Well I just think that, if the public is being made to pay for it, it should reflect the public, not try to propagandize the public. That’s what the BBC and NPR have been doing, though they also have some excellent programming. Heck, even the old Gray Lady NYT, liberal rag and fish-wrapper that it has become, has some good sections to the paper.
Remember this fool? This one got me on the road to the rabid, spittle-spewing and incoherent neanderthal that I am today:
A senior editor at ThinkProgress supposedly took to Facebook several days after the election to explain that how he felt potentially at risk from a pleasant plumber who came to his apartment to fix a clogged drain.
With no solid information to base it on, the writer/editor of the prominent liberal website speculated that the tradesman was a Donald Trump voter and that speculation alone left him “rattled.”
Kurt S. :" I also wonder what these people think America is. These are the people that trash America history, cultures and traditions. The same people that do not celebrate Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or Thanksgiving. The same people that change a universities name from 49ers to Beach because CA gold miners are ‘white supremacist’. The same people that want to remove Andrew Jackson from our currency. The very people that believe America was founded on genocide and slavery. Whatever these people mean by America, it isn’t anything I would recognize as American."
It’s a shame about ‘The Prairie Home Companion’
Bad mojo.
1 Like
Again, that’s a “subjective” opinion (AKA David). Just like I mentioned, in a previous link
I would like a proposal on methodology …on how we can tell, if something is leaning “left”, “right” or “neutral”. What experiment and/or statistical approach, should we deploy?
Now, as far as subjective opinions here go. I’ll get some independent feedback. 
We don’t really need them Randy. Every BBC article you’ve posted about Trump, except 1, has been negative. So unless you haven’t been providing the positive articles, I’m gonna call Foul and drop a red flag. Like I said, that doesn’t mean they don’t do a lot of things well, but the bias is blatant and I hope it changes to fairness.
1 Like
Let’s wait and see, David. In the meantime, since they do cover the thread news here…I will continue, to share relevant stories - from the BBC. Just as you probably will, from Fox News. And I doubt that Fox News will ever say anything negative - about a Republican president.
Maybe more Internet news outlets should print stories like this.
Fox has been criticizing Trump for over a year now. Shepard Smith and Mike Wallace and Judge Napolitano are never-Trumpers, and they have been ruthless.
Sure, we’ll wait and see - what else can we do? 
Remember this story?
Now I present an updated version, for the holidays and our forum thread.
Thanks for excellent clarification! On your question, I conveyed I’m wary of gov’t ever affirming
or determining a person’s gender and whether an identity claim is correct. So I’d prefer “none.”
On examples of your desired actions for gov’t, I commented on the two where we may differ. I expressed reluctance for gov’t to control dress codes. But I agree businesses should be free to set their own dress codes. Have there been businesses who’ve been pressured by gov’t over how they handled problems with how transgender persons dressed?
I notice all your examples of what you want gov’t to control are transgendered ‘females.’ I’m curious if you equally advocate the same control of transgendered ‘males’? On gov’t enforcement in bathrooms, the example I’d raised is if consistency insists gov’t force a Chaz Bono to use women’s restrooms?
On your example of making transgender females use male restrooms, I already commented that this would make me more uncomfortable than letting them use the restrooms that fit their present anatomy and gender appearance.
My perception is that this policy appears to be safest for transgender persons (who’ve faced violence), and are least problematic for everyone else, as well as avoiding having the gov’t be the inspector of individual’s gender or genitalia.
If this approach, which is de facto how we’ve operated up until now, proved more unsafe for women, I’d reconsider it. But I’m unaware of such results, or that males who seek to hurt women try to convince them that they themselves are women.
(The times are distressingly changing. I remember even 40 years ago attending our laymen’s conference held in the dorms of Redlands University (our California American Baptist College) and being shocked standing at the urinal of their gender neutral restrooms to have college gals stroll in, and even pass by while I took a shower. Needless to say, that school had ‘progressed’ beyond what most of we Baptists assumed reflected proper truth 
)
I know what is ‘right’ here appears obvious to you. But in a day when much controversy exists about how to limit and handle individual freedom to differ from your understanding, I wonder if we’ll ultimately go to gender neutral stalls and restrooms, wherein individual privacy eliminates an endless debate.
Shepard Smith is gone (thank you Jesus) & Mike Wallace is dead although I know you meant Chris. Fox is the only MSM non liberal/leftist TV station. There are smaller ones like Newsmax & OAN though.
No! Assertions that reason and sense is on the side of one’s own opinion is the supposed clincher both sides generally assume, but that bare assertion only convinces oneself.
I only sense views of gender issues deeply differ, so that a limited gov’t should look for ways to accommodate freedom on such things, short of confirming there’s concrete harm in allowing it. Reasonably resolving such conflicting interests is an ongoing challenge of every free democracy.
So, Bob. Since you are the champion here, of Muslim dialogue. What happens when a US business’s dress code, conflicts with the Muslim dress code?
And this is what the US, says to North Korea.
And in other places on the BBC.
Of course, that assertion too is what all sides of debates declare, that reason better backs their side.
One term for this denouement is “stalemate.”
If you are better informed on this please share! To my knowledge, employers are able to set such requirements for employment. I do think with growing diversity, dialogue sometimes leads them allow greater options in order not to lose a share of their market or employees.
Hollywood - why do people even listen?
"Co-host Joy Behar said, “You would never play Trump because he has no redeeming qualities whatsoever…You have played some of the most really unredeemable characters; Travis Bickle was a psychopathic in Taxi Driver. Jake LaMotta who beat his wife in Raging Bull. Is Trump worse than they are?”
De Niro said, “To me he is. Because he has no understanding that I can see of the outside world other than anything around him, he has no idea of what his purpose in life as the president should be, and that is to pull the country together, to be for the people, to heal wounds, not to open them up and pour salt on them. I always say he’s a lowlife. He’s a lowlife. And he knows he’s a low life. He knows. Everything he projects about negative things on individuals, on situations, on institutions, he’s saying about himself.”
And WE’RE the deplorables??
Here’s an interesting story from the BBC:
Maybe President Trump should ask President Putin, for help solving his problems?
No, I said nothing against reason!! I used it to empirically observe that differing views typically feel certain that it’s sufficient to declare that ‘reason’ backs their view best. And I reasoned accusing the ‘other’ of abandoning reason for “nonsense” can not substitute for engaging their ‘reasoning’ for their own conclusion. It only preserves an ad hominem stalemate, now the norm in American discourse.
Well, it might not be a smooth ride folks.
It looks to me as if Mr. Trump is going to be impeached.
Makes sense—that that which is impeared ought to be impeached.
Jesting aside, I have noticed that all the Trump supporters I know seem to believe that Mr. Trump can do no wrong.
Many of them assure me they are critical of his faults. But in practice there is seldom any such balance, and almost 100% of their devotion appears to be toward defending and exalting his unique superiority. Though their side has won, they still hurt that he and they feel like outcasts under a condemning siege.
In fairness, all of us who have our identity invested in one side or politician tend to concentrate on promoting the one we identify with. In the present U.S. this tendency seems to be on steroids.