OT: Do you still read a newspaper?

pgprescott

NPHuskerFL said:

This thread took a political turn for the worse.  Who could've predicted this would happen here  

Blake, It's not totally OT because many people don't read the paper anymore for the political reason. Many also because of technological advancements in the means to gather your information. Who really cares if you read the paper or not? It is why you do or don't read the paper that is interesting. How are we supposed to coexist if we cannot openly discuss all these issues. I think it's healthy. Oh well, I'll quit.

NPHuskerFL

@pgprescott I'm not opposed to healthy banter. I primarily get my news online simply because I'm not home long enough to sit down and read a paper copy of the newspaper. That and the Florida Times-Union suck. When I lived in Nebraska I read the Omaha World-Herald and The Denver Post. Clearly that was long before handhelds and cell phones were being used for online news.

fishlessman

i did see a good article in the nh hawkeye a few years ago about an ice fishing derby.  guy was standing there holding a freshly caught perch. the reporter wrote in the article that he was holding up a trouser trout too easy to goof on journalists nowadays

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

DMW

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

As a former neurosurgeon, how could he not be the presumptive best person to fill the role? I mean, obviously the exact same skill sets are required.

JohnInCarolina

DMW said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

As a former neurosurgeon, how could he not be the presumptive best person to fill the role? I mean, obviously the exact same skill sets are required.

No joke.  Next time I need brain surgery, I'm going to see if I can't work out a deal with the UPS delivery guy.  I mean, how hard can it be?  

fishlessman

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

what we need is a mayor whos city misappropriated hud funds to take charge of this department. oh wait, trump could just keep the same guy obama picked just briefly saw that this morning, have NOOOO idea how much of that is true.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

JohnInCarolina

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

what we need is a mayor whos city misappropriated hud funds to take charge of this department. oh wait, trump could just keep the same guy obama picked just briefly saw that this morning, have NOOOO idea how much of that is true.

I haven't heard about that.  I hope we would all expect to see people appointed who have experience, good judgment, and integrity, regardless of which party they're from.

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

No.  You're suggesting I've called people racists just for supporting Trump.  I really don't think I've done that.  Pretty serious accusation there.  

HeavyG

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

pgprescott said:

HeavyG said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

StillH2OEgger said:

pgprescott said:

@JustineCaseyFeldown fair points about Oreilly.

If you think today's press is doing a good job or even trying to do so, I wholeheartedly disagree. They are mostly left wing activists. By definition they should not be journalists. 

By "press" do you mean "media" or print journalism in particular? What, if any, reliable media does exist and where is it found or does it just require weighing the inherent biases of each and falling someplace in the middle?

The bias is at least 1000 - 1 in favor of the liberals. You are on the right track about being aware, but at least 1/2 the country aren't. I would argue that Fox, for instance, leans right, but less right than the MSM leans left. People are so conditioned from digesting the left bias, they often don't even realize it's biased opinion and not news or fact. When you say it's in the middle, I'm not sure that is true. When the bias is so dramatically greater in one direction, it would be a big win for the left for people to accept your premise. Hey, perspective is everything and my perspective is mine. Your perspective is yours. That's fine I guess. I just feel the media is totally corrupt as is a large swath of academia. Maybe corrupt is the wrong term, maybe. 

This is hilarious because Fox News is almost non-stop opinion/entertainment (some would say GOP propaganda).   Very few of their shows are focused on delivering news as opposed to opinion.  Maybe what, Shep Smith's show?

ETA:

As for academia, what is the basis for your assertion that a large swath of it is corrupt?

Exactly. A guy like yourself doesn't even see the gross bias in the other direction by all other outlets. All you ever see is the Fox slant (which is definitely slanted) I'm telling you ALL the other outlets are as bad or worse in the opposite direction. Worse for one because the try to mask and deceive ignorant people with their opinions pawned off as fact or news. I have absolutely no doubt you cannot see it. 

Almost all all of them think similarly to you. Even you must admit at least half the people don't think as you do. Why do all the professors have to lean one way? Free speech! Oh, except for Condoleezza Rice and others. Right? The marketplace of ideas is closed in many universities and students are called vile names if they speak out. You know it's true. It's pathetic and a driver of mediocrity. 

I never said anything about the other outlets.  I just found the notion that Fox was somehow much less biased to be funny.  I think it's pretty subjective which side is "more" or "less" biased in cable news.  I'm not even sure how one would go about quantifying it in any manner that you'd find acceptable.  

As to your second paragraph, it doesn't really answer my question.  What do you mean by "corrupt" ?  What evidence is there to support your claim?  All I see in your response is opinion.  

All professors don't have to lean one way.  We don't ask what political party people belong to when they apply to positions.  In fact, during any interview I've ever been involved with, I can't recall a single instance in which politics even came up.  We mostly talk about science and engineering, because that's what my colleagues actually care the most about believe it or not.  

One of the main people involved with Trump's campaign was a Duke student who routinely wrote opinion pieces in the student newspaper.  I don't recall him ever being shouted down or ostracized, even though I suspect many people on campus disagreed with his views.  

When I've raised this issue with faculty in liberal arts their response is that they tend to take the opposite position to the students during lecture, regardless of what it is.  The reason is simple.  They are trying to develop the students' critical thinking skills, and providing some kind of echo chamber doesn't do that.  In fact, it does just the opposite.  

Where did you go to school by the way?  I'm just asking because your perception is quite a bit different from any other place I'm familiar with, but I admit that different campuses have different cultures.  

Another fun fact - the alt-right/White Nationalist/douchebag leader that has been in the news of late - Richard Spencer -  was a former Phd student studying European intellectual history at that bastion of liberal orthodoxy/brainwashing...wait for it... Duke.

He was also, a member of the Duke Conservative Union. Wait..what? A top tier university has a conservative student organization. That can't be right can it?

Great point????? Nice try to equivocate. I never heard of the Alt right until MSM made the idiots famous. Again, really great point there!

The simple point was that you'll find all kinds of students at all kinds of schools. The student body of many schools will likely skew to some degree towards one side of the political spectrum and that side isn't necessarily the far left. I doubt you'll find many "bleeding heart liberals" at such places as Liberty University or Regent University.

Here's a fun site where you can go plug in the name of a university and get a sense of how (by one metric) they rank on the liberal vs. conservative spectrum:
https://www.crowdpac.com/games/lookup/universities

I have no idea whether post-secondary education is, in general, an indoctrination/training ground for left wing radicals and neither do you. All you know is what you have read or heard from whatever media outlets you choose to believe. And I'm guessing that since you stated earlier in regards to media bias:  quote - " I'm telling you ALL the other outlets are as bad or worse in the opposite direction."  - unquote (meaning left wing bias) you must be getting all your info from the one true unbiased source of info. I'd love to know what that is so I can start reading it.

Perceptions of media bias have been changing in the last few decades. Fifty or sixty years ago most people thought that most newspapers were fair. Nowadays, most people think the media is biased. What changed? Has the media, en masse, swung to one side of the spectrum or is it just that as people have become more polarized in their views their perceptions are likewise skewed? Beats me.

As far as the bozos of the alt-right, if you're going to blame the media for making them famous I would say that also applies to Trump's success. The "yuge" amount of free publicity he received as compared to the other GOP candidates certainly worked to his advantage - as Trump himself has admitted. So there you go - the liberal media created the Trump presidency. Kinda ironical ain't it?

Uh yeah? Again you find an exception or two that proves the rule. I'm sure you believe you're correct. That's fine. 

The media is totally in the tank for the left. They are in fact an activist group. If you wish to deny it, that's fine. Informed people are waking up to the level of bias and deception, but many sheep still remain. The media definitely aided Trump in primary because they incorrectly assumed they were ultimately helping Clinton. This was also terribly improper on their part, but it is their motives and intentions which are so offensive. People have to ask why something is done not just that it was done. I can assure you the media didn't elevate Trump in order to help him become president. It was to defeat opponents that thought were a much greater threat to another liberal President. Plain to see. 

"They are in fact an activist group."

That's funny. Reminds me of all the right wing crying about "activist judges".

What is an "activist judge"? That is a judge that decides a case in a way they don't like.

I think the media gave so much attention to Trump because freak shows mean ratings which translates into money. Which is, after all, the most important thing.

Seriously, I'm still interested in knowing where you consume your news and opinions. Which publications or broadcasts meet with your approval? I'm always on the hunt for unbiased outlets.

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

No.  You're suggesting I've called people racists just for supporting Trump.  I really don't think I've done that.  Pretty serious accusation there.  

Just use the search function on this site. 

1. Type in "racists"
2. Scan the results for your handle.
3. Read the posts and the context.
4. Brood.

Fred19Flintstone

I stopped reading the local rag when they did a series of articles on the parents of murderers and how they deserve sympathy for being separated from their child.  Boo freaking hoo.  I save my sympathy for their victims.

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

No.  You're suggesting I've called people racists just for supporting Trump.  I really don't think I've done that.  Pretty serious accusation there.  

Just use the search function on this site. 

1. Type in "racists"
2. Scan the results for your handle.
3. Read the posts and the context.
4. Brood.

Yeah I'm not seeing it.  You seem to think I did, however, but decided for whatever reason just to not simply cut and paste or link to the post here.  I'm not going to try and dig through all my old posts for some rabbit chase.  

Allow me to be perfectly clear: I don't think everyone who supported Trump is a racist.  If I gave that impression in the past, then I'm sorry for it.  

pgprescott

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

No.  You're suggesting I've called people racists just for supporting Trump.  I really don't think I've done that.  Pretty serious accusation there.  

Just use the search function on this site. 

1. Type in "racists"
2. Scan the results for your handle.
3. Read the posts and the context.
4. Brood.

Yeah I'm not seeing it.  You seem to think I did, however, but decided for whatever reason just to not simply cut and paste or link to the post here.  I'm not going to try and dig through all my old posts for some rabbit chase.  

Allow me to be perfectly clear: I don't think everyone who supported Trump is a racist.  If I gave that impression in the past, then I'm sorry for it.  

oh, I'm sure you don't think all of them are racist, just lot's of them. I gave the wrong impression if I said you called ALL of them racists. I'm quite sure you didn't . Why you call any of them racists unless you know them and are specific as to not smear others collaterally is what I object to. Next time, you should be real specific when throwing around those types of labels. I wonder if you even know a single racists? I'm pretty sure I do, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm not even sure I know what constitutes racism anymore. It is thrown around like nothing. I do know this, To be against illegal immigration is not racists. I think it is being portrayed as though it is in some way. 

fishlessman

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

No.  You're suggesting I've called people racists just for supporting Trump.  I really don't think I've done that.  Pretty serious accusation there.  

Just use the search function on this site. 

1. Type in "racists"
2. Scan the results for your handle.
3. Read the posts and the context.
4. Brood.

Yeah I'm not seeing it.  You seem to think I did, however, but decided for whatever reason just to not simply cut and paste or link to the post here.  I'm not going to try and dig through all my old posts for some rabbit chase.  

Allow me to be perfectly clear: I don't think everyone who supported Trump is a racist.  If I gave that impression in the past, then I'm sorry for it.  

oh, I'm sure you don't think all of them are racist, just lot's of them. I gave the wrong impression if I said you called ALL of them racists. I'm quite sure you didn't . Why you call any of them racists unless you know them and are specific as to not smear others collaterally is what I object to. Next time, you should be real specific when throwing around those types of labels. I wonder if you even know a single racists? I'm pretty sure I do, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm not even sure I know what constitutes racism anymore. It is thrown around like nothing. I do know this, To be against illegal immigration is not racists. I think it is being portrayed as though it is in some way. 

from my cave racists are the far right, the far left, and most in between

SloppyJoe

JohnInCarolina said:

fishlessman said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

what we need is a mayor whos city misappropriated hud funds to take charge of this department. oh wait, trump could just keep the same guy obama picked just briefly saw that this morning, have NOOOO idea how much of that is true.

I haven't heard about that.  I hope we would all expect to see people appointed who have experience, good judgment, and integrity, regardless of which party they're from.

I agree with them having good judgement and integrity.  However in regards to experience, I believe in gov't for the people by the people.  We don't need experience to be a person thats been a career politician.  

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

You must have missed how I used your own tactics from the Obama years as my feeble argument. It was intentionally feeble. See what I did there? 

*My* tactics?  I don't recall ever once calling someone a racist here for their criticism of an Obama cabinet appointee.  But if you can demonstrate otherwise, have at it.

At least you're not pretending to argue that Carson is well-suited for the position, so I guess that's progress.  

No, but you have for their general criticism of Obama and or support of Trump. I like that you think it matters whether the name calling was specific to an appointee. I'm pretty sure you understand that the specific instance of name calling isn't relevant to the argument as a whole. I'm sure because you intentionally got very specific thus, revealing your hidden guilt on the subject.

I've called people here racists just for criticizing Obama?  I don't think so Pete.  You have me confused with someone else.  But please feel free to try and prove me wrong.

I do think that *some* of the criticism Obama has received has a racial component to it, sure.  Not necessarily anything I've seen here, just in general.  Emphasis on *some*.  But that's something very different from what you're claiming.

My "hidden guilt."  You really don't think a whole lot of me, do you Pete?  We really should get a beer sometime.

Ok, just Trump supporters then. You get the point. It's not a legitimate argument. It's just wrong. I'm not the bad guy for pointing it out. I don't believe you understand the impact of the name calling or you would likely never do it without specificity and certainty. I've done plenty of stupid stuff in my life I would never do again. It doesn't necessarily make me a bad person. My hope is that one might think twice before going down that road in a cavalier manner. That's all. Good enough?  

No.  You're suggesting I've called people racists just for supporting Trump.  I really don't think I've done that.  Pretty serious accusation there.  

Just use the search function on this site. 

1. Type in "racists"
2. Scan the results for your handle.
3. Read the posts and the context.
4. Brood.

Yeah I'm not seeing it.  You seem to think I did, however, but decided for whatever reason just to not simply cut and paste or link to the post here.  I'm not going to try and dig through all my old posts for some rabbit chase.  

Allow me to be perfectly clear: I don't think everyone who supported Trump is a racist.  If I gave that impression in the past, then I'm sorry for it.  

oh, I'm sure you don't think all of them are racist, just lot's of them. I gave the wrong impression if I said you called ALL of them racists. I'm quite sure you didn't . Why you call any of them racists unless you know them and are specific as to not smear others collaterally is what I object to. Next time, you should be real specific when throwing around those types of labels. I wonder if you even know a single racists? I'm pretty sure I do, but I'm not 100% sure. I'm not even sure I know what constitutes racism anymore. It is thrown around like nothing. I do know this, To be against illegal immigration is not racists. I think it is being portrayed as though it is in some way. 

Look if there's one or two particular posts of mine you found really offensive then by all means link to it and I'll try and address it head-on.  In the meantime I'll state it again: I do not think that just because someone supported or voted Trump that they're a racist.  I don't know how to state it any more plainly than that.  

Now, can we please return to discussing Ben Carson's amazing qualifications for HUD Secretary

JohnInCarolina

SloppyJoe said:

JohnInCarolina said:

I haven't heard about that.  I hope we would all expect to see people appointed who have experience, good judgment, and integrity, regardless of which party they're from.

I agree with them having good judgement and integrity.  However in regards to experience, I believe in gov't for the people by the people.  We don't need experience to be a person thats been a career politician.  

I agree, where the experience comes from is largely irrelevant.  I would've been fine with say someone who has worked/studied housing policy/impact in another setting.  It doesn't have to be someone who has worked in government.  But I think they should know *something* about the nature of the work and what's involved.    

pgprescott

@JohnInCarolina I'm done beating up on you. I am sure you don't mean to insult millions of people. 

As far as Carson, I don't know and don't care. There is a huge bureaucratic apparatus in place and we need people who are smart and great decision makers. Even then, I'm not sure the impact an individual can have. I'm quite sure he will be fine. Again, we have Ben Rhodes negotiating with Iran. How can it possibly get worse?  

JohnInCarolina

pgprescott said:

As far as Carson, I don't know and don't care. There is a huge bureaucratic apparatus in place and we need people who are smart and great decision makers. Even then, I'm not sure the impact an individual can have. I'm quite sure he will be fine. Again, we have Ben Rhodes negotiating with Iran. How can it possibly get worse?  

Of course we need people who are smart and great decision makers.  I just think there are also some of those who actually have some relevant experience.  All of those were passed over for Carson, because... why?  For the life of me I don't understand the appointment.  It's just an indicator of bad judgment on Trump's part.

OTOH I am encouraged by the Mattis appointment to SecDef.  Sigh of relief there.  

HeavyG

JohnInCarolina said:

pgprescott said:

As far as Carson, I don't know and don't care. There is a huge bureaucratic apparatus in place and we need people who are smart and great decision makers. Even then, I'm not sure the impact an individual can have. I'm quite sure he will be fine. Again, we have Ben Rhodes negotiating with Iran. How can it possibly get worse?  

Of course we need people who are smart and great decision makers.  I just think there are also some of those who actually have some relevant experience.  All of those were passed over for Carson, because... why?  For the life of me I don't understand the appointment.  It's just an indicator of bad judgment on Trump's part.

OTOH I am encouraged by the Mattis appointment to SecDef.  Sigh of relief there.  

Since Trump knows more than the generals it is a mystery why he is selecting some. Personally, I prefer civilians to head the DOD but I guess Mattis is better than some of the other choices paraded in front of Trump. Given all the historical inter-service rivalries it will be interesting to see how it plays out with Mattis in charge.

The Carson selection really is puzzling and the DeVos selection is very discouraging but it is what it is.

THEBuckeye

The Johns Creek Herald