Discussion about hot topics trending today

[garhkal]

I'm starting to think that there might be some sort of organization, or at least some other people involved in Las Vegas. They still have no idea what his motivation was, and the more we learn about it, it seems that it was too meticulously planned for it all to be the efforts of a single person. If so, this would elevate it beyond the status of a lone nutjob to terrorism. I wonder what the goal or objective is.

It's all the fault of the illuminati!

[Annoyed]

hoho I like this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0218923e6b3e7

not surprising coming from them of course but it's a miracle it came to light
and that piece of sht is among the most fundamentalist of the Prolife™ lot too

Been reading about this for a few days now. The leadership of the Republican party asked for and received his resignation, so at least this hypocritical P.o.S. has gotten his just reward, being forced from office in disgrace. I've expected Tood to comment on this, as its in his state.

But that article in huffington is a sorry excuse for news reporting. For one thing, the article spends more time spouting it's hyper-left bias than it does actually reporting the story. In fact, despite the blurb at the top about being updated two days ago, it doesn't even mention that he had announced that he would not run again, and later announced his resignation.

If that is an example of where you folks on the left get your news from, it's no surprise that you're so screwed up.

[SoulReaver]

For one thing, the article spends more time spouting it's hyper-left bias than it does actually reporting the story

because reporting the ultra-right's flagrant hypocrisy is bias?

If that is an example of where you folks on the left get your news from, it's no surprise that you're so screwed up.

ditto if that's an example of how you folks on the right read the news

a Prolifer™ is willing to flush his convictions along with a foetus baby down the toilet when it's inconvenient & what bothers you most is the news source
basically content's too embarrassing so you focus on form instead

you realize there's several sources reporting the same story right?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...-abortion.html
(you gonna diss that one too?)

also he only resigned when he was found out so that's irrelevant
(unless you think a guilty conscience would've led him to 'fess up & resign anyway)

[Annoyed]

I already said the congresscritter in question was a hypocrite and deserved to be forced out of office.
There is no doubt about that. He got caught, and that's that.
But the quality of the two news articles reporting the same thing is vastly different.
The Fox article tells you who, what where & when, as a news article should. It includes all the relevant details such as Murphy being a staunch pro lifer.

On the other hand, the Huff piece doesn't give all the details, and then goes on for 3 times as long on a left-wing rant about all topics related to reproduction, including the welfare system.

The Fox article is 4 days old; therefore it doesn't report the resignation because it hadn't happened yet. The Huff article was also written 4 days ago but is tagged at the top as updated 2 days ago, so it should contain that info.

I know, Fox is biased. So is Huff. But the huff piece is just plain old bad reporting besides.

[aretood2]

See the bolded/underlined portion of section 1. How many attackers per 1000 persons of each type? For example, if there are 100 times as many "white boys" as there are Muslims, you would expect to see "white boys" carry out 100 times the number of attacks as Muslims do.

But white shooters overrepresented white students. Which is why I picked this as a counter example. Another venue that I should have taken was the percentage of the population instelf. Every skunk, in your earlier example, sprays something every day. I think we can confidently agree on that. It's not a question of "If a skunk would spray" but rather a question of "When will a skunk spray".

Of the few million Muslims in the US, in the past two decades less than 0.01% of them have attempted to or successfully pulled off a terrorist attack. To assume that a Muslim criminal is a terrorist defies logic considering that the chances are less than a hundredth of a percent. That's the problem with "racial profiling" (For the lack of a better suited term in this context). We spread resources thin looking for the very smallest of minority of a group by looking at the entire group...and then forgetting that equally small minorities of all the groups in the country also commit acts of terror. It's easier to look for warning signs, behavioral patterns, and so on than to focus on religion or race or ethnicity. And once again, we are talking about here, the US, not the world at large where the numbers do work differently and you really see more of an overrepresentation. But a lot of that can be traced to Arabs (Especially Palestinians).

There being a slight overrepresentation here in the US is no more significant than an overrepresentation of white mass shooters or white school shooters. I'm still pretty sure a random white person isn't going to shoot me despite those numbers, just as you should be sure that a random Muslim isn't going to attack you.

Been reading about this for a few days now. The leadership of the Republican party asked for and received his resignation, so at least this hypocritical P.o.S. has gotten his just reward, being forced from office in disgrace. I've expected Tood to comment on this, as its in his state.

But that article in huffington is a sorry excuse for news reporting. For one thing, the article spends more time spouting it's hyper-left bias than it does actually reporting the story. In fact, despite the blurb at the top about being updated two days ago, it doesn't even mention that he had announced that he would not run again, and later announced his resignation.

If that is an example of where you folks on the left get your news from, it's no surprise that you're so screwed up.

A politician that doesn't belief what he peddles? Tell me it ain't so!!!!

It wouldn't be bad if he believed that a representative's job is to vote as his constituency would want him to versus his own views. However, this guy certainly votes with his own ambitions, and alleged personal views in mind and not his constituency. Not to mention, you are not pro-life if your goal in life is to make life nearly impossible for the child who he wants women to carry to term.

[Annoyed]

It wouldn't be bad if he believed that a representative's job is to vote as his constituency would want him to versus his own views. However, this guy certainly votes with his own ambitions, and alleged personal views in mind and not his constituency. Not to mention, you are not pro-life if your goal in life is to make life nearly impossible for the child who he wants women to carry to term.

Here's an idea. How about not getting pregnant in the first place? Nobody ever seems to want to remember that option.

[aretood2]

Here's an idea. How about not getting pregnant in the first place? Nobody ever seems to want to remember that option.

It keeps GF and others before him from constantly quoting each individual sentence...it used to get pretty bad. It wasn't the reason for the color, but it was a nice side effect

Honestly, I don't believe that. Personal responsibility only works until it doesn't.
Contraception only works until it doesn't. And without an overriding moral principle, celibacy is impossible.
We are talking about the most basic of human instincts, or the instinct of any living creature. To procreate.

[Gatefan1976]

I already said the congresscritter in question was a hypocrite and deserved to be forced out of office.
There is no doubt about that. He got caught, and that's that.
But the quality of the two news articles reporting the same thing is vastly different.
The Fox article tells you who, what where & when, as a news article should. It includes all the relevant details such as Murphy being a staunch pro lifer.

On the other hand, the Huff piece doesn't give all the details, and then goes on for 3 times as long on a left-wing rant about all topics related to reproduction, including the welfare system.

The Fox article is 4 days old; therefore it doesn't report the resignation because it hadn't happened yet. The Huff article was also written 4 days ago but is tagged at the top as updated 2 days ago, so it should contain that info.

I know, Fox is biased. So is Huff. But the huff piece is just plain old bad reporting besides.

Annoyed, have you considered that by avoiding editorializing like the Huffpo story did, it is also showing it's bias? If it were a dem getting caught out, fox would have done some serious editorializing, and you know it.

[Gatefan1976]

It keeps GF and others before him from constantly quoting each individual sentence...it used to get pretty bad. It wasn't the reason for the color, but it was a nice side effect

No it does not
I know people get....... annoyed at the constant parsing I have been known to engage in, but quite frankly, if you want to discuss multiple points in a single paragraph, you deserve it

Honestly, I don't believe that. Personal responsibility only works until it doesn't.
Contraception only works until it doesn't. And without an overriding moral principle, celibacy is impossible.
We are talking about the most basic of human instincts, or the instinct of any living creature. To procreate.

Here's the other, often overlooked fact. It's real, real easy to claim celibacy and "strength of will" as viable options when no member of the opposite sex wants anything to do with you.

[Annoyed]

Annoyed, have you considered that by avoiding editorializing like the Huffpo story did, it is also showing it's bias? If it were a dem getting caught out, fox would have done some serious editorializing, and you know it.

A news story is not supposed to be an editorial piece. Yes, most sites are biased one way or anotber, But I haven't seen that blatant an example for a long time.

[Gatefan1976]

A news story is not supposed to be an editorial piece. Yes, most sites are biased one way or anotber, But I haven't seen that blatant an example for a long time.

Really?
I suggest you are not looking that hard.

[SoulReaver]

I haven't seen that blatant an example for a long time.

I suggest you are not looking that hard.

nor in the right place

let's see where to look...where to look...wait I know

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/...hypocrisy.html

took about 3s googling & their bias starts right in the title, yo







































I haven't seen that blatant an example for a long time

[SoulReaver]

@Annoyed your silence is deafening

what was that you were saying about bias?

[Annoyed]

Harvey Weinstein and Tim Murphy are hardly comparable. On one hand, you have a sitting right side congresscritter who was a strong advocate of abortion restrictions telling his own personal honey to get an abortion and on the other, you have a liberal Hollywood producer who seems to have made a career of routing young female aspirants to the big screen via has casting couch. (A not unheard of story in Hollywood).

The Fox article takes him to task, for sure, but it appears to be playing with kid gloves in comparison to how politicians on the left are treating him, divesting themselves of monetary gifts he has given them and so forth.

Here's a nice, left side source for you.
http://www.latimes.com/business/holl...006-story.html

Several senators are giving away money donated to them by Harvey Weinstein, seeking to distance themselves from the Oscar-winning movie producer as his sexual harassment scandal erupts.

Among them is Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who said he will take the $14,200 that Weinstein has contributed to him and donate it to charities supporting women.

Over the years, Weinstein has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic politicians and causes, most notably to the presidential campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Democratic Sens. Kamala Harris of California, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont confirmed that they will be donating money given to them by Weinstein to various charities. Those amounts range from $2,700 to $7,800

[SoulReaver]

Harvey Weinstein and Tim Murphy are hardly comparable. On one hand, you have a sitting right side congresscritter who was a strong advocate of abortion restrictions telling his own personal honey to get an abortion and on the other, you have a liberal Hollywood producer who seems to have made a career of routing young female aspirants to the big screen via has casting couch. (A not unheard of story in Hollywood).

eeexactly. hardly comparable

on one hand a womanizer
on the other...a killer of children* & an extreme hypocrite

so who's worse*?



*by your standards (or did you suddenly forget them?)