Jump to content
LOTROCommunity

21st Century Fox bidding over $75B for Time-Warner, Inc


Belechannas
 Share

Recommended Posts

It's obviously an opinion; nearly everything posted on this forum is.

But when someone posts an opinion which is absurd on its face, like, say: "Landscape combat in LotRO is impossibly hard," they don't get away without being challenged.

 

... but that's what I find goes fairly well on those opinion shows on Fox News, they don't bring in anyone to challenge the absurd opinions given, giving livelihood to people like Jon Stewart. Especially the comments about Obamacare seem way out of hand, with hosts putting Obamacare in the same box as Katrina and the Iraq War, and attempts to manipulate statistics, e.g. by making odd charts like this:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/03/31/dishonest-fox-charts-obamacare-enrollment-editi/198679

 

That kind of behaviour doesn't count as "factual errors", but it's still behaviour that I find to be fairly disturbing. With that said, as a Dane I don't exactly watch much US news, neither Fox News, CNN or anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what she said was that Obamacare affected "so many peoples' lives across the country." Which was not true of Katrina, whose effects were localized to mostly two states, and not really true of the Iraq War in the same way either.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't personally know anybody who was seriously affected by Katrina, nor do I personally know anybody affected by the Iraq War. But I know multiple people who have had their health insurance affected by Obamacare.

I think what she was trying to say is that for most Americans, Katrina and the Iraq War were problems they saw on television or read about in the newspaper, while Obamacare will directly affect a larger percentage of the country (Obama has decided 'the law is whatever I say it is', so most of the effects haven't even kicked in yet).

She might have also mentioned, at least in comparison with Katrina, that (unlike Obamacare) President Bush didn't cause the hurricane, either...

Anyway, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but I am impressed that the liberal critic who I guess extracted the clip is able to rant about that one sentence for 3 minutes afterward...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, what she said was that Obamacare affected "so many peoples' lives across the country." Which was not true of Katrina, whose effects were localized to mostly two states, and not really true of the Iraq War in the same way either.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't personally know anybody who was seriously affected by Katrina, nor do I personally know anybody affected by the Iraq War. But I know multiple people who have had their health insurance affected by Obamacare.

I think what she was trying to say is that for most Americans, Katrina and the Iraq War were problems they saw on television or read about in the newspaper, while Obamacare will directly affect a larger percentage of the country (Obama has decided 'the law is whatever I say it is', so most of the effects haven't even kicked in yet).

She might have also mentioned, at least in comparison with Katrina, that (unlike Obamacare) President Bush didn't cause the hurricane, either...

Anyway, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but I am impressed that the liberal critic who I guess extracted the clip is able to rant about that one sentence for 3 minutes afterward...

 

That's not really the point. The point is that Obamacare, something set in work to help people, is categorized along with a disaster and a war, things that bring fear and destruction. It'd be the same if they repeatedly mentioned Obama along with Hitler and Stalin "just because all three were leaders of their country". You're taking something you want to look bad and associate it with something/someone that are generally considered bad to make this effect.

 

Also, how exactly would you argue that you weren't affected by the Iraq War and Katrina? US has spent billions of dollars on those incidents, money that could have been spent to improve the infrastructure in USA. thousands of American lives were lost in both cases, lives that could have made a difference. You don't know what each of those dead Americans could have done for your country had they been alive today.

The only difference is that your health insurance has a price and a range of services it covers, making it fairly easy to determine exactly what has changed in price and coverage, where the effects of Katrina and the Iraq War can be less direct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't care one way or the other, and think this whole debate is silly, to be honest, but since you asked...

I read through have a dozen of them, and they were all ludicrous.

One example: a FOX host didn't challenge a guest who cited a statistic Media Matters considers "deceptive". LOL.

In another, various FOX talk-show people discussed a report planted by the Clinton campaign during the 2008 primary campaign, and reported by another network, that later turned out to be bogus.

In another, Sean Hannity repeated a claim that originally appeared on ABC and later turned out to be incorrect.

In yet another, a set of dates and budget numbers - referring to independent reporting sources like the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, etc - that appeared in an RNC press release was repeated to track the history of the stimulus bill. There was no claim that *any* of the information presented was inaccurate.

Still not seeing anything worse than killing hundreds of thousands of Americans, as Darmokk claimed...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not really the point. The point is that Obamacare, something set in work to help people, is categorized along with a disaster and a war, things that bring fear and destruction. It'd be the same if they repeatedly mentioned Obama along with Hitler and Stalin "just because all three were leaders of their country". You're taking something you want to look bad and associate it with something/someone that are generally considered bad to make this effect.

Well, in the first place they were comparing the *political* effects on the President's second term, not comparing a hurricane directly to a health care law (again, a poor comparison in any event, since Bush didn't cause the hurricane). Bush's second term floundered because the Federal response to Katrina was successfully portrayed as inadequate (in fact it was the most massive and most successful relief operation in history), and the very real difficulties in pacifying Iraq. Obamacare has been a major political problem for Obama, and could get worse (assuming he doesn't keep illegally postponing the effects that haven't kicked in yet, by imperial decree).

In addition, what a law is intended to do is irrelevant; what the law actually does, including unintended side-effects is what matters. I think it is not impossible that Obamacare will kill more Americans than the hurricane or the Iraq war. I'm not claiming I know that for sure, but it doesn't seem impossible to me. It is already killing some cancer patients who lost their coverage. Think Progress, a very left-wing organization, has estimated that some consequences of the law may lead to as many as 17,000 preventable deaths per year. That number seems high, but maybe not impossibly high, and would be the equivalent of about 3 Iraq Wars and 2 Katrina's every year...

The US was widely considered to have the highest quality health care in the world. The health-care law was assembled and (barely) passed in a very chaotic fashion, and is seriously flawed. Also, it was never very popular to start with, and has become much less popular as each part of it is implemented and new flaws are revealed. Passing transformative social legislation without some kind of national consensus is a very bad idea, but they did it anyway.

 

Also, how exactly would you argue that you weren't affected by the Iraq War and Katrina? US has spent billions of dollars on those incidents, money that could have been spent to improve the infrastructure in USA. thousands of American lives were lost in both cases, lives that could have made a difference. You don't know what each of those dead Americans could have done for your country had they been alive today.

The only difference is that your health insurance has a price and a range of services it covers, making it fairly easy to determine exactly what has changed in price and coverage, where the effects of Katrina and the Iraq War can be less direct.

I agree, and I think that is exactly the point that the host was trying to make, actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the first place they were comparing the *political* effects on the President's second term, not comparing a hurricane directly to a health care law (again, a poor comparison in any event, since Bush didn't cause the hurricane). Bush's second term floundered because the Federal response to Katrina was successfully portrayed as inadequate (in fact it was the most massive and most successful relief operation in history), and the very real difficulties in pacifying Iraq. Obamacare has been a major political problem for Obama, and could get worse (assuming he doesn't keep illegally postponing the effects that haven't kicked in yet, by imperial decree).

What makes the postpones illegal? The Atlantic suggests it's well within laws: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/delaying-parts-of-obamacare-blatantly-illegal-or-routine-adjustment/277873/

In addition, what a law is intended to do is irrelevant; what the law actually does, including unintended side-effects is what matters. I think it is not impossible that Obamacare will kill more Americans than the hurricane or the Iraq war. I'm not claiming I know that for sure, but it doesn't seem impossible to me. It is already killing some cancer patients who lost their coverage. Think Progress, a very left-wing organization, has estimated that some consequences of the law may lead to as many as 17,000 preventable deaths per year. That number seems high, but maybe not impossibly high, and would be the equivalent of about 3 Iraq Wars and 2 Katrina's every year...

Some consequences of the law? As far as I can see on the link below, the 17k deaths a year issue is attributed to the fact that states can opt out, so those 17k deaths would have happened regardless of Obamacare or not as without Obamacare there'd be nothing to opt-out of?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/30/1287923/-GOP-s-Obamacare-spite-means-death-toll-for-red-states

The US was widely considered to have the highest quality health care in the world. The health-care law was assembled and (barely) passed in a very chaotic fashion, and is seriously flawed. Also, it was never very popular to start with, and has become much less popular as each part of it is implemented and new flaws are revealed. Passing transformative social legislation without some kind of national consensus is a very bad idea, but they did it anyway.

That highly depends on how you look at it. Sure, the best hospitals in US are most likely the best in the world, but in average US health care is not the best of what I've read:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/05/30/no-the-us-doesnt-have-the-best-health-care-system-in-the-world

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1

The WHO World Health Report from 2000 also ranked US as nr 37 in the world.

I agree, and I think that is exactly the point that the host was trying to make, actually.

Well, she did a really bad job of that then IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US was widely considered to have the highest quality health care in the world. The health-care law was assembled and (barely) passed in a very chaotic fashion, and is seriously flawed. Also, it was never very popular to start with, and has become much less popular as each part of it is implemented and new flaws are revealed. Passing transformative social legislation without some kind of national consensus is a very bad idea, but they did it anyway.

Not sure which law you are referring to and when it was passed, but the Washing Based Commonwealth Fund compares the health care in the following countries, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Since 2004 the US has ranked last in every report. The UK health system is currently ranked the best in the world.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

If you look at the report you will see the US spend more money per capita on health care but performs the worse.

All the data in the report comes from before Obamacare

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, I expected to see information regarding the bid and the publishing and who would react, if there are any pressreleases from Wb/Turbine, how it will go with the books, some numbers. Anything.

ha not all this ^.

Anyway, Op keep us updated if you want, interesting to see what will happen. With "Howling Mad" Murdoch (A-team ftw!)

Lalala*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is so much in this thread I missed! I couldn't even get in on the Faux News, White Jebus, Zionazi stuff in time. Damn it!!! I'll do it in short:

  • Fox News is not a news channel, it's a political channel of conservative nutjobs.
  • Jebus was a Semite. Basically an Arab. Caucasian but not Germanic as he is often depicted (this is why racial classification needs an overhaul!).
  • There are Jews who are now becoming what their forefathers were persecuted by during WW2.

There, all caught up :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it goes without saying that if you accept the idea of free speech, you accept that there will be people expressing opinions different from your own. I don't think there's any confusion about which shows are news reports, and which are opinion/news analysis.

The network motto is "fair and balanced". Yet the opinions are always republican ones. Would you argue that there is a left-wing talk-show on Fox News ? How is that "fair and balanced" ?

The only documented evidence for a talking points memo (i.e. it has been publicly released and acknowledged as such) that I've ever seen is from the Democrats - it wouldn't surprise me if there was a Republican equivalent, although frankly I doubt we are organized enough. Who allegedly authors this daily memo? The Koch Brothers? (LOL)

This took me 10 seconds on google (talking points memo by Eric Cantor) :

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/21republican-talking-points.html

Except I'm not the one who made an outrageous claim that Fox News has done more harm than killing hundreds of thousands of Americans.

I don't think more than one poster made this claim, and I even think it was in jest. And yet it seem that this is your yardstick now when assessing Fox News quality: if it didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Americans then it is perfectly fine. By this metric, I don't think anyone will be able to say otherwise.

Nobody has yet shown anything that indicates deliberate falsification of news. According to all the critics, this is done non-stop, all-day every day, yet nobody can cite a single legitimate example.

As a European, I don't get to watch Fox News on my cable channels. Yet each time I see a clip of Fox News it is ridiculous. I checked on politifact, and found these lists :

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/steve-doocy/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bill-oreilly/

The whole truth and nothing but the truth ? Not exactly.

 

imperial decree).

Did I miss something about the empire ?

In addition, what a law is intended to do is irrelevant; what the law actually does, including unintended side-effects is what matters. I think it is not impossible that Obamacare will kill more Americans than the hurricane or the Iraq war. I'm not claiming I know that for sure, but it doesn't seem impossible to me. It is already killing some cancer patients who lost their coverage. Think Progress, a very left-wing organization, has estimated that some consequences of the law may lead to as many as 17,000 preventable deaths per year. That number seems high, but maybe not impossibly high, and would be the equivalent of about 3 Iraq Wars and 2 Katrina's every year...

All caused by republican states opting-out of Medicaid extension. Reading more than headlines helps : http://articles.mcall.com/2014-01-30/news/mc-pennsylvania-deaths-no-medicaid-expansion-20140130_1_medicaid-expansion-expanding-medicaid-medicaid-program#ixzz2s009cIx0

The US was widely considered to have the highest quality health care in the world. The health-care law was assembled and (barely) passed in a very chaotic fashion, and is seriously flawed. Also, it was never very popular to start with, and has become much less popular as each part of it is implemented and new flaws are revealed. Passing transformative social legislation without some kind of national consensus is a very bad idea, but they did it anyway.

The first part was already addressed by Cossieuk, let me link something about the second part: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/21/democratic-national-committee/which-more-unpopular-obamacare-or-repealing-obamac/

Haven't you noticed that repealing ACA isn't a big discussion anymore ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All news channels are political, they are all run by people. And people have political views.

We have independant TV in Sweden funded by a TV license too, and anyone who says that it's not political nonetheless must be both deaf and blind.

And that's nothing compared to our commercial channels.

What was this thread about again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article basically says he can get away with it, so that makes it legal. Nobody denies he can get away with it. The idea that a President can simply change or ignore a law when he decides he doesn't like what it says is major, major departure from our constitutional government. The constitution that he swore to uphold says his job is "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Not the laws he likes, or the parts that he likes. He has similarly decided he can ignore laws he doesn't like concerning immigration.

If a Republican president had done even 1/10 of what Obama has done, in terms of "the law is what I decide it is", he would be impeached. And rightfully so.

 

Some consequences of the law? As far as I can see on the link below, the 17k deaths a year issue is attributed to the fact that states can opt out, so those 17k deaths would have happened regardless of Obamacare or not as without Obamacare there'd be nothing to opt-out of?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/30/1287923/-GOP-s-Obamacare-spite-means-death-toll-for-red-states

The law was written unconstitutionally, in regard to the expansion of Medicare by the states. Having relied on forcing the states to expand Medicare, it made no provision for certain people who would be screwed if the states opted not to. The Medicare expansion is a dodgy scheme to force the states into the eventually paying for a lot of unfunded elements of the law. Basically, the Feds will pay for this expansion of coverage for a few years, then the states have to pay forever after that.

 

That highly depends on how you look at it. Sure, the best hospitals in US are most likely the best in the world, but in average US health care is not the best of what I've read:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/05/30/no-the-us-doesnt-have-the-best-health-care-system-in-the-world

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-healthcare-systems-in-the-world-2012-6?op=1

The WHO World Health Report from 2000 also ranked US as nr 37 in the world.

 

I specifically said highest quality, not most cost-effective. I haven't heard of anyone who needs top-of-the-line medical treatment (and has a choice) going to, say, Canada or the UK to receive it.

I find some of these indices extremely dodgy. According to one, the US rank's 70th in the world for "Health and Wellness", while Algeria ranks 20th and Niger ranks 40th. Hard to give a lot of credence to that.

 

Not sure which law you are referring to and when it was passed, but the Washing Based Commonwealth Fund compares the health care in the following countries, Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Since 2004 the US has ranked last in every report. The UK health system is currently ranked the best in the world.

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

If you look at the report you will see the US spend more money per capita on health care but performs the worse.

All the data in the report comes from before Obamacare

 

As I say, I don't doubt the UK's system is more cost-effective. I am not sure their ranking rates the quality of care and facilities accurately. I've never heard of a wealthy person from abroad flying into the UK for medical treatment...

 

The network motto is "fair and balanced". Yet the opinions are always republican ones. Would you argue that there is a left-wing talk-show on Fox News ? How is that "fair and balanced" ?

The opinions, as far as I'm aware (I haven't watched cable television for about 10 years), are indeed conservative. I think the "fair and balanced" is supposed to refer to the news.

 

This took me 10 seconds on google (talking points memo by Eric Cantor) :

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/21/us/politics/21republican-talking-points.html

OK, but the claim was that such a memo is sent out every day? And that this is somehow different from what the Democrats do?

My 10 seconds of google found this page where you can sign up to receive Democrat talking points direct from the DNC:

http://my.democrats.org/page/s/talkingpoints

 

I don't think more than one poster made this claim, and I even think it was in jest. And yet it seem that this is your yardstick now when assessing Fox News quality: if it didn't kill hundreds of thousands of Americans then it is perfectly fine. By this metric, I don't think anyone will be able to say otherwise.

Well, a moderator of this forum said it, and I challenged him, and nobody including him could support what he said, although close to a dozen people have nevertheless posted to support him, and nobody beside me has challenged him.

And somehow the goalposts have moved so that I have to defend every word said on Fox News since the beginning of time, or else he is right.

 

As a European, I don't get to watch Fox News on my cable channels. Yet each time I see a clip of Fox News it is ridiculous. I checked on politifact, and found these lists :

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/sean-hannity/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/steve-doocy/

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bill-oreilly/

The whole truth and nothing but the truth ? Not exactly.

What makes that site automatically reliable/truthful?

For instance, Hannity said Senator Bill Nelson "voted with the Democrats in Congress nearly 95% of the time". That is rated as "half-true". But if you read the explanation, it says "The Washington Post database shows Nelson voted with his party 94 percent of the time for the current session". According to the website, this is "half-true" since some votes are not really important. But all that Hannity said is that he "voted with the Democrats in Congress nearly 95% of the time". And that statement is absolutely, positively true. Is there more that can be said about any politician's voting record, beyond summarizing it in one number? Of course. But an accurate summary is what it is.

Another example. Hannity said "8.3 (million) fewer Americans are working today than there were four years ago." They rate this as "false".

In this case, Hannity indeed used imprecise wording. What he should have said was "8.3 (million) more Americans are not working than there were four years ago." This is because so many discouraged workers have left the work force. But is the substance of what Hannity was trying to communicate (on live television) false? Not at all.

Third example. Hannity said "in 45 out of 50 states, on average men are seeing their premiums double, going up 99 percent. Women up 62 percent. That's the average."

They rate this "Mostly false" - why? Because it only applies to people who pay for their own insurance, rather than receiving it through their employer. In other words, the people who are actually paying their premiums out of pocket (people who get insurance through their employer are not - yet - fully subject to the system). With that caveat, the numbers are correct. But it's "Mostly false". Right.

Fourth example. Hannity said (while discussing Boko Haram): "When you read the Koran, it talks about don't take Christians and Jews as your friends."

They rate this "Half true". Why? They quote four commonly used English translations of the Koran, all of which say "don't take Christians and Jews as your friends" (two translations) or "...as your allies" (two other translations). But somehow, despite the Koran saying exactly what Hannity said it does, and with Koranic scholars acknowledging that radical Islamists (like the Boko Haram kidnappers) interpret the passage literally, this is "Half True" since it "leaves out the context" and doesn't take note of other interpretations. Presumably Hannity would have to recite the entire text of the Koran, and then the entire body of Koran interpretation scholarship, in order to quote that one passage truthfully...

Yep, due to flawed (unconstitutional) provisions of the law.

 

The first part was already addressed by Cossieuk, let me link something about the second part: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/apr/21/democratic-national-committee/which-more-unpopular-obamacare-or-repealing-obamac/

Haven't you noticed that repealing ACA isn't a big discussion anymore ?

It's not worth discussing right now, because it can't happen until 2017 at the earliest. And the part of the law that will screw over the most people (the employer mandate) hasn't fully kicked in yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article basically says he can get away with it, so that makes it legal. Nobody denies he can get away with it. The idea that a President can simply change or ignore a law when he decides he doesn't like what it says is major, major departure from our constitutional government. The constitution that he swore to uphold says his job is "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". Not the laws he likes, or the parts that he likes. He has similarly decided he can ignore laws he doesn't like concerning immigration.

But he can only get away with it because the law allows him to = legal.

 

If a Republican president had done even 1/10 of what Obama has done, in terms of "the law is what I decide it is", he would be impeached. And rightfully so.

Nothing but speculation here.

 

 

The law was written unconstitutionally, in regard to the expansion of Medicare by the states. Having relied on forcing the states to expand Medicare, it made no provision for certain people who would be screwed if the states opted not to. The Medicare expansion is a dodgy scheme to force the states into the eventually paying for a lot of unfunded elements of the law. Basically, the Feds will pay for this expansion of coverage for a few years, then the states have to pay forever after that.

AFAIK it was ruled to be constitutional by 5-4, so surely it is constitutional when your law system has deemed it to be so? Either way, that still doesn't put the 17k deaths on Obamas hands.

 

 

I specifically said highest quality, not most cost-effective. I haven't heard of anyone who needs top-of-the-line medical treatment (and has a choice) going to, say, Canada or the UK to receive it.

I find some of these indices extremely dodgy. According to one, the US rank's 70th in the world for "Health and Wellness", while Algeria ranks 20th and Niger ranks 40th. Hard to give a lot of credence to that.

Again, I wouldn't be surprised if the best hospitals of US are also the best in the world, but among those top hospitals there's also hospitals that are not up to that standard, which is reflected in the scores. If the top hospitals are only available to the select few who can pay, the general public won't gain much from it.

As for the 70th rank one the "Health and Fitness" includes many factors, including obesity, suicide rate and deaths attributed to air polution. I shouldn't have included this link, as it doesn't really focus on hospitals but on health in general.

http://www.socialprogressimperative.org/en/data/spi/countries/USA

On basic medical care only, the US is ranked as 24th on that list while Algeria is ranked 69th and Niger 113th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I say, I don't doubt the UK's system is more cost-effective. I am not sure their ranking rates the quality of care and facilities accurately. I've never heard of a wealthy person from abroad flying into the UK for medical treatment...

Over 50000 people a year state their reason for coming to the UK is ti use the health services

Wealthy people from the Middle East built a hospital in Scotland and paid doctors from our health service to work there so they could get any treatment they needed. They also build a four star hotel right not to the hospital for their families. The hospital is now in the hand of the NHS but is still used by many people from the middle east for medical treatment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Over 50000 people a year state their reason for coming to the UK is ti use the health services

Wealthy people from the Middle East built a hospital in Scotland and paid doctors from our health service to work there so they could get any treatment they needed. They also build a four star hotel right not to the hospital for their families. The hospital is now in the hand of the NHS but is still used by many people from the middle east for medical treatment.

A hospital in Scotland? Jeez, might as well build an ice hotel in the Sahara!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you too stand behind

I don't even know how a logical mind in control of itself can leap the gap from "Do your own fucking research" (which Is what I said, in case you weren't paying attention) to that. Are you sure you're not heavily medicated right now?

 

You're becoming even more rambling and incoherent by the post, and I'm not going to engage with you any more. You're either taking the piss or you're an imbecile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you disagree with their opinion-based shows.

What significant factual errors in news reporting have they ever made?

Comparable to, say, this or this?

Wow, just wow.........

 

So I assume if this sale goes through, Orcs will start wearing turbans and and the War of the Ring will be a holy war?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is that all these American "news" things will damage your brain. Your only choices are stupid (CNN), dumb (local NBC/ABC/CBS) or redneck-ranty-reflections for the powerless (Fox).

If you want to know something about what's going on you will have to do better. I just wish that there was something in the world where you could access information without having to order a book or subscribe to three dozen magazines and hope they cover what you need this month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact is that all these American "news" things will damage your brain. Your only choices are stupid (CNN), dumb (local NBC/ABC/CBS) or redneck-ranty-reflections for the powerless (Fox).

If you want to know something about what's going on you will have to do better. I just wish that there was something in the world where you could access information without having to order a book or subscribe to three dozen magazines and hope they cover what you need this month.

 

There is, NPR, Pacifica, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, a moderator of this forum said it, and I challenged him, and nobody including him could support what he said, although close to a dozen people have nevertheless posted to support him, and nobody beside me has challenged him.

Bel, this is BS.  Darmokk used some obvious hyperbole.  An obvious exaggeration.  You want to make it about disproving that?  You're being silly.  Besides, that's NOT what you challenged him on.  You challenged him by saying THIS:

 

So you disagree with their opinion-based shows.

What significant factual errors in news reporting have they ever made?

 

THAT is where you got a dozen people chiming in with answers ranging from 'Are you fucking serious?' to 'Do your own homework!'  It had nothing to do with Darmokk's statement.  You really are trying to move the goalposts here with some revisionist history.  First it was interpreting Darmokk's statement to mean killing hundreds of thousands instead of 'damage', then saying that IT was the basis of the disagreement when that is NOT what you challenged people to come up with.

 

You might as well challenge me to provide evidence that Sapience is 'fair and balanced' in his moderation of the official forums.  No.  Not going to prove something that self evident.

 

Either way, whether you are challenging someone to disprove an obvious exaggeration (which is lame, label it an exaggeration and move on) or using circular arguments after challenging someone to prove something that is self evident and well known (also lame), you're following a lame course of discussion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he can only get away with it because the law allows him to = legal.

No, he can only get away with it because the law can't stop him. That's different than being legal. Our system has a mechanism to deal with a president who breaks or abuses the law, but it is a political mechanism (impeachment), not a legal mechanism.

It will be interesting to see how Democrats react if/when a future Republican president decides to ignore selected parts of the tax code using the same justification as Obama has applied to the health care and immigration laws.

AFAIK it was ruled to be constitutional by 5-4, so surely it is constitutional when your law system has deemed it to be so? Either way, that still doesn't put the 17k deaths on Obamas hands.

There were multiple court challenges, and multiple decisions. The most famous case was the challenge to the individual mandate, which was indeed ruled constitutional.

In this instance, we are talking about a different challenge, though, where the provision forcing the states to expand Medicaid (in effect, dictating legislation and budget decisions to the states) was ruled unconstitutional. Since the law was improperly written to rely on this unconstitutional mechanism, some people are screwed because there is no provision for them to get government health care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...