Rachel Maddow does commentary. Just because MSNBC employs liberal commentators doesn’t mean its reporters regularly commit libel. For you to a priori accuse reporters of lying is itself libel.
Where did you come up with your conclusions from my statement about conservative commentators countering Maddow who is very liberal? Where did i accuse her of lying?
The constant insinuation from right wingers (including you and Dave) that news stories covering the harmful effects of GOP policy can’t be trusted.
That seems pretty self evident at this point. As i learned from watching Perry Mason reruns if you tell the truth about someone it’s not libel plus i’m confident my opinion is covered under free speech.
BTW the leftist press that i comment on is not talking about GOP policies. If they have opinions on issues that’s great, that’s called debate and airing ideas which is what the USA has been about but i’ve been referring to conspiracy theories mainly from “unnamed sources” to demonize individual people on the “right.”
If i saw that on the right wing media i prefer to watch i wouldn’t like it any better, i really wouldn’t. I’m really interested in issues and what works short and long term.
Actually, I’m an equal-opportunity distruster of media - I don’t automatically trust either ‘side’. But I have closely watched and read reporting from a number of sources and I honestly have to say that the leftist media is overwhelmingly a propaganda machine rather than a journalistic endeavor. And otoh, I’ve found that Fox, Mark Levin, Rush, Lars, Erik - give a more truthful report of the facts. That they are all conservative happens to be the case.
That they are biased is also the case.
If you have evidence that something reported is false, then you need to prove it if you are going to claim the story can’t be trusted. A priori insinuating that a writer is lying is slander/libel, yes.
qaz
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am
Top
Print view this postand
I need to prove it to who? Who decides if my proof is actually proof? Obviously bias is going to color anyone’s interpretation of “proof” or "truth."In the public arena people can have opinions about whether something is accurate or not accurate. Usually i do preface my opinion with “IMO” or “IMHO” i believe opinions are covered under “free speech.”
Are any of these proposals good in any way at all, or all they all just bad? :
• Help stabilize collapsing insurance markets by creating a short-term stabilization fund to provide $15 billion per year in 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion in each of the next two years to address coverage disruption. It would also continue federal assistance to low-income Americans through 2019.
• End “onerous Obamacare mandates” by repealing individual and employer mandates.
• Improve the affordability of health insurance by expanding tax-free Health Savings Accounts, repealing ObamaCare taxes, implementing targeted tax credits and empower states to make changes in what markets are available to residents.
• Preserve access to care for Americans with pre-existing conditions, and allow children to stay on their parents’ health insurance through age 26.
• Strengthen Medicaid by giving states more flexibility while ensuring that those who rely on this program won’t have the rug pulled out from under them.
-http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/22/whats-in-senate-proposal-key-provisions-better-care-reconciliation-act-2017.html
You need to prove it to your audience. Adding “IMO” to an insinuation that someone is lying doesn’t exonerate you from offering evidence. You can’t just say “IMO Mr. Smith is a pedophile.” If you are going to try and damage someone’s reputation by accusing them of unethical behavior, you have a responsibility to explain why. A priori dismissal of a news story as being made up is slanderous.
Well i think accusing someone of being a pedophile is quite different then accusing the MSM of being biased or having a left wing agenda. I have heard several times that Harvard came out with a study that claimed that CNNs comments about Trump have been 93% negative and the other MSM were in the high 80%. I think that’s evidence, perhaps not proof but it is evidence.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re accusing someone of child molestation or libel – you’re claiming someone has done something unethical and now YOU need to back your claim up. “Negative” does not mean “false”. If it’s reported that out of pocket expenses will go up under Trump’s healthcare law, that’s negative but it’s NOT FALSE.
I disagree, i think the gravity of the charge is very important and i think your belief that i or anyone critiquing something in the public arena has to back it up is so vague and so subject to interpretation it’s almost meaningless. As i said the MSM accuses people often of various things and their backup is “unnamed sources”, does that concern you?
“If it’s reported that out of pocket expenses will go up under Trump’s healthcare law, that’s negative but it’s NOT FALSE.”
It might be false, we’ll see. We do KNOW that under the beloved ACA we were lied to and expenses went WAY up.
“As i said the MSM accuses people often of various things and their backup is “unnamed sources”, does that concern you?”
Yes it does. Do you remember Harry Reid saying that Mitt R. had some big irregularities in his taxes - according to an unnamed source?? I mean, during an election, really??
You know what’s dangerous? Left and right wing Christian extremist zealots who push their agendas that is contrary to the Gospel and that’s all I’m going to say about that!
Now someone please pass the popcorn 
I would say this needs to be the defining position in our Christian understanding.
So we ask ourselves, what has Christ done for us
What we do for him
and in our political discourse, are we serving God well? Is Love and unity worth more than being right? Is understanding our neighbor possibly worth more than getting things done? Can God actually work even within the confines of Democrat and Republican?
I would say, we need to be beyond these arguments, though, I like to give my $.02 as well as the next guy.
Just a real question?
Chad - if the fools in Washington were doing their Constitutional job, we the little people would not have to be so cross with one another.
But as it stands we are now in a war between 2 cultures - 3, once we allow in a flood of young men of fighting age from Muslim countries - and it seems we must either engage one another as loyal opposition, or withdraw from the fight and pretend it does not matter.
But that does not mean we cannot do it filled with God’s love. WE just have to insure we are not just trying to win an argument no matter what - because after all what is said here on the Forum is read by maybe 20 people, none of whom are the Big Fellas up on the Hill. 
daveB Said:
As in the movie ‘What About Bob’ I would argue we need to ‘as Christians’ take baby steps. At the end, we may very well end up loosing many of our rights, privileges, and what the founding fathers envisioned. Can you ever concede that the world, the people, the mindset is changing? Christianity as it has been known is a dinosaur. But our understanding of God and Christ still has value and if we will just allow ourselves to look at the picture from a different view.
You have a passion. I appreciate it. I’m just throwing out a different way of looking at it. 
The reason I like to hang out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Zombies, Nerds and Geeks… is that they usually have a different way - of looking at things.
Recently, I was trying to convert a group of Zombies - from eating brains…to taking up vegetarianism. Not that I’m a vegetarian - mind you. I just think that vegetarian zombies, would better fit into society. And perhaps be accepted by folks.
I like to look at things - from different perspectives. 
Dave , for what it is worth, I look at the news in the morning and look at the picture of the stinkin’ republican guard and have to WORK HARD at not hating their freakin life and disregard to us working folks. Those bastards are as bad as the Democrats. I know it is a game, but that was my point, Christ takes us out of the game. 
You may be right Chad.
Randy, I have no way of knowing if you are right, or left, but definitely off-center.
I’m an independent. Meaning I’ll vote for whoever I think (Republican or Democrat), can get the job done.
Now that Trump is in, let him take the ball - and run with it. I don’t need to criticize him - for the most part. The press and news media channels… can do a better job of it, then I can. As some have pointed out. They are professionals, at what they do. Let Trump balance the courts, the lobbyist groups, etc.
And some things Trump does - makes perfect sense. Like the BBC story today entitled Woody Johnson: Trump picks NFL tycoon as UK ambassador at. What can be better than someone associated with the NFL, to “tackle” problems that come up? And they would really** “be on the ball”**.
I agree with Republican values, that align with conservative Christianity. And I don’t like lots of government interference.
But I’m also an advocate, of universal health care. If Asian countries (i.e. Singapore and Japan), Europe and Canada can implement it - so can we. Perhaps some kind of plan, modeled after Singapore or Switzerland. And perhaps implement it, like they do with Medicare advantage plans. Have the central government, be a single payer. But the insurance companies run it. It works for me now, as a Medicare advantage plan member. I don’t feel comfortable, with the World Health Organization…rating us in the mid thirties, as far as health care quality goes.
And if the AARP…along with prominent medical groups and lobbyists…have concerns with the current, Republican health care bill - guess what? So do I.
I know the AARP has concerns. Since I am a member and receive their email updates. Assuming ABC news has “checked their facts”… this article at The Latest: Medical groups find fault with Senate plan…list the medical groups that have concerns:
And least we forget. A pragmatic approach to renewable, clean energy. Where my pocketbook can benefit, from any research results.
Republicans and Democrats should learn to get along - like Laurel and Hardy do.
I agree with Republican values, that align with conservative Christianity. And I don’t like lots of government interference
But I’m also an advocate, of universal health care. If Asian countries (i.e. Singapore and Japan), Europe and Canada can implement it - so can we. Perhaps some kind of plan, modeled after Singapore or Switzerland. And perhaps implement it, like they do with Medicare advantage plans. Have the central government, be a single payer. But the insurance companies run it. It works for me now, as a Medicare advantage plan member. I don’t feel comfortable, with the World Health Organization…rating us in the mid thirties, as far as health care quality goes.
I’m pretty much on the same page as i’m conservative but it’s not my religion in that if a plan modeled after Singapore works well then, so be it. I don’t like a strong centralized government but each situation s/b judged on it’s own merits.
Recently, I was trying to convert a group of Zombies - from eating brains…to taking up vegetarianism. Not that I’m a vegetarian - mind you. I just think that vegetarian zombies, would better fit into society. And perhaps be accepted by folks.
Might increase their life span! Then again, maybe not.
Well, since this thread started with Mr. John Piper, I will add this:
Well, Piper is worlds away from most of us here. Though we have to realize and understand where they(he) are/is coming from. 
He is not the guru you want to listen to. 