Today,Prez messed up pretty bigly..... (Page 13): Screw tops put wine in a zombie state. OK for drinking within a year, but corks are the best method of closure for good wine. I ain't...

Mikeyavelli

kemmer wrote:

The terroir of Mendoza is quite adequate for my taste. Interestingly, when I was in Bejing last year, I found that all wines--top shelf as well as the local vin ordinaire--came with screw tops rather than corks.

Screw tops put wine in a zombie state. OK for drinking within a year, but corks are the best method of closure for good wine.
I ain't sayin that Argentina makes bad wine, and I love Torrontes, the cheap and absolutely delicious white wine indigenous to Argentina, but after 50 years of experience in wine drinking, serving, buying, selling, importing, I can't give time to wine that doesn't have all the qualities I demand in wine.
I don't want just the drums, I want the whole orchestra.

kemmer

Mikeyavelli wrote:

Screw tops put wine in a zombie state. OK for drin... (show quote)

White wine? Ho-hum.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Depends on the validity of the rating. Bias can be shown in various ways, loaded words (words specifically chosen to invoke desired emotions in relation to the information being conveyed), Story se******n (according to what you say your sources tell you, they, the left leaning media, would be showing bias based on this criteria, supposing that your sources are judging fairly), Facts left out of the finished story (leaving facts out to change the context of what is left in), Added commentary (This requires no elaboration), and Any added fallacies/half t***hs/lies (again, no elaboration necessary). Those are just SOME of the ways a source can show bias, there may be others as well.

I suppose I can do a check myself to verify, will written articles suffice or must I endure an endless barrage of news being squawked at me all day long? I typically don't even turn any T.V.s until the evening, I start with the news and then either prime time programming or switch to cable. I actually prefer to get MOST of my news in written format, I can imbibe at my own convenience and from articles I find to be of most interest (I avoid "sensationalized" headlines typically).

Of course that will likely lead to bias as I don't typically click on stories that appear to be click bait. The more "sensational" the title, the more likely it is to be biased.

As for "the pot calling the kettle black", does the number of "black items" make any difference to the color of said items? It is WELL known that Fox news is VERY biased, they utilize "sensational" headlines, Loaded wording, often use unconfirmed "facts", their hosts often add their own commentary to stories and have even run some stories/opinion pieces directly taken from conservative conspiracy theorists (Sean Hannity comes to mind on this one). There can be no doubt that Fox is biased. The pieces I typically read from CNN don't typically come off as biased, when I have checked their facts, I have usually confirmed them quite easily. I typically prefer to "fact check" their claims on what Trump tweets, very easy to find the t***h there, go to Trump's own twitter feed to "fact check". Of course even when they report ACCURATELY on something Trump tweets, he still claims "f**e news" even though when I check for myself, their coverage matches his tweets and do not appear to be taken out of context.

Perhaps I miss the bias because I ignore MSM's attempts at influencing me, and only pay attention to the facts, perhaps I am not catching the bias because it isn't there. According to the many bias rating sites I have checked, most of the sites I choose to read from are rated as the least biased both center left AND center right.

Depends on the validity of the rating. Bias can be... (show quote)

1. I didn't say Walt Disney...i meant the Disney corporation.

2. If you almost never watch the news, how do you know what you say about Fox is accurate?

3. If you think CNN is conservative, you are living on Gilligan's Island.

4. Fox never caused a 350% one day drop in the stock market as ABC did. I guess their factual too, huh?

5. I am NOT defending Fox. Fox is one of many biased news outlets, the only difference being that they are more conservative. To pull Fox out of the crowd to badger is discriminatory. Why did you not badger ALL MSM as biased?

6. As I just proved your own bias in point #5, you are not qualified to comment on Fox as the only biased news outlet.

To sum it all up, you are biased towards a biased MSM ( except Fox), making your comments invalid.
After all, f**e news is real and what is an opinion based on f**e news called? F**e news is a story that is "not true, i.e. a lie, an unt***h". To prove my point, look at this report on 16 false news stories run by reporters.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/06/16-f**e-news-stories-reporters-have-run-since-trump-won/

7. If you can deny the story I just posted, then you are surely living on planet Zoomba in the Immasterate Galaxy, because you are totally out of touch with reality, or you totally deny reality.

There is no need to say more.

maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

kemmer wrote:

Actually Trump is doing a lot of the terrorists' work for them by trashing our traditional alliances and threatening the existence of NATO.

How so? We still have our allies...they are just not getting their pockets padded by us as much. They can't afford to NOT be allied with us.
I don't see NATO as doing anything other than costing us tons of money while bashing us and our allies.

kemmer

maximus wrote:

I don't see NATO as doing anything other than costing us tons of money while bashing us and our allies.

You have it backwards. Trump is bashing them. Putin is loving it because he’s got his eye on Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

JoyV

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

Depends on the validity of the rating. Bias can be shown in various ways, loaded words (words specifically chosen to invoke desired emotions in relation to the information being conveyed), Story se******n (according to what you say your sources tell you, they, the left leaning media, would be showing bias based on this criteria, supposing that your sources are judging fairly), Facts left out of the finished story (leaving facts out to change the context of what is left in), Added commentary (This requires no elaboration), and Any added fallacies/half t***hs/lies (again, no elaboration necessary). Those are just SOME of the ways a source can show bias, there may be others as well.

I suppose I can do a check myself to verify, will written articles suffice or must I endure an endless barrage of news being squawked at me all day long? I typically don't even turn any T.V.s until the evening, I start with the news and then either prime time programming or switch to cable. I actually prefer to get MOST of my news in written format, I can imbibe at my own convenience and from articles I find to be of most interest (I avoid "sensationalized" headlines typically).

Of course that will likely lead to bias as I don't typically click on stories that appear to be click bait. The more "sensational" the title, the more likely it is to be biased.

As for "the pot calling the kettle black", does the number of "black items" make any difference to the color of said items? It is WELL known that Fox news is VERY biased, they utilize "sensational" headlines, Loaded wording, often use unconfirmed "facts", their hosts often add their own commentary to stories and have even run some stories/opinion pieces directly taken from conservative conspiracy theorists (Sean Hannity comes to mind on this one). There can be no doubt that Fox is biased. The pieces I typically read from CNN don't typically come off as biased, when I have checked their facts, I have usually confirmed them quite easily. I typically prefer to "fact check" their claims on what Trump tweets, very easy to find the t***h there, go to Trump's own twitter feed to "fact check". Of course even when they report ACCURATELY on something Trump tweets, he still claims "f**e news" even though when I check for myself, their coverage matches his tweets and do not appear to be taken out of context.

Perhaps I miss the bias because I ignore MSM's attempts at influencing me, and only pay attention to the facts, perhaps I am not catching the bias because it isn't there. According to the many bias rating sites I have checked, most of the sites I choose to read from are rated as the least biased both center left AND center right.

Depends on the validity of the rating. Bias can be... (show quote)

Can you post links to these positive articles? I have seen almost none. And I don't watch news but read articles from various sites, including CNN.

Walt Disney was not involved with the purchase as he has been dead for some time. When referring to Disney in current events, it is pretty evident the reference is to the company, not the deceased man.

No matter the rating, there is still only a single televised conservative news network, and many progressive ones. Yet Obama and many of his supporters called for Fox to be shut down. They could not stand a single dissenting voice. Free speech was great only so long as all spoke as his agenda dictated.

So sensational headlines should only be used by progressive or liberal news stories? How about lying headlines? How many headlines have blared out that Trump is a R****T and tout his increase in border security as r****t? In fact, I remember headlines stating his policy of using DNA testing to verify that the adults claiming a child from detention was r****t! Deterring child trafficking is now considered r****t?!?!

The fact checking is not f**e news when they report what he says, whether from Twitter, a speech, or other communication. It is f**e news when they claim what he said was a lie which wasn't. Examples include when he said MS13 were animals, and it was reported he said immigrants were animals. When he said f**e news is the enemy of the people, and they reported he said journalism was the enemy of the people.

Just who is rating the bias? And don't say those rating the bias aren't biased themselves. I've never met anyone who has no biases. I never trust ratings of things which can't be quantified. I also distrust polls as I have never seen one in which there is a fair demographic spread of those polled. This includes both polls done by the left and right! If you really want the facts, forget news sites and go straight to the sources whenever possible.

Mikeyavelli

kemmer wrote:

White wine? Ho-hum.

It took me 20 years of wine tasting and study before I learned to love white wine.
I have hundreds of bottles of white Burgundy, Chablis, Corton, Mersault, Montrachet , etc. And I am fond of Marlborough Sauvignon Blanc too.
But I agree with you that early in the wine experience, reds are preferable to most people. I know people who never liked red wine, only white wine.
Eh, I like any well made wine now. But it took me over 50 years to do it.

Common_Sense_Matters

maximus wrote:

Valid opinions? actual facts that aren't always fa... (show quote)

Slander requires malicious intent, to report on a story incorrectly by accident is not a malicious act. EVERY media outlet has ran a story at one time or another where one part or another was misreported.

But Trump wasn't wanting to sue them for slander, he wanted to sue for libel. libel doesn't require you to prove malicious intent, something that can often times be quite difficult. He wanted to loosen the restrictions on libel laws, open them up, less restrictive.

JoyV

Common_Sense_Matters wrote:

According to USA Today, Obama administration was N... (show quote)

The IRS attacks were NOT primarily about audits. In fact the IRS actions were in violation of the 1st amendment and possibly the due process clause.

"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of people
peaceably to assemble . . ."'
Joining organizations is a type of assembling. Government targeting of those members is abridging free speech and assembly.

In November 2013, the investigative reporting organization ProPublica requested information from the IRS on 67 nonprofit groups that had spent money on the 2012 e******ns, including Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. The IRS's Cincinnati office responded with the documents from 31 of the groups. Of the 31 groups, nine were confidential applications of conservative groups that had not yet been approved and therefore were not supposed to be publicly disclosed. ProPublica made six of these applications public, "after redacting their financial information, deeming that they were newsworthy." ProPublica had made a records request to the office seeking only completed applications, which are public information.

The IRS began using a "Be On the Look Out" ("BOLO") list.

The list, first distributed in August 2010, suggested intensive scrutiny of applicants with names related to a number of political causes, including names related to the Tea Party movement and other conservative causes. Eventually, IRS employees in Ohio, California, and Washington, D.C. applied closer scrutiny to applications from organizations that:

referenced words such as
"Tea Party"
"Patriots"
"Constitution"
"Bill of Rights"
"9/12 Project"
"progressive"
"occupy"
"Israel"
"open source software"
"medical marijuana"
"occupied territory advocacy"

If they outlined issues in the application that included government spending, government debt, or taxes;
involved advocating or lobbying to "make America a better place to live"; had statements in the case file that criticized how the country is being run; advocated education about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; were focused on challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—known by many as Obamacare; questioned the integrity of federal e******ns.

Those whose names including words and phrases falling in the BOLO list were delayed for long periods of time. Media Trackers, a conservative organization, applied to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status, and received no response after waiting 16 months. When the organization's founder, Drew Ryun, applied for permanent tax-exempt status for an existing tax-exempt organization with what he said was a "liberal-sounding name" ("Greenhouse Solutions"), that application was approved in three weeks

An organization whose purpose was to encourage reading our constitution was delayed. Eventually after getting a lawyer, the IRS requested copies all educational materials which would be used. They responded and sent in a copy of the United States Constitution. They were then denied!

Some of the questions the IRS asked included, but was not limited to:

"Please provide summaries or copies of all material passed out at meetings."
"Please provide copies of all your current web pages, including your Blog posts. Please provide copies of all of your newsletters, bulletins, flyers, newsletters or any other media or literature you have disseminated to your members or others. Please provide copies of stories and articles that have been published about you."
" Please detail the content of the members of your organization's prayers."

And of course members of organizations on the BOLO list were audited far higher than the average citizen.

As for Obama involvement, he appointed Lerner and he protected her. Former IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman visited the White House just before the implementation of the BOLO list. He made about a dozen confirmed White House visits. To say that policies initiated and followed BY the Obama administration cannot be the blame of Obama is ludicrous! Would you say the same for Trump and the Trump administration? Even if a president is unaware of a policy initiated by his administration, he is still responsible for it. Not to mention, being unaware of such a wide reaching and long lasting policy calls into question the ability and fitness to hold the office!

So lets look at Trump administration policies. An example is the policy of requiring some for of documentation of parentage before releasing an i*****l a***n child into the hand of an adult who claims to be the child's parent. If no form of documentation can be had, DNA testing is required before release. The left calls this r****t which they blame Trump for. Now whether Trump actually called for the policy or not; he is rightly responsible for its implementation. Considering how many children were found to have been released to child traffickers by the previous administration; I applaud the policy!!!!

JoyV

Coos Bay Tom wrote:

You are definately pro Trump. I do not know how how a Native can be.

I am most definitely a Trump supporter. I remember what NYC was like before Trump joined with Giuliani in cleaning up the cities rampant crime and poor living conditions. I also knew of several firemen and police families who Trump helped after the deaths of the officers. His help wasn't simply handing out a few dollars. It was paying for college tuition for the kids, and/or writing references or recommendations. Giving a job or paying for medical expenses of a sick or disabled family member.

Why should being an American Indian make me unpatriotic? Only an i***t would try to fight the US for past losses. That was then. We cannot live in the past. I deal with life as it is today instead of wasting my time, energy, and well being on h**e and recriminations for what happened to my ancestors.

I am an American from native descent. I served my country as a WAC and then in the Army. Many American Indians have done so!!!!!

JoyV

old marine wrote:

Thst was becsuse they had a conservitives Senate but now with a spend happy liberal majority in the Senate the deficate will spend and waste several trillion dollars each year they control the spending.

Unless Trump make use of the veto for any outlandish spending bills. They control the purse strings to authorize spending, but the president can still veto their spending.

JoyV

kemmer wrote:

Actually Trump is doing a lot of the terrorists' work for them by trashing our traditional alliances and threatening the existence of NATO.

Which traditional alliances? While Obama made friendly with Iran and Cuba; that can hardly amount to them becoming out "traditional alliances'. And show me the quote where Trump threatened the existence of NATO! He stated unless other NATO nations paid their agreed to obligations, we might have to reconsider participation in carrying everyone not paying, and paying the bulk of any military action as well as providing the bulk of the boots on the ground.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

kemmer wrote:

Incredible! Most nations even ignore the UN. With what army do you think Islam will police THE WORLD??
I'm sure the Israelis would have something to say about that, not to mention the American bible belt.

Any sane loyal American Patriots be they Democrat, Republican or Independent would have a lot to say about it.

Ignorant or dumb Socialist would welcome it.

🇺🇸 God bless America and loyal Patriots.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

maximus wrote:

Valid opinions? actual facts that aren't always fa... (show quote)

I agree. The news agencies should be held to the strictest standards. The reporter should be the one libel for not confirming their story.

old marine Loc: America home of the brave

kemmer wrote:

White wine? Ho-hum.

The Sgt. Major and most all the employees would say about Grandpaw's secret corn squeezing, "WOW ! ! ! 90 proof white lightning home brew. 😏😁😎