. I have an 10 year old doing differential calculus. So his assignments require more of my time.

[ChumpDumper]

You still don't get it. You don't get to demand answers from me or anyone here. I don't owe you anything, much less respect. You haven't earned it. Your lame "it's a discussion board" excuse doesn't change the fact that the tone of your requests is condescending. You're rude and snide 100% of the time. As I said before your penchant for combative argumentation is tiresome, and you don't get to speculate as to my motives for choosing to reply or not reply. Last but not least, our dynamic here on this board is very different. You make a living on these forums. I frequent them and participate if I have time. My wife and I adopted 3 children two years ago (I have a total of 5 children now), therefore I have even less time than before. Yes I'm indoctrinating them. (sorry, not sorry).

Now that I'm no longer working. I can reply with an answer. I read pieces from Reuters, the AP, NPR, The Wall Street Journal , The New York Post, BBC, among others - including several Spanish speaking news outlets. The point is, I have to read them for bias and I certainly don't go running around suggesting that their word is absolute truth. Writing styles have morphed over the past 3 decades where more and more of the author's opinion has made its way into the writing. It's not a trend that I like, and especially not for news.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Russia hasn't been Communist for 20 years.

They're still as totalitarian though.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And yet Russia has a "dictator"-like leader, and China has a true "dictator".

The point being that everybody knows that Russia is not on the "up and up". They are an evil administration even if the term Communist is not officially in their le. They operate in very similar ways, with an iron rod of absolute power.

Sometimes you all are so dense, your petty rebuttals miss the point altogether.

Let me simplify even if it means I have to condescend.

Putin's regime is evil. Democrats sold 20% of America's Uranium to Putin's Russia. No leftist-leaning politician in the US challenged the Obama administration's Russia policy. They were lauded for mending bridges, for avoiding "Reganism". At the conclusion of the 2016 US Presidential Election however, the narrative necessitated that Russia be viewed as evil anew. That's why it's absurd to act surprised that MH17 was deliberately shot down. They've always been the same Russia. Same threat in different packaging.

Despotism is not the same as stalinism is not the same as maoism is not the same as communism. Only the first 3 are inherently totalitarian. Communism is not.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Politico... err Po-leftist-co yeah... I've long banned them from being a legit source about anything.

They're topics slightly left but from a factual standpoint politico is excellent. I bet you think Fox and Drudge are actually fair and balanced though.