What Is Your Most Trusted Source for Political News?

Great post, Rob.

Obama: "It's the other guys fault !!"

 

I'm basically pulling myself away from DP P&R. Its become pointless to me and I'd rather spend time working to make money, have fun. It appears to me most discussions here turn to extremes.

Also, I pulled this quote and highlighted one part of it...because if I was going to self describe myself I'd probably write something very close to what Rob wrote...only with a slight twist.....I'm centrist with a slight edge to the left.

But when I read further through this thread and saw Rob's comments here I had to say WHOA. that's not centrist in any way. OTOH....a couple of years ago I could write something like that about the Bush administration...and some of the attacks would have been similarly angry.

(No offense, Rob). Its sorta interesting.

Anyway I'm old enough to recall the Vietnam period and the extremism on both sides then. It was brutal. For America and Americans. This period of time is similar in terms of anger. The proof is in Congress. They can't agree on anything. The net result and impact was a lowering of the US debt ratings as an aftereffect of the debates on raising the debt limit. How dumb. The congressional votes on the debt limit don't cause higher debts...the votes are the aftereffect.

How dumb to cause a reduction of debt ratings because of that process. That is futility.

Nowadays I'm on the extreme opposite from most of the conversations I see on this thread. but I'm not going to counter claim stuff. It takes too much energy and time and I have better things to do.

I will make a comment on one issue though, somewhat reflecting my position on the XL Pipeline. I'm for it, but with a caveat. I'm not an expert on pipelines. 1/10,000 of the people that comment on the topic have expertise. I read a lot of stuff about it. In my mind weighed all the commentary. Noted that we already have a pipeline from that part of Canada bringing in shale oil.

Why not have another. It brings in more oil to the US from a friend rather than a dipshit country that involves buying oil from reckless problematic dangerous MF'ers.

But here is the caveat. Why run this new pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifier. That is friggin stupid, dangerous at a large level and is an easy target for a terrorist A Hole that wants to damage a large part of the US, its people and a significant portion of its agricultural products.

The other pipeline doesn't run over this aquifier. Move the damn thing. Politicians can't agree. That is a function of extremism...and extremism is stupid. Nothing effective gets done but everybody gets pissed off and yells a lot.

Now I have a long career as a business guy. Mostly I made business deals for about 2 decades. The deals I made were mostly commercial real estate in a big deal major market with major financial players. So by experience I'm a capitalist. I enjoyed it. It could be lucrative, it could be a ball buster...and it could cost one a crap load of $$$ if the deals soured. All of that happened to me. Good and bad.

And with being a capitalist, really working every day on "market conditions" far more than most people, I still lean somewhat to the left rather than the right.

Regardless, I'm sure many of the commentators in this thread would consider me a raving left wing fanatic.

Now back to the main topic of the thread. Where do I get my information. I still try and read from newspapers and magazines rather than get info from TV and radio. I like tested authoritative sources. I like the process of professional journalism wherein their is some review by authorities to try and print accurate stuff.

I like the NY Times. I was actually trained as a kid to read from it every day. I moved to the DC area. I like the Washington Post. I think they are both quality sources, though like most print media they are losing depth and quality because the print media is dying and can't afford the people and resources to ensure accuracy as it once did. I've also always read business stuff, particularly the WSJ. I read other stuff..but I like those 3 sources.

At some point a ways back I could detect a serious bend to the left on the editorial pages of the NYTimes and WashPost. Similarly its easy to see a rightist push from the WSJ. The editorial pages often clearly lean one way or the other. OTOH, all three media have regular contributors who reflect different opinions from the official editorial sections and the majority of columnists.

Unfortunately, IMHO I detect that the news writing also seems slanted at times. Its not huge but its there...again IMHO. Its interesting to review articles on the same events in both the WSJ and either the NYTIMES or Post. The news from the various media have slight slants IMHO...though not as slanted as the editorial sections. Just my opinion.

But I do like to read from both sides to try and create a balanced view and see where different sides are coming from.

In these days, particularly where things are very extreme when one only reads (listens or watches) from one source, and particularly doesn't read from the other side one's extremist perspectives only go more one sided.

Anyway that is all my $0.02.

 

I must be missing something in your posts, because you don't SEEM "centrist" at all. Someone with a "slight edge to the left" doesn't run around calling people right wing extremist's. But you think what ya wanna think ! ;-)

Someone that posts here other than myself, feel free to correct me.

Why do you care, how he posts ?

The attacks are still there.

 

He's a centrist/left leaning guy. Id say he even leans right on foreign policy issues. He just likes to use hyperbole, which makes him appear at times to be a left wing radical.

@Earlpearl: I liked your last post a lot, though I can't feel a lot of sympathy for complaints about the tone of political discourse when, as grpaul points out, your posts are usually dripping with hyperbole.

 

LOL Pot calling kettle black.

 

The inability to type the words "right wing" without instinctively following it with the word "extremist" does tend to add a shrillness that masks any appearance of being more of a centrist, though my observations over the years dont include considering you a hardcore leftie, earl. I do try to avoid appending each mention of "left wing" with "radical" or "extremist because it seems worth saving that pejorative for cases where someone is far left (breezewood comes to mind) as opposed to just left of my position on an issue. My 2 cents, YMMV.

My own views are centrist... I seldom dive in to discussions with a view that is on the extreme right. That doesnt preclude being adamant in my position when a president does something i think threatens constitutionally protected freedoms. If you can look at Obama and particularly the actions of his henchman Holder and not see danger... well... Its just hard to mention some of the recent glaring issues and believe the left cannot see them.

Understand... I'd love to be able to just agree for the sake of unity, but what good would it do for *both* of us to be wrong?

 

If I use all sorts of literary devices to get my point across, including (rarely) hyperbole. It would be a large stretch to say I refer to every liberal cause as coming from left wing lunatics, as my siggy link attests to .

You might also note that I am not the one complaining about the tone of the political conversation. Firing up the base with red meat and hyperbole, and then complaining about the tone of the political discourse when the opposing side does the same. Seems I've read about this technique.

The problem with Alinksy's book isn't the techniques it advocates. The problem is conservatives can read too.

 

LOL. For probably 20 years or longer the Right Wing and the GOP have been far more effective and focused on the Usage of language than the Dems and the Left. 30 or 40 years ago the GOP and the Right Wing was more effective and focused on direct mail campaigns to raise funds. One of my earlier real estate clients was a guy who learned the business directly from Richard Viguerie who invented. My client built a similar business w/ political and private clients....and was a deep conservative similar to Viguerie and a great guy.

The Right loves this stuff.

Recently, one of their most effective Pros on the use of language gave this advice to the GOP governors Conference on responding to issues brought up by the Occupy Wall Street Movement. Luntz, the advisor has been highly paid and regularly used by the GOP and Right for years. He is a pro.

Luntz didn't have a thing to say about the substance of the Occupy Wall Street issues. All he commented and advised upon was which words to use to deflect and change the issue. LOL...and you guys are uncomfortable with too tight underwear because recently I've kept using the word "Extreme" Ha ha. takes one to know one. Pot calling kettle black.

All I'm doing is the exact same thing the GOP has been doing for decades longer than the Dems. No difference.

Except these days there are many within the GOP that drive the party. They delight on driving out more moderate people within the party, label them RINO's and work to replace them with politicians distinctly more Right Wing in perspective. Hence--> extremism seems more appropriate at this time.

Also it is a function of the problems in Congress wherein nothing gets done. Extremes can't work together. There are virtually no compromises. Its a generic problem with extremism. In Islamic worlds they kill one another these days and for the last couple of decades.

#justsayin

 

I agree. The right is generally more skilled in practcally every matter of life including public speaking. Hiring an independent consultant like Luntz for advice on the use of language makes good sense, though it doesn't make Luntz a right winger. I have yet to see Luntz expose his own personal political ideology.

Back to your request for civil discourse, Alinksy said:

Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. Given that Statists seemingly have no moral code, this would appear to be a good tactic for them. But in reality, they do have ‘rules’ – rules they want everyone else to live by, but not themselves – Statist’s are nothing if not hypocrites.​

In other words, according to Alinksy, you lost the political battle on the rule of civil discourse after you first generalized conservatives as extremists. You are well over 1000 posts that do exactly the same, so excuse me for being surprised to hear you bring it up. Just because Obama has no shame in the matter, doesn't mean you need to sink to his level.

Don't forget he has billions of taxpayer dollars to spend marketing his lies, using the old Goebbells tactic that, if you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.

 

I'm kind of feeling like you. Too much anger in this forum. Anyway, take care EarlPearl. I've always enjoyed reading your posts. Go and have fun, I may do the same.

 

Earl has it ever occurred to you that you classify any opposing views as "extremists" ?

 

Have you guys ever checked how you rate on the Nolan chart? It's just 10 questions to find how you lean politically:

http://www.nolanchart.com/survey.php

In my experience, people generally view themselves in a somewhat different light from how others perceive them based upon their rhetoric and the ideas they champion. In short, people don't tend to see themselves objectively.

Re: poll in OP - none of the above. I prefer filtering raw news from the intertron where I can choose the subjects that are important to me. 99% of the problem with MSM is the editorial control in which stories to highlight and which to bury, not just the spin used to characterize events.

 

Yeah, have taken several such tests... not sure if i took that one or not. Believe there's a thread in here {somewhere} that we discussed it and a lot of us took several recommended teats. Prior to that I accepted the notion that I was pretty much just hardcore right wing since a lotta folks thought so, but my tests on multiple venues showed me just right of center on both axis.

Good point though.

 

Just tried the Nolan test. I'm a Centrist leaning towards the lower-right (statist-conservative) - my star is right under the "is" in "centrist".

 

Gotta screenshot? Just easier to interpet that way.

 

Actually I thought the anger level had decreased substantially lately. Notwithstanding the occasional raids by the trolls of the Mikael mold, I like most everybody that's been taking part lately.

I say this even though everyone knows Earl's an unrecalcitrant bastige who has long been secretly plotting to steal my guns and send me to a concentration camp for re-education. I accept his scorn in kind, and in the deep recesses of my heart lament that someday his blatant heresy will cause him to be cast into the blazing depths of Hell to burn forever as demons feed him the entrails of pigs while poking him mercilessly with pointy sticks. I only post here to attempt to save his demon possessed soul from the lies of The Evil One... or at least convince him not to show up to vote for him again.

 

Amen

 

How did you get the image? I just took my test, but if I right click, I don't see the image info. Surprisingly, it shows that I'm at the furthest conservative side, but much higher in the libertarian box than you.

 

There was a LOT of verbiage on those answers, and in several cases there was at least one nagging piece that I didnt like and seemed contradictory to the overall position... but for what it's worth, this still puts me in the general area I'd have expected.

Added: Rebecca, do a screen shot. If you dont have a tool you use regularly for that, there is a Snip tool built into Win7 if that's your op sys.

 

That's so funny. LOL.