Biden mishandles classified documents

Fogdog said:

"No documentation at all." lulz You don't even try to validate your argument. What makes you think your posts are worth reading?

In your posts, you don't differentiate objective facts from subjective opinion or belief. In fact, you devalue objective facts and only value your belief. Basically you are telling us you get your information from navel gazing. You are a cynic as opposed to a skeptic. Skepticism requires evidence of something before they believe. But they don't stop there, they go out and look for the evidence. As you say, you do not trust any information that you don't personally agree with. That is cynicism which focuses on the negative parts of a problem. Rather than look for a solution as a skeptic would do, you deny there is one. Not much value in that.

Click to expand...

You're putting a whole lot of words into my mouth. Try re reading my posts with some from of integrity.

MSNBC and CNN have exactly the same ratings on Media Bias Fact Check.

Not particularly good ratings, I might add. FWIW, I pull up some of the videos posted here from MSNBC or CNN. Otherwise, I don't spend time on their sites.

Both were rated Left bias and Mixed in the accuracy of their reporting. Lulz at the scathing review of Fox and the hard right rating they gave Fox News for their biased reporting.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be sourced adequately with minimal failed fact checks.

• Overall, we rate MSNBC Left Biased based on story selection that consistently favors the establishment left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to news hosts and the website producing 3 pants on fire claims.

• Overall, we rate Fox News right biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating.

It doesn't matter if the summary comes from 2022 or 2023. The fact remains that Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Financial Times are better sources if one isn't just looking for something that confirms their bias. NPR is pretty good too.

Dorian2 said:

You're putting a whole lot of words into my mouth. Try re reading my posts with some from of integrity.

Click to expand...

I read your posts. You said outright that you don't get information from outside sources. That they are all biased and not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if it comes from your navel or your behind, your uninformed cynical belief is worthless.

Fogdog said:

MSNBC and CNN have exactly the same ratings on Media Bias Fact Check.

Not particularly good ratings, I might add. FWIW, I pull up some of the videos posted here from MSNBC or CNN. Otherwise, I don't spend time on their sites.

Both were rated Left bias and Mixed in the accuracy of their reporting. Lulz at the scathing review of Fox and the hard right rating they gave Fox News for their biased reporting.

• Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be sourced adequately with minimal failed fact checks.

• Overall, we rate MSNBC Left Biased based on story selection that consistently favors the establishment left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to news hosts and the website producing 3 pants on fire claims.

• Overall, we rate Fox News right biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks. Straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, which earns them a Mixed factual rating.

It doesn't matter if the summary comes from 2022 or 2023. The fact remains that Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Financial Times are better sources if one isn't just looking for something that confirms their bias. NPR is pretty good too.

Click to expand...

I like The Economist a lot, but $200/annum nixes that for me. Similarly die Frankfurter Allgemeine, which would give me a chance to salvage some German.

Fogdog said:

I read your posts. You said outright that you don't get information from outside sources. That they are all biased and not to be trusted. It doesn't matter if it comes from your navel or your behind, your uninformed cynical belief is worthless.

Click to expand...

Which post did I say they were all biased and not to be trusted?

MICHI-CAN said:

Fair? Reality Winters? Julian Assange? Snowden?

5 years per page or permanent exile!!!!!


FAIR MY ASS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Come on now...
Their are no similarities between those three and Trump, Biden, or Hillary.
They all leaked or published national secrets.
Possession of documents, refusing to return documents, and leaking documents are very different things

Dorian2 said:

Which post did I say they were all biased and not to be trusted?

Click to expand...

Your posts taken together, that is what you said:

• Do you actually believe regular news tells the straight story on a consistant basis?
• They're not specifically the same, but IMO leaving certain things out of a story, or just ignoring a topic, can be considered alt-fact by some. I'm not playing this provide me with links game. It's the way I see things through my own experience. It isn't a black and white issue.
• It's too bad the average American isn't able to see through the red herring, move the goal posts, and distract tactics employed by news outfits. On both sides. And trust me, I understand what roles some of these propaganda sites play in American politics. That's another problem that needs to...
• Both sides do the same thing for their particular needs and audience. How am I supposed to substantiate this position? It's a fact. One leans in more than the other is all.

And then you say this:

• Peronal experience related to the subject. No documentation at all. That's all I can offer. Just giving you another viewpoint to consider from somebody with some real life experience who does not follow the news a lot. I'm not basing my opinion on concrete, writeen volumes of text, news...

You admit you are uninformed but somehow believe your cynical and ignorant replies have merit. There is no point in continuing this discussion. We've both made our points. So, I'm going to let you have the last word and will not reply back.

Fogdog said:

Your posts taken together, that is what you said:

• Do you actually believe regular news tells the straight story on a consistant basis?
• They're not specifically the same, but IMO leaving certain things out of a story, or just ignoring a topic, can be considered alt-fact by some. I'm not playing this provide me with links game. It's the way I see things through my own experience. It isn't a black and white issue.
• It's too bad the average American isn't able to see through the red herring, move the goal posts, and distract tactics employed by news outfits. On both sides. And trust me, I understand what roles some of these propaganda sites play in American politics. That's another problem that needs to...
• Both sides do the same thing for their particular needs and audience. How am I supposed to substantiate this position? It's a fact. One leans in more than the other is all.

And then you say this:

• Peronal experience related to the subject. No documentation at all. That's all I can offer. Just giving you another viewpoint to consider from somebody with some real life experience who does not follow the news a lot. I'm not basing my opinion on concrete, writeen volumes of text, news...

You admit you are uninformed but somehow believe your cynical and ignorant replies have merit. There is no point in continuing this discussion. We've both made our points. So, I'm going to let you have the last word and will not reply back.

Click to expand...

You're too busy putting your own thoughts into my words and attacking my character man. Put me on ignore please.

Dorian2 said:

You're too busy putting your own thoughts into my words and attacking my character man. Put me on ignore please.

Click to expand...

I gotta wonder. Why ask to be put on ignore when you can put him on ignore yourself?

cannabineer said:

I gotta wonder. Why ask to be put on ignore when you can put him on ignore yourself?

Click to expand...

He seems to be the one at issue with my opinion, so I figure he can put me on ignore. I only tend to put trolls on ignore. If Fog considers me a trolling, right wing magat, he should put me on ignore. I'd do the same to him if I thought he was one. But I don't.

Dorian2 said:

He seems to be the one at issue with my opinion, so I figure he can put me on ignore. I only tend to put trolls on ignore. If Fog considers me a trolling, right wing magat, he should put me on ignore. I'd do the same to him if I thought he was one. But I don't.

Click to expand...

I think he is primarily at issue with your belief that your opinion has any freestanding authority. He expressed it a bit abrasively, but he isn’t wrong either. It’s important in these instances not to use too broad a brush.

I could be talking out of my butt when I soapbox on financial stuff. Meh, I think personal experience is fine as long as it's understood as such. We are here to share opinions after all. Pretty mixed bag there on the quality of the opinions expressed.

However, opinions are molded by experience. Facts are facts, your experiences will change how you perceive and relate to facts.

Some/many opinions are fuckin dumb though because they are not based on facts.

Idk what you guys were arguing about.

HGCC said:

I could be talking out of my butt when I soapbox on financial stuff. Meh, I think personal experience is fine as long as it's understood as such. We are here to share opinions after all. Pretty mixed bag there on the quality of the opinions expressed.

However, opinions are molded by experience. Facts are facts, your experiences will change how you perceive and relate to facts.

Some/many opinions are fuckin dumb though because they are not based on facts.

Idk what you guys were arguing about.

Click to expand...

(my take) the distinction between opinion and information.

cannabineer said:

I think he is primarily at issue with your belief that your opinion has any freestanding authority. He expressed it a bit abrasively, but he isn’t wrong either. It’s important in these instances not to use too broad a brush.

Click to expand...

Why would anybody think that my opinion has any authority? I don't. It's just my opinion.

Dorian2 said:

Why would anybody think that my opinion has any authority? I don't. It's just my opinion.

Click to expand...

Considering that you expected me to accept that “the non-right media do it too” on the basis of your saying so, the above confuses me.

cannabineer said:

Considering that you expected me to accept that “the non-right media do it too” on the basis of your saying so, the above confuses me.

Click to expand...

Like I mentioned. They do it, but they don't quite lean into it as hard and as obvious as the right-wing sites/"news" organzations do. And don't get me wrong. I cannot stand right wing propogandist shitstains that misconstrue, misinform, and basically disrespect any form of civil discussion. But some of the finer nuances of this equation on the standard news stations is also apparent. At least to me. A good example of what I'm talking about is that character on Morning Joe. Not saying they all do it, and there are some very good newspeople out there. But even as bad as the Fox and other sites like it are, it doesn't mean I have to accept more normalized news as a whole. Some of the psoters here figure I'm just talking out of my asshole because I said I don't watch a lot of news, but that's relative to the audience. Which is the RIU political section. I do my due diligence and research on shit that's happening. And I suss out sources. I just don't relay it in paragraphs of text, sources, links, and examples. I don't find I like to spend that type of time on it as others do. I'm very aware of my own abilty to go down a rabbit hole too deeply. Not gonna happen over friggin Politicians, tweets, and news articles. That shit's for somebody else. I just wanted to give my own take on the subject as I see it. Should've known beter I guess.

Dorian2 said:

Peronal experience related to the subject. No documentation at all. That's all I can offer. Just giving you another viewpoint to consider from somebody with some real life experience who does not follow the news a lot. I'm not basing my opinion on concrete, writeen volumes of text, news sites (since I rarely go to them), or abstracts. Just my own perspective on this subject. Take it or leave it I guess. It is what it is.

Considering assumptions @Fogdog just made about my own personal life experience, I'm out guys.

Later

Click to expand...

your small circle of existence, and your skewed perception of events in it, are not even close to a valid metric for judging anything outside of that circle...and not a very valid metric for juding events inside or it, for that matter. Anecdotal evidence isn't valid in most courts, and not to be trusted.

Dorian2 said:

So you just want cold, hard facts and no oopinion based on real world experience through decades of life?

That's a bit of a shame. Sorry to interrupt the thread.

Click to expand...

yes...that's exactly what anyone wants when they're making an important decision.
opinions are not facts, and never have been. unless you know and trust the source of those opinions implicitly, they have no value in a decision making process. i would take them with a grain of salt, even if you do trust the source, you never know what their hidden biases are.

Skillcraft said:

That is the most even and non political answer I have ever had to a question. You sir must be a rogue scholar.

Click to expand...

I'm simply trying to be fair...I trust the DOJ to do the right thing...Eventually.

Dorian2 said:

You're putting a whole lot of words into my mouth. Try re reading my posts with some from of integrity.

Click to expand...

why? because you're not supplying any?
you are plainly saying that you value your own uninformed opinion over any form of popular press, even though there are plenty of pretty fair unbiased news services out there...
where's the integrity in that?