Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#53,001
#53,001
vols40 said:
You didn't offend. But 90% if the media is left and has been for generations. So start over there. They eat their own if they stray ask professor Dershowitz
Click to expand...

I think that 90% figure was true at one point, but that is no longer true. I think any partisan media is just as bad for America, whether left or right, but both sides are insanely well funded and overrun with partisan sources at this point.

We can all quibble with the graphic below, but there is a good amount of that which is correct.

AllSidesMediaBiasChart_Version1.1_11.18.19.jpg
 
#53,002
#53,002
TennTradition said:
Seems like populated areas of TN might have gotten up toward 3-5%. So, it wasn't running away - but now there are a decent number of active cases to light it off. I would think that it would progress fairly well by August - but I don't really have any sufficient models/data to make an educated guess at a number.
Click to expand...

I go back and forth on my opinion on something like a college football season and whether it will happen with fans. My opinion changes constantly. Realizing you could have large percentage of infections by August moves my needle toward playing with fans. You're not talking about 80,000 susceptible people. You're talking about some percentage of that. What is that acceptable percentage?
 
#53,004
#53,004
Rifleman said:
I think that 90% figure was true at one point, but that is no longer true. I think any partisan media is just as bad for America, whether left or right, but both sides are insanely well funded and overrun with partisan sources at this point.

We can all quibble with the graphic below, but there is a good amount of that which is correct.

View attachment 277519
Click to expand...


That seems about right to me.
 
#53,005
#53,005
Rifleman said:
I think that 90% figure was true at one point, but that is no longer true. I think any partisan media is just as bad for America, whether left or right, but both sides are insanely well funded and overrun with partisan sources at this point.

We can all quibble with the graphic below, but there is a good amount of that which is correct.

View attachment 277519
Click to expand...
Does the C stand for center or commie left?
 
#53,006
#53,006
lawgator1 said:
That seems about right to me.
Click to expand...

Your endorsement should help my credibility with the rest of the board. LOL.

Seriously though, the only thing that it really leaves out is that many of these sources have a range of perspective. I can get something a little left or a little right from the WS Journal. I can get centrism or far right from Fox.

Those on the fringe, though, are unwavering. I have a friend who listens to Democracy Now. I made it 3 minutes in her car before I wanted to jump out and throw my body into traffic. Similarly, Breitbart articles seem to be designed to be my intellectual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. I just can't get either one.
 
#53,009
#53,009
Rifleman said:
Your endorsement should help my credibility with the rest of the board. LOL.

Seriously though, the only thing that it really leaves out is that many of these sources have a range of perspective. I can get something a little left or a little right from the journal. I can get centrism or far right from Fox.

Those on the fringe, though, are unwavering. I have a friend who listens to Democracy Now. I made it 3 minutes in her car before I wanted to jump out and throw my body into traffic. Similarly, Breitbart articles seem to be designed to be my intellectual equivalent of fingernails on a chalkboard. I just can't get either one.
Click to expand...


Well, of course by definition its subjective. Someone far right is going to view NPR, not as centrist, but far left. They might also view Fox as centrist.

Someone far left is not going to view Fox as simply a bit right of center. They are going to view it as far right.
I found the distinction they drew between, say, CNN on line versus commentary, or Fox on line versus commentary, as somehow meaningful. My concern with that is that it seems to me that most people watching either say, MSNBC or Fox, is not sitting there, and when the commentary part comes on, switches their thinking from "this is news" to "this is spin."

I daresay that if you asked Fox viewers, they'd claim that a fair amount of Hannity's content they view as "news." Same with Maddow.

Maybe both should voluntarily start such shows with a disclaimer, "this is not part of our news segment, its commentary." Something like that. Just make people aware there is a transition occuring as to its information value.
 
#53,013
#53,013
evillawyer said:
Click to expand...



From what I understand, this was detected after she showed symptoms. Symptoms typically occur in 5.5 days of exposure. How would she have gotten Covid in, say, the last week, ten days tops?

AmbitiousIndelibleBaldeagle-small.gif
 
#53,015
#53,015
With yesterdays final totals .39% of America has tested positive for Coronavirus

.023% of America has now passed away
 
#53,016
#53,016
lawgator1 said:
From what I understand, this was detected after she showed symptoms. Symptoms typically occur in 5.5 days of exposure. How would she have gotten Covid in, say, the last week, ten days tops?

AmbitiousIndelibleBaldeagle-small.gif
Click to expand...

Well, if she's got it and they're doing what young married couples do, then he's got it.
 
#53,017
#53,017
lawgator1 said:
From what I understand, this was detected after she showed symptoms. Symptoms typically occur in 5.5 days of exposure. How would she have gotten Covid in, say, the last week, ten days tops?

AmbitiousIndelibleBaldeagle-small.gif
Click to expand...

That is an average, the accepted range is from 2 to 14 days.
 
#53,019
#53,019
lawgator1 said:
Well, of course by definition its subjective. Someone far right is going to view NPR, not as centrist, but far left. They might also view Fox as centrist.

Someone far left is not going to view Fox as simply a bit right of center. They are going to view it as far right.
I found the distinction they drew between, say, CNN on line versus commentary, or Fox on line versus commentary, as somehow meaningful. My concern with that is that it seems to me that most people watching either say, MSNBC or Fox, is not sitting there, and when the commentary part comes on, switches their thinking from "this is news" to "this is spin."

I daresay that if you asked Fox viewers, they'd claim that a fair amount of Hannity's content they view as "news." Same with Maddow.

Maybe both should voluntarily start such shows with a disclaimer, "this is not part of our news segment, its commentary." Something like that. Just make people aware there is a transition occuring as to its information value.
Click to expand...

Another issue is that actual news doesn't move the adult diapers off the shelves, even if it moves people to fill those diapers, so the prime time programming is all opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vols40
#53,021
#53,021
lawgator1 said:
Well, of course by definition its subjective. Someone far right is going to view NPR, not as centrist, but far left. They might also view Fox as centrist.

Someone far left is not going to view Fox as simply a bit right of center. They are going to view it as far right.
I found the distinction they drew between, say, CNN on line versus commentary, or Fox on line versus commentary, as somehow meaningful. My concern with that is that it seems to me that most people watching either say, MSNBC or Fox, is not sitting there, and when the commentary part comes on, switches their thinking from "this is news" to "this is spin."

I daresay that if you asked Fox viewers, they'd claim that a fair amount of Hannity's content they view as "news." Same with Maddow.

Maybe both should voluntarily start such shows with a disclaimer, "this is not part of our news segment, its commentary." Something like that. Just make people aware there is a transition occuring as to its information value.
Click to expand...
If you have to do that, it is way beyond having the desired outcome you envision.
 
#53,024
#53,024
NCFisher said:
What is it I'm not holding him accountable for, specifically?

Actually you miss the point entirely.

You insist the two investigation into Trump & Co. were given the same routine treatment as other, nondescript investigations NOT subject to the daily attention of every media outlet, politician, and citizen for three years, therefore subject to the same routine "sloppiness" as others. Just another couple "let's get a president" probes, subject to everyday sloppy errors.

You go so far to make the claim: "Trump and his associates got treated the way any suspected criminal would be treated anywhere in America."
And "Errors, like the ones in the Page application, occurred in every single case. IIRC, the Page app was even below average in terms of number of errors."
That's like saying stepping on broken glass three times is the same or worse, as stepping once on a claymore.
----------------------------------------------
The Trump investigations were NOT analogous, nor treated the same as the 29, and therefore NOT just casualties of routine sloppiness. At minimum, IG Horowitz plainly leaves that question open, if not outright implying other motivation:

On the FISA side, we found, as you noted, a lack of documented testimony evidence about intentionality, but we also noted the lack of satisfactory explanations and in fact leave open the fact that, for the reasons you indicated, it’s unclear what the motivations were. On the one hand, gross incompetence, negligence? On the other hand, intentionality? And where in between? We weren’t in a position, with the evidence we had, to make that conclusion, but I’m not ruling it out. ​
​
That so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate, hand-picked teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations that was briefed to the highest levels within t he FBI, and that FBI officials expected would eventually be subjected to close scrutiny, raised significant questions regarding the FBI chain of command’s management and supervision of the FISA process.​

Maybe Horowitz doesn't run **** through his brain before issuing reports and testifying to Congress, hmmm....
--------------------
Durham's investigations have prompted Barr's least ambiguous statement to date, echoes of IG Horowitz:
​
"My own view is that the evidence shows that we're not dealing with just the mistakes or sloppiness," Barr told host Laura Ingraham. "There was something far more troubling here. We're going to get to the bottom of it. And if people broke the law and we can establish that with the evidence, they will be prosecuted."​
​
Trump "has every right to be frustrated" by the investigation, Barr added.​
​
"What happened to him was one of the greatest travesties in American history -- without any basis," Barr said. "They started this investigation of his campaign. And even more concerning, actually, is what happened after the campaign. A whole pattern of events while he was president ... to sabotage the presidency ... or at least have the effect of sabotaging the presidency."​
----------------------
I surely have emphasized the illogic of your shifting, myriad points.
I'd cut back the amount of **** you're running through your head, lest you accumulate **** for brains.
Click to expand...
Shifting? I think you meant to respond to someone else.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top