Minnesota Sports Forum

Camden wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:

Camden wrote:

WolvesFan21 wrote:Patriotism is a crock. I was coerced during my indoctrination process to pledge allegiance to a silly flag a few thousand times. Got to get them when they are young and malleable.

I'm sure I'll regret asking you this, but why is patriotism a "crock" to you?

That "silly" flag might look like a piece cloth to you, but to many others it represents a country that their brothers and sisters, wives and husbands, sons and daughters, etc. all fought for with many lives being upended or killed. To others it represents their escape from a country that was less fortunate and likely more threatening than the United States with many less freedoms. And lastly that "silly" flag stands as a constant symbol of hope for a better tomorrow to those throughout this country and many others. Hope that many other individuals don't have and never will.

You obviously feel differently and that's totally fine. I would caution against disrespecting the idea of patriotism and any symbols of this nation, though. What it means to you and what it means to others is likely very different and what you feel is not what they feel for very real reasons. Reasons that you should not spit on with words like "silly."

-The U.S. imprisons the highest percentage of people in the world most when no victim is found. For instance the War on Drugs, which has put people in prison for life for selling a product people want.
-Taxes at one of the highest in the world in order to keeping us Serfs perpetually working and poor
-The U.S. has killed MORE people in other Countries then ANY other since WW2, mostly done to overtake those Countries and steal resources. Spends at least 10 times more on Military then any other Country every year. Almost a TRILLION a year. War is a Racket, read the book. U.S. has been at War for 222 out of 236 years. A true killing war machine.

So sorry if I don't support killing the most people in the World, imprisoning the most people in the World and keeping the population enslaved through tyrannical taxes and the ponzi scheme for a monetary system.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html#c1

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." - Thomas Jefferson in the debate over the Re-charter of the Bank Bill (1809)

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies." -Thomas Jefferson

"Money is a new form of slavery, and distinguishable from the old simply by the fact that it is impersonal - that there is no human relation between master and slave." Leo Tolstoy, Russian writer.

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning." Henry Ford, founder of the Ford Motor Company.

Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: "I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men." -Woodrow Wilson

This is just a smidgen of information by the way. I could list years and years worth of books, research and declassified information.

Okay, that didn't quite answer my question, but the effort is appreciated nonetheless. So, if you believe America is as awful as you say it is, then what makes you feel like residing here? Why not depart to some other country that must be much more suitable to your liking? I mean, this country through your eyes just isn't worth living in. There must be a better place for WolvesFan21 to live and raise a family than the United States.

Or perhaps you enjoy all of your freedoms and equal opportunity here. Hmm... That might be it. Yep.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

CoolBreeze44 wrote:Few things scare me as much as the media does today. The agendas and lack of objectivity tear apart the fiber of what this nation once was. Remember the old Soviet news agency TASS? Never thought that could happen here? Take a closer look.

The media has bias. The media has problems. The media are run by rich, powerful men. But the media are not quite the boogeymen that we're led to believe by a unrepentant, perpetual liar... to where we should be throwing out legitimate news stories because of a few questionable narratives.

The media is a problem. But it's not THE problem that we're being led to believe it is by a man who has marketed the media as such for his own self-serving ways. It's been a brilliant strategy by an absolutely genius-level branding wizard.

The Trump presidency will come and go, whereas the media existed before and after. The problem is that a lot of the media has an institutionalized bias that happens to go in one direction, which is what originally led to the more blatant partisan platform known as Fox News. Fox News would not have been as wildly successful as it has been over the past 20+ years if it had not been for the biased journalism of everywhere else. There was literally nowhere for conservatives to go. Now Fox has become a bit of a caricature unfortunately, but so has MSNBC, CNN, etc.

There are literally only two truly national platforms that offer anything other than a liberal bias - Fox News and the Wall Street Journal opinion section. Literally every other national news platform - the NBC family of channels; NY Times; CNN; NPR; Washington Post; I could go on.....have a liberal bias in what they cover and how they cover it.

Unfortunately, while many of these places were always biased, they at least had some level of standards. The problem in the Trump years has been that many have been so hell-bent on bringing him down, that they have tossed out journalistic standards of objectivity.

Now are we talking about Op-Ed stuff... or actual news stories with multiple sources and legit journalism?

Because I think the two are erroneously conflated. (See WolvesFan? last week when he said "news is mosly fake"... That's an inaccurate statement any way you slice it. News is actually most accurate. He went on to explain how he was picking-and-choosing what is "mostly fake."

Personally, I think the bias (or mostly fake or whatever you want to call it) is most displayed by the many daily opinion pieces in the NYT, WaPo, et al... It's undeniably one sided.

Do away with all of those pieces of "journalism." They simply lead credence to bias and give ammunition to those attacking the press.


[Note: As for the CNNs, MSNBC, Fox News outlets... meh. The talking heads are even worse than the op-ed columns in print. Hannity is a disingenuous clown, as are the rest of his ilk. I point out Hannity not from a liberal slant... but from a more pragmatic position of him being a fucking disingenuous clown. I'll never forget the first time I ever heard him. I knew nothing of him previously. It was the presidential election. I was raking my backyard, listening to Fox News presumably. Hannity was on there ripping the GOP... "I knew Bush was gonna lose because they didn't do this and this and this. This is the worst day ever. I called him losing, blah blah blah..." Then, merely a couple hours later when the tide inevitably turned, "I knew it. I called it from the beginning. The Dems had no chance." He didn't even acknowledge his previous tirade and pretended to know it was in the bag from the beginning.

That was my introduction to Sean Hannity. I'm still not very political. But back then, I had ZERO skin in the game. All I knew is what I heard from this radio personality in the moment. And even this young guy realized what a fucking hack I was listening to. So we can live in a world where Van Jones or Rachel Maddow or Laura Ingrebretson are lambasted as biased or shills.... but I'll always point to that evening as the moment I realized who Sean Hannity was. And what he stood for -- they're all self-serving hacks who make money by inciting confusion and being disingenuous to ridiculous degrees with the populace. I literally think less of people who listen to and believe people like Sean Hannity...]

Q12543 wrote:Abe, I'm talking about both the OpEd and hard news sides of these outlets. OpEd is meant to have a bias...fine, albeit it is overwhelmingly in one direction. But the hard news side is what I am mostly referring to. It's not necessarily the details of whatever it is they report or investigate that are biased. It's the topics they choose to cover and how vigorously.

So the NYT or NPR will have no shortage of articles/stories and hard-hitting investigative pieces on things that tend to resonate most with liberals, yet very little of the same when it comes to things that may resonate more with conservatives. It's almost in what they define as news and what is worthy of their attention versus not where their bias comes out. The Russian collusion story is probably one of the biggest examples in our history of a collective dereliction of journalistic duty by the mainstream press. Why? Because they all wanted to believe every bit of it and were only willing to pursue things that confirmed their own bias versus showing genuine curiosity and pursuing all lines of inquiry.

Q12543 wrote:Abe, I'm talking about both the OpEd and hard news sides of these outlets. OpEd is meant to have a bias...fine, albeit it is overwhelmingly in one direction. But the hard news side is what I am mostly referring to. It's not necessarily the details of whatever it is they report or investigate that are biased. It's the topics they choose to cover and how vigorously.

So the NYT or NPR will have no shortage of articles/stories and hard-hitting investigative pieces on things that tend to resonate most with liberals, yet very little of the same when it comes to things that may resonate more with conservatives. It's almost in what they define as news and what is worthy of their attention versus not where their bias comes out. The Russian collusion story is probably one of the biggest examples in our history of a collective dereliction of journalistic duty by the mainstream press. Why? Because they all wanted to believe every bit of it and were only willing to pursue things that confirmed their own bias versus showing genuine curiosity and pursuing all lines of inquiry.

AbeVigodaLive wrote:

Q12543 wrote:Abe, I'm talking about both the OpEd and hard news sides of these outlets. OpEd is meant to have a bias...fine, albeit it is overwhelmingly in one direction. But the hard news side is what I am mostly referring to. It's not necessarily the details of whatever it is they report or investigate that are biased. It's the topics they choose to cover and how vigorously.

So the NYT or NPR will have no shortage of articles/stories and hard-hitting investigative pieces on things that tend to resonate most with liberals, yet very little of the same when it comes to things that may resonate more with conservatives. It's almost in what they define as news and what is worthy of their attention versus not where their bias comes out. The Russian collusion story is probably one of the biggest examples in our history of a collective dereliction of journalistic duty by the mainstream press. Why? Because they all wanted to believe every bit of it and were only willing to pursue things that confirmed their own bias versus showing genuine curiosity and pursuing all lines of inquiry.

Ok. I'll grant that they sure do love certain angles and stories. These things are for-profit entities, and Trump sells. Like him or not, he really really sells.

But does that make the news stories "mostly fake" or "fake news" or whatever? No. Of course not... And that's unfortunately what far too many Americans think (or more accurately, about 42% - 50% of Americans) because that's what their side tells them.

There's a big gap between biased or skewed coverage and "fake news."


[Note: My favorite thing is when the NYT or WaPo is decried as fake news by the same person who then uses an article from one of those to support their next take. Well, is it only the coverage they don't like that's fake news? Obviously, those folks are taking their cues from someone... it's all so disingenuous to me.]