Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems
Log In Create Account

Disgusted with Progressives

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Disgusted with Progressives
I

isadore

Senior Member

7,762 posts
Aug 22, 2017 8:25 PM
Mr. D’ Souza begins by trying to paint Robert E. Lee as an abolitionist hero, which is a lie. Lee believed blacks were lucky to be slaves. He fought in court to keep manumitted blacks in slavery. He had slaves on his plantation beaten. When his rebel army entered Pennsylvania and capture blacks, he had them sent into slavery. At the time of Virginia secession he chose to turn traitor and fight against the United States.
D’Souza wrote: The slavery debate, however, which lasted from the 1820s through 1860, was between the anti-slavery Republican Party and the pro-slavery Democratic Party.

Another lie. The Republican Party did not come into existence until 1854. Before that the conflict was between Pro slavery Whigs and Democrats v Conscience Whigs and anti-seelave Democrats like the Barnburner plus minor parties like the Free Soilers. When war started the 1860 Northern Democrat candidate for President Stephen Douglas supported Lincoln and the war effort.
Despite D’Souza claims the Southern leaders, Democrat and Whig seceded and brought the nation to war to protect and extend slavery.
D’Souza excuses white nationalism and its ties to Nazism and the Klan. He wishes it to be part of the Trump coaltion.
Aug 22, 2017 8:25pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Aug 23, 2017 6:38 AM
FFS CNN...

https://twitter.com/ChrisCuomo/status/897820041273626626

Can CNN get any more regressive than they are currently? Is there room to sink any lower?
Aug 23, 2017 6:38am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Aug 23, 2017 1:37 PM
Heretic;1868374 wrote:Ah, responding to criticism of one joke network with a link to a story by another joke network. Classic!
lol did you read it? It pretty much is an article about Geraldo tweeting that CNN has exposed themselves as bias against Trump. Thank you Geraldo. All of this time I thought CNN and Trump were in bed together.

It would be interesting to see which media source the OC considers the be the least biased. Whenever I find time I met set up some type of bracket to figure this out!
Aug 23, 2017 1:37pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Aug 23, 2017 1:41 PM
Heretic;1868374 wrote:Ah, responding to criticism of one joke network with a link to a story by another joke network. Classic!
Acknowledging both of them as joke networks ...

Aug 23, 2017 1:41pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Aug 23, 2017 1:43 PM
O-Trap;1868379 wrote:Acknowledging both of them as joke networks ...

Criteria for being a joke network: On a station that can be reached by the masses for easy digestion.
Aug 23, 2017 1:43pm
Heretic's avatar

Heretic

Son of the Sun

18,820 posts
Aug 23, 2017 1:46 PM
like_that;1868378 wrote:lol did you read it? It pretty much is an article about Geraldo tweeting that CNN has exposed themselves as bias against Trump. Thank you Geraldo. All of this time I thought CNN and Trump were in bed together.

It would be interesting to see which media source the OC considers the be the least biased. Whenever I find time I met set up some type of bracket to figure this out!
I legit have no idea. Seems like I find myself reading a lot of sites and then trying to glean the truth via logic, as opposed to actually taking anything any of them say for granted. I'd about have to say it's less about finding a less biased network and more about finding people you don't think are that biased, paying attention to them and ignoring the rest of the talking heads.

But, at least it's good to know that Geraldo's journalistic nose hasn't fallen off after his great investigative piece into the location of Al Capone's vault. HE'S STILL GOT IT!!!
Aug 23, 2017 1:46pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Aug 23, 2017 2:08 PM
http://www.chroniclet.com/Local-News...umbus-Day.html

-- OBERLIN — With enthusiasm, the Oberlin City Council changed the second Monday in October from Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day.

The unanimous vote for the resolution was anticipated, though it was not without opposition. Council voted about 8:15 p.m. Monday after nearly an hour of public comment from people for and against replacing the federally recognized holiday.

“I am in support, and believe it’s the right thing to do,” Councilwoman Sharon Pearson said. Councilwoman Linda Slocum said she learned a lot about Christopher Columbus during the research of the resolution and came to the same conclusion.

“Columbus has enjoyed 500 years of praise, and it’s now time to shift the spotlight,” Slocum said.

Council had worked for months to put together a resolution with input from the Indigenous Peoples Day Committee, a group of residents who have pushed to do away with Columbus Day.

Morning Dove Jean Simon spoke on behalf of the committee and thanked Council for its efforts.

“We cannot remain invisible anymore,” Simon said. “When the original people of the land speak up and speak out, it’s with great thought, and we’ve asked you to listen, and you’ve done that,” Simon said. “The time for our healing is now. To quote an old Chinese proverb, ‘Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those doing it.’ ”

Several others thanked Council, including Sundance, executive director of the Cleveland American Indian Movement and a resident of Oberlin, and Jeff Pierce, spokesman for the Ohio American Indian Movement.

The resolution recognizes that land claimed for the Oberlin Colony in 1833 was once part of land occupied by the Erie Tribe, known as Cat Nation, who were later absorbed by the Iroquois Nation.

Included in the resolution is an invitation to businesses, organizations and public entities, including the school district, to celebrate Indigenous Peoples Day and include information about the history of indigenous peoples in curriculum.

As part of its passage, the city will revise its calendars and take other actions to implement Indigenous Peoples Day.











Can't make this stuff up ....
Aug 23, 2017 2:08pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Aug 23, 2017 2:10 PM
That's dumb
Aug 23, 2017 2:10pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Aug 23, 2017 2:11 PM
like_that;1868378 wrote:lol did you read it?

Reading it might take him a few minutes; it is easier to just shoot the messenger ......again



Yet, all it is is a twitter exchange between Rivera and the typical Trump-hating journalist imposter.
Aug 23, 2017 2:11pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Aug 23, 2017 2:25 PM
like_that;1868378 wrote:lol did you read it? It pretty much is an article about Geraldo tweeting that CNN has exposed themselves as bias against Trump. Thank you Geraldo. All of this time I thought CNN and Trump were in bed together.

It would be interesting to see which media source the OC considers the be the least biased. Whenever I find time I met set up some type of bracket to figure this out!
I like NPR because the hosts keep editorializing to a minimum, they are able to get high quality commentators/talking heads/guests from multiple sides and the hosts tend to ask tough questions - particularly Steve Inskeep and David Greene in the morning. Kai Ryssdal is kind of douchey but Marketplace is a fair place to get business news during rush hour along with relatively interesting stories IMHO e.g. a whole series of stories on Erie, PA's economy which switched from Dem to Trump that interviews locals and doesn't bash Trump, etc.

Again, to me, the key is the hosts keeping the editorializing to a minimum while asking tough questions to high quality commentators vs. the trend in cable news and many print/digital media outlets to have the journalists provide commentary or write provocatively with thinly-veiled points of view to get clicks.

But I am the resident "NPR listening Liberal!" on this board - as Mark Levin would say.
Aug 23, 2017 2:25pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Aug 23, 2017 2:39 PM
Agree about NPR. I think it's the in depth nature that makes it a quality source of news. Who gives a f*** what Mark Levin thinks.
Aug 23, 2017 2:39pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Aug 23, 2017 2:55 PM
I listened to NPR one time. It was on the old site and a person by the name of... RideTheBus (I think?) put the link up. So it was right around the time that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and all of the callers and the hosts were having orgasms over it. It absolutely did not seem to be middle of the road or even center-left.
So, that was my first and last time I paid any attention to it lol
Aug 23, 2017 2:55pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Aug 23, 2017 3:08 PM
CenterBHSFan;1868397 wrote:I listened to NPR one time. It was on the old site and a person by the name of... RideTheBus (I think?) put the link up. So it was right around the time that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and all of the callers and the hosts were having orgasms over it. It absolutely did not seem to be middle of the road or even center-left.
So, that was my first and last time I paid any attention to it lol
I'd encourage you to give it a try again sometime. There are some great programs on there. Lot's of in-depth stuff on the news, but also on other topics like science.
Aug 23, 2017 3:08pm
R

rocketalum

Senior Member

268 posts
Aug 23, 2017 3:21 PM
Not really the topic of the thread but since we're discussing news sources I'll share what I find to be quality sources. The Economist, WSJ, The Hill (getting more sensational/editorial though), NPR, BBC, and Reuters. I'll check HuffPo, MSNBC and Fox News on occasion to see what the partisan hacks are shilling. InfoWars, Brietbart, Occupy Democrats etc.. should never be read by anyone ever.
Aug 23, 2017 3:21pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Aug 23, 2017 3:27 PM
CenterBHSFan;1868397 wrote:I listened to NPR one time. It was on the old site and a person by the name of... RideTheBus (I think?) put the link up. So it was right around the time that Obama got the Nobel Peace Prize and all of the callers and the hosts were having orgasms over it. It absolutely did not seem to be middle of the road or even center-left.
So, that was my first and last time I paid any attention to it lol
NPR is better than a lot of the shit we see posted here, but they are called national propoganda radio for a reason. After the way they handled Juan William's firing, I have a hard time saying they are down the middle. They definetely lean left, just not as left as the other sources that have gone full left.
Aug 23, 2017 3:27pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Aug 23, 2017 3:32 PM
like_that;1868412 wrote:NPR is better than a lot of the shit we see posted here, but they are called national propoganda radio for a reason. After the way they handled Juan William's firing, I have a hard time saying they are down the middle. They definetely lean left, just not as left as the other sources that have gone full left.
No news source is flawless, and I wouldn't invest too much into the nicknames associated with stations, as there are those who will generally find a problem with every news outlet.

I tend to go with WSJ, Al Jazeera, NPR, BBC, PBS, and Forbes if I can avoid the rest.
Aug 23, 2017 3:32pm
Dr Winston O'Boogie's avatar

Dr Winston O'Boogie

Senior Member

1,799 posts
Aug 23, 2017 3:39 PM
My favorites are the Wall Street Journal, NPR, Financial Times, USA Today in no particular order.
Aug 23, 2017 3:39pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Aug 23, 2017 4:04 PM
O-Trap;1868413 wrote:I tend to go with WSJ, Al Jazeera, NPR, BBC, PBS, and Forbes if I can avoid the rest.
I will never pay attention to Al Jazeera anymore. I once saw a segment right after the last Charlie Hebdo shooting and they (the host and one other guest) were pretty slimey and underhanded by suggesting that it was Hebdo's and the "far right's" fault. That flat out ended any sort of respect that I could have drudged up for them.
Aug 23, 2017 4:04pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 23, 2017 4:12 PM
None of the mainstream media is 100% garbage or partisan. And anything worthwhile/credible at the non-mainstream sites eventually trickles up. You just have to learn to tell the difference between propaganda, opinion and fact, and a good cross-section generally aligns that.

WSJ is generally good for financial, market and business news (as long as you avoid the Opinion and Political pages). FT, also. Reuters and Bloomberg - again, stick with the market/business/economic news. I don't trust non-financial reporters from other sources to get it right. The pubs listed stake their reputation on being financial news, and as such there's really no tolerance for political agendas over reality.

But if you're looking for reporting on politics and world events, I doubt you'll find any publication that doesn't slant one way or the other.

And the most subtle bias of all these sources is in what they choose to cover (and not cover). What they cover is generally pretty good, once you filter out the editorializing, but if you want the whole picture you have to seek out both liberal and conservative leaning sources.
Aug 23, 2017 4:12pm
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Aug 23, 2017 4:23 PM
gut;1868430 wrote:WSJ is generally good for financial, market and business news (as long as you avoid the Opinion and Political pages).

I read the entire publication and find that the opinion page is excellent and the contributions from varied writers is also excellent. And I particularly like the letters to the editor, which generally come from smart, well-written types with in-depth personal and professional exposure to the topic at hand. Quite insightful.
Aug 23, 2017 4:23pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Aug 23, 2017 11:41 PM
CenterBHSFan;1868427 wrote:I will never pay attention to Al Jazeera anymore. I once saw a segment right after the last Charlie Hebdo shooting and they (the host and one other guest) were pretty slimey and underhanded by suggesting that it was Hebdo's and the "far right's" fault. That flat out ended any sort of respect that I could have drudged up for them.
I mostly expect that sort of thing from every station here and there. I certainly don't think Al Jazeera is the pinnacle of reporting integrity, but I still think it's better than most.

Frankly, I don't think there is such a thing as a station that serves as a pinnacle of reporting integrity.
Aug 23, 2017 11:41pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Aug 24, 2017 1:40 AM
QuakerOats;1868431 wrote:I read the entire publication and find that the opinion page is excellent and the contributions from varied writers is also excellent. And I particularly like the letters to the editor, which generally come from smart, well-written types with in-depth personal and professional exposure to the topic at hand. Quite insightful.
Wow.

Unlike you, I've been reading the WSJ for a long time....When Murdoch bought it, the change was noticeable and overnight.
Aug 24, 2017 1:40am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Aug 24, 2017 10:06 AM
I've only been reading it since 1982, along with Forbes, Institutional Investor, and many others.
Aug 24, 2017 10:06am