Political -- Did you feel safer when you woke up today?

[telephone89]

JCJ - I'm not saying it was a terrible article or anything, only addressing someone calling an opinion piece a fact. He does indeed seem very qualified - certainly far more than the huffpo one you posted!

 

[lovedogs]

Jenn: I don't disagree that HuffPo doesn't always have the most qualified writers--but this isn't a discussion about the relative merits of HuffPo vs. National Review. So my dislike of NR being presented as unbiased "facts" doesn't mean I always love HP.

EDIT: lol, Telephone and I essentially just wrote the same thing.

 

[the_mother_thing]

I gotcha both. And I don't mean to derail the discussion. Just a reminder to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[lovedogs]

I gotcha both. And I don't mean to derail the discussion. Just a reminder to not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Nope, no derail. It's a good reminder, since many contributors on both sides have a variety of "credentials" (or lack there-of), which was a good point brought up in the "facts/ news" thread.

 

[AnnaH]

Rather than dismiss the NR article, why not look at the facts? Yes, there are facts in most well written articles.
I agree that most, probably all, publications are biased. It is false statements and propaganda for which we must watch. NR is probably no more right leaning than the NYT is left leaning.

 

[lovedogs]

Rather than dismiss the NR article, why not look at the facts? Yes, there are facts in most well written articles.
I agree that most, probably all, publications are biased. It is false statements and propaganda for which we must watch. NR is probably no more right leaning than the NYT is left leaning.

I am looking at the facts. I think the problem is that you and I disagree on what the facts say. I think the facts are that this ban is unprecedented, nothing like what Obama did, and unconstitutional. You disagree. So I think that we might just have to agree to disagree on what the facts say.

 

[OreoRosies86]

Rather than dismiss the NR article, why not look at the facts? Yes, there are facts in most well written articles.
I agree that most, probably all, publications are biased. It is false statements and propaganda for which we must watch. NR is probably no more right leaning than the NYT is left leaning.

I am looking at the facts. I think the problem is that you and I disagree on what the facts say. I think the facts are that this ban is unprecedented, nothing like what Obama did, and unconstitutional. You disagree. So I think that we might just have to agree to disagree on what the facts say.

Oh god, I told a coworker today "I am reading facts, you're reading alternative facts."

Luckily he knows me and we were able to roll our eyes at each other without an actual throw down

 

[momhappy]

I think that actual facts are tough to come by these days. Whenever I read something, I can obviously tell which way it leans, so I try to read both sides. That typically allows me to put myself somewhere in the middle. In this particular case, I don't see the extremes (a "Muslim ban" for example) that the media portrays. I've read both sides and while I think that protecting our borders is essential to our safety and security, I think it has to be done in the right ways.

 

[AnnaH]

Rather than dismiss the NR article, why not look at the facts? Yes, there are facts in most well written articles.
I agree that most, probably all, publications are biased. It is false statements and propaganda for which we must watch. NR is probably no more right leaning than the NYT is left leaning.

I am looking at the facts. I think the problem is that you and I disagree on what the facts say. I think the facts are that this ban is unprecedented, nothing like what Obama did, and unconstitutional. You disagree. So I think that we might just have to agree to disagree on what the facts say.

I understand what you are saying. People draw different conclusions from a set of facts. That's not the same as dismissing a publication such as the National Review as unworthy of consideration.
Peace

 

[jaaron]

I haven't had time to read the article, but I do want to say that, as a liberal, I do have some respect for the National Review-- I rarely agree with it, but it generally consists of well-written, well-thought out articles. I think The Atlantic is better, but I'd say there's some parity between them.

But to compare it to the New York Times, I think, is somewhat misleading. While I don't dispute that the NYT's opinions and analyses are left-leaning, their coverage of news is pretty middle of the road. And, yes, there's inherent bias in some of the things they choose to cover-- Trump's business dealings, his tax returns, etc., but they are probably fifty percent fact-based reporting (I think they are still clinging to that antiquated notion of facts ).

The National Review was established as a partisan publication, to be, in Willam F. Buckley's own words, a' conservative weekly journal of opinion', so almost all their news is delivered with some bias.

 

[AGBF]

I, also, have some respect for the highly conservative "National Review". I may not draw the same conclusions as the people who write for it, but I do not feel that they distort the stories that they print. I also find their work intelligent, although biased, of course.

AGBF

 

[arkieb1]

From the former Director of the CIA;

 

[kenny]

arkieb1, Clearly the former CIA Director read my post on pg 1 of this thread.

No.

Making even more of the world hate us even more does not make me feel safer.

Trump and his supporters are piles of shit ruining my country!

Love and understanding for them are the worst things my side could possibly offer.
That minimizes and overlooks their horrendous crimes.

 

[missy]

arkieb1, Clearly the former CIA Director read my post on pg 1 of this thread.

No.

Making even more of the world hate us even more does not make me feel safer.

Trump and his supporters are piles of shit ruining my country!

Love and understanding for them are the worst things my side could possibly offer.
That minimizes and overlooks their horrendous crimes.

Forgive me for continuously quoting MLK Jr and Calvin and Hobbes but well they say it better than I can...
Although Martin Luther King Jr. was committed to nonviolence he also made it clear that you cannot be moderate in the face of oppression and hate.

"The question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be," King said in "Letter From a Birmingham Jail." "Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice?"