Faux News

[Tired of the Nonsense]

This is Faux news in a nutshell. Because the numbers are not incorrect, and yet the story is a blatant lie. The Clinton administration inherited a 7.1% jobless rate from the first Bush administration, and eight years later turned over a 4.4% jobless rate to Bush Jr. Eight years later the Bush Jr. administration turned a 9.0% jobless rate over to the incoming Obama administration, and now eight years later the Obama administration has turned over a 4.5% jobless rate to the Trump administration. Faux's numbers are not wrong, but their reporting is a purposeful lie.

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/04/social ... st-tweets/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 10031.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/33124 ... ut-context

Essentially Faux News is crediting Republican administrations for the achievements of Democratic administrations.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The whole "fake news" thing is getting tiring for me personally. Fox and MSNBC misrepresent things all the time to push their side of the agenda. CNN presents more facts, but then trots out panel after panel of idiots who debate everything.

The news media is useless anymore.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The whole "fake news" thing is getting tiring for me personally. Fox and MSNBC misrepresent things all the time to push their side of the agenda. CNN presents more facts, but then trots out panel after panel of idiots who debate everything.

The news media is useless anymore.

Fox News has a blatant conservative bias while MSNBC has a blatant liberal bias, this is true. There is a significant difference in reporting between the two, however. Fox News (faux news) discovered years ago that high ratings corresponded to delivering to their conservative viewers the point of view that their viewers wanted to hear. Accuracy is less than secondary, as the OP points out. Liberal viewers, on the other hand, demand accuracy. Less than accurate reporting costs MSNBC viewers. MSNBC is forced make sure that their blatant liberal bias represents scrupulously accurate reporting.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 1 by Tired of the Nonsense]

The whole "fake news" thing is getting tiring for me personally. Fox and MSNBC misrepresent things all the time to push their side of the agenda. CNN presents more facts, but then trots out panel after panel of idiots who debate everything.

The news media is useless anymore.

Fox News has a blatant conservative bias while MSNBC has a blatant liberal bias, this is true. There is a significant difference in reporting between the two, however. Fox News (faux news) discovered years ago that high ratings corresponded to delivering to their conservative viewers the point of view that their viewers wanted to hear. Accuracy is less than secondary, as the OP points out. Liberal viewers, on the other hand, demand accuracy. Less than accurate reporting costs MSNBC viewers. MSNBC is forced make sure that their blatant liberal bias represents scrupulously accurate reporting.

I don't see how you can make such a blanket statement about liberals and conservatives. There is no data that I know of that shows liberal people demand "accuracy" more than conservative people. People tend to watch what they watch because it confirms their world view, according to psychological teachings. I think there are freethinkers out there who listen to many different viewpoints in order to get the big picture, but they are a minority of the adult population.

The media is a profit driven, corporate machine these days, and sacrifices journalistic integrity for viewership numbers and revenue streams, and people watch them because they align with their opinion spectrum

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 4 by Kenisaw]

The definition of liberalism is the search for truth. The definition of conservatism is the maintenance of the status quo.

[WinePusher]

This is Faux news in a nutshell. Because the numbers are not incorrect, and yet the story is a blatant lie. The Clinton administration inherited a 7.1% jobless rate from the first Bush administration, and eight years later turned over a 4.4% jobless rate to Bush Jr. Eight years later the Bush Jr. administration turned a 9.0% jobless rate over to the incoming Obama administration, and now eight years later the Obama administration has turned over a 4.5% jobless rate to the Trump administration. Faux's numbers are not wrong, but their reporting is a purposeful lie.

Essentially Faux News is crediting Republican administrations for the achievements of Democratic administrations.

You seem to be beating a dead horse, TOTN. If you want to get even more technical, we could point out the fact that Congress was entirely controlled by republicans towards the end of the Clinton and Obama administrations. And since Congress determines economic legislation, the drop in the unemployment rate is due to republican economic policies, irrespective of the fact that a democrat was in the White House.

However, if we were to compare Trump with Obama in terms of job creation, you would have to admit Trump wins. I'm no Trump supporter, but he has done a decent job thus far securing foreign direct investment into this country, and his executive orders repealing Obama-era regulations have been positively received by the business community.

The definition of liberalism is the search for truth. The definition of conservatism is the maintenance of the status quo.

Jesus Christ. What is up with people on this forum just making stuff up? Your made up definition of "liberalism" is wrong. The word "liberalism" has a rich history, and actually liberals back in the 1600-1700s held the same beliefs as today's conservatives.

In today's context, the word "liberal" has been hijacked by a large group of SJW's who defend Muslim terrorists and riot whenever they get upset.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I am going to tell this story, even though it doesn't directly relate to the OP. I was born a WASP; a white anglo-saxon Protestant. I remember the presidential election of 1956, when Eisenhower was running for a second term against Democrat Adlai Stevenson. I was eight years old at the time. I didn't know spit about politics, but I knew Ike was "the president," and I couldn't understand why everyone wouldn't just automatically vote for "the president." I remember my mother waking me up to tell me that Ike had won. My little wasp world was safe.

Fast forward four years. Nixon was running against Kennedy. I was now twelve, and a liberal Democrat. And I knew EXACTLY why I was a liberal democrat. There were many diverse reasons of course, but to put it in a nutshell; Democrats value all people, and Republicans despise most people. Especially THEM people. The ones not just like them. All the Republicans I knew were hard core racists and very open about it. It's still very true to this day. And I am still a Democrat to this day. The last of the few... an old, white, male, liberal Democrat. A WASA; a white anglo-saxon atheist. And I know exactly why.

[2Dbunk]

[Replying to post 6 by WinePusher]

Jesus Christ. What is up with people on this forum just making stuff up? Your made up definition of "liberalism" is wrong. The word "liberalism" has a rich history, and actually liberals back in the 1600-1700s held the same beliefs as today's conservatives.

In today's context, the word "liberal" has been hijacked by a large group of SJW's who defend Muslim terrorists and riot whenever they get upset.

Last time I checked expletives were unacceptable on this board, or were you just asking "Him" for an opinion?

I don't know about the 1600-1700s but liberalism today means a lot of things, one of them being the quest for truth. Isn't that what a liberal arts curriculum all about?
I'm sure as "God didn't make little green apples" that conservatism is not geared to finding the truth about anything except maintaining or increasing the contents of one's pocketbook!

And your last sentence is certainly fake news. For a long time on this forum I castigated the Moslem faith with my signature "Islam is ALL that a religion can be" lest you forget. And if I remember my history correctly, the Civil War was started by a bunch of conservatives in Charleston Harbor (a riot if there ever was one).

[bluethread]

I don't know about the 1600-1700s but liberalism today means a lot of things, one of them being the quest for truth. Isn't that what a liberal arts curriculum all about?
I'm sure as "God didn't make little green apples" that conservatism is not geared to finding the truth about anything except maintaining or increasing the contents of one's pocketbook!

Not only are you not aware for the source of liberalism, you do not appear to be aware of the origins of conservatism. Conservatism started in England and was associated with the Tories in the colonies. It's purpose was to conserve the monarchy. After the revolution, it became the Wing party that sought an authoritarian centralized government. They opposed the liberal Democrates who favored a confederacy. Federalism, independent states with a federal authority limited to foreign affairs and arbitration between the states, was the compromise between the two memorialized in the Constitution of these United States.. This has now flipped. Modern Conservatives, or nor accurately Libertarians, seek to conserve individual and states rights. Liberals, or more accurately Progressives, seek to expand centralized authority.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

Which is something people simply want to ignore about conservative or right wing politics. They want to demonize conservatives as racists, xenophobia, and authoritarians. While ignoring the chief principles of what makes a modern conservative and why it is necessary in modern governance.

Among these principles is:

Not making rapid or hasty changes to government.
Maximizing individual liberty
Minimizing the impact of government on individuals

@all

The reality is a good government needs both liberals and conservatives. It is the balance of both that allows us to be flexible to a changing world environment sociologically and physically speaking without overreaching and limiting mistakes.

A truly libertarian government could easily be taken advantage of and a truly liberal government could easily take advantage of its citizenry. We need to stop stereotyping each other and work with each other with respect and dignity. Lest we give rise to the very extremism that we fear.