2 problems

fit4mom

I would love to take this post seriously but after all of the grammatical mistakes I just can't.

I bow down to your perfection almighty master. and hay only a few came up as misspelled.

fit4mom

BTW did anyone ever consider that maybe there was something attached to the new health bill that could be bad for us. That is how most bills get passed. They get tucked in for a nice comfy ride to be an undeclared bill. Sneaky isn't it.

Why don't you actually address the article you posted FIRST? Then rant about whatever might be attached to it?

You mean this? (To the person who posted this) that was my opening statement.

fit4mom

I would love to take this post seriously but after all of the grammatical mistakes I just can't.

reverse race card: My def: Any attempt to stop thwart conversation of a valid point.
Declaring a race card is in no way an attempt to call anyone racist as I do not believe the person I am qoating to be such. I'd say backwards compliment but the quote is not a compliment either. BTW I'm sure you know the correct term I am looking for so please oblige me with the correct term.

Jeff92se

BTW did anyone ever consider that maybe there was something attached to the new health bill that could be bad for us. That is how most bills get passed. They get tucked in for a nice comfy ride to be an undeclared bill. Sneaky isn't it.

Why don't you actually address the article you posted FIRST? Then rant about whatever might be attached to it?

You mean this? (To the person who posted this) that was my opening statement.

No you didn't. You know for a fact that the facts aren't there? That is called an biased opinion backed up by nothing.

fit4mom

BTW did anyone ever consider that maybe there was something attached to the new health bill that could be bad for us. That is how most bills get passed. They get tucked in for a nice comfy ride to be an undeclared bill. Sneaky isn't it.

Why don't you actually address the article you posted FIRST? Then rant about whatever might be attached to it?

You mean this? (To the person who posted this) that was my opening statement.

No you didn't. You know for a fact that the facts aren't there? That is called an biased opinion backed up by nothing.

What are you talking about?

CaptainGordo

Well, this thread has certainly (pooped) the bed. :laugh:

This is why political topics aren't suited for the main forums.

Jeff92se

I can't tell if I'm being trolled or if the OP is denser than muscle

Laces_0ut

I tolerate turtles.

Laura_Ivy

Between the horrible spelling and weird ranting, I am completely confused. :huh: But wait,pizza as a vegetable?! HELL YA! :laugh:

CaptainGordo

But wait,pizza as a vegetable?! HELL YA! :laugh:

fit4mom

again I say

reverse race card: My def: Any attempt to stop thwart conversation of a valid point through belittling.
Declaring a race card is in no way an attempt to call anyone racist as I do not believe the person I doing said offense to be such. I'd say backwards compliment but the said belittling was not a compliment either. BTW I'm sure you know the correct term I am looking for so please oblige me with the correct term.

MikeSEA

It's hard for me to be sure about the OP's intentions. I'm guessing the imbedded quotes in the initial statement are you yours. That is, you're claiming that the posted article is invalid because it's biased.

Assume that is is the case, here's the problem. You're making claims without providing any evidence. You can't just point to an article and say, "See, it's msn. Therefore it's biased." nor can you say, "Just read it. It's biased"

Perhaps a quote or a more in depth analysis of of the article itself would be more compelling. Partisan attacks aren't all that productive. They're fun taunts sometimes, but not very productive.

CaptainGordo

It's hard for me to be sure about the OP's intentions. I'm guessing the imbedded quotes in the initial statement are you yours. That is, you're claiming that the posted article is invalid because it's biased.

Assume that is is the case, here's the problem. You're making claims without providing any evidence. You can't just point to an article and say, "See, it's msn. Therefore it's biased." nor can you say, "Just read it. It's biased"

Perhaps a quote or a more in depth analysis of of the article itself would be more compelling. Partisan attacks aren't all that productive. They're fun taunts sometimes, but not very productive.

Well said. An analysis of the content is much more productive, and can lead to less poo flinging.

I learned that lesson from the last thread about Congress and kids' lunches. Also, it helps a thread from devolving into a political debate, which will only get it locked and flushed.

HMonsterX

Spelling is important...do you really want to sell your soul to Santa?

fit4mom

The article clearly pointed to the republicans as getting in the way of change and then the guy called the obstacle in the way the republican party congress. Sense it refers to them as congress it's eluding a bias. When has msn ever been bipartisan? And it is true that anytime that the gov. is disagreed with
"Congress wants to keep pizza and french fries on school lunch lines, fighting back against an Obama administration proposal to make school lunches healthier. "
then their racist or against our country. How is this opening statement not biased? Especially when it goes on to describe the republican party?

CaptainGordo

Spelling is important...do you really want to sell your soul to Santa?

Usage is important too, I think.

Jeff92se

The article clearly pointed to the republicans as getting in the way of change and then the guy called the obstacle in the way the republican party congress. Sense it refers to them as congress it's eluding a bias. When has msn ever been bipartisan? And it is true that anytime that the gov. is disagreed with
"Congress wants to keep pizza and french fries on school lunch lines, fighting back against an Obama administration proposal to make school lunches healthier. "
then their racist or against our country. How is this opening statement not biased? Especially when it goes on to describe the republican party?

More opinion. Not quantative analysis. You need to learn the difference. I take this issue to be a problem of LOBBYISTs blocking this more than anything else. Who is in bed with the lobbyists that help block this legistlation?

fit4mom

This part is me, and if you read the article, from opening statement how is it not biased? It's causing people to misjudge intention because it is in disagreement with the president. It also dictates the president as a victim.

1 The article is biased not straight forward fact. I favors vs telling you.
2 It is put out by msn (left wing liberal as you can get)
3 Any disagreement with the White House is anti Obama

I know for a fact that all the facts are not there. But that's what you get when the article clearly has an agenda.
I'm all for pizza being a vegetable Government in whole is corrupt. not one side vs the other.

Jeff92se

You need to back up the statements with examples. Not just make statements and demand that they are correct because you say so.

Jeff92se

Here's ONE of your problems. The article wasn't written by MSN. They just posted it. It was written by By MARY CLARE JALONICK
. She's an Associated Press writer.

Here's the kicker. The SAME thing is posted by FOX news.

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/11/17/pizza-as-vegetable-congress-proposes-new-school-lunch-bill/

Your argument about bias just got shot down with an elephant gun. Game, set and match. As someone taking the fat blocking pill would say, "smell you later"

MikeSEA

This part is me, and if you read the article, from opening statement how is it not biased? It's causing people to misjudge intention because it is in disagreement with the president. It also dictates the president as a victim.

1 The article is biased not straight forward fact. I favors vs telling you.
2 It is put out by msn (left wing liberal as you can get)
3 Any disagreement with the White House is anti Obama

I know for a fact that all the facts are not there. But that's what you get when the article clearly has an agenda.
I'm all for it being a pizza and gov. (Not just congress) getting out of the business of being contradictory. It's all equealy corrupt.

Ok, Here's the line you reference from the article

Congress wants to keep pizza and french fries on school lunch lines, fighting back against an Obama administration proposal to make school lunches healthier.

I assume it is because it's the first line of the article.

How exactly is it partisan, at least in itself. Is there some inaccuracy? For sake of argument, let's assume he's right, and that it is the republican members of congress who are fighting back against an Obama administration proposal.

If it's accurate, there's nothing particularly biased there. Congress, as spearheaded by it's republican members, (again I'm just assuming for argument's sake,. I have not fact checked it) did indeed fight against an obama proposal, the intent of which is to improve health.

Maybe it's not accurate. Maybe the republicans didn't fight the proposal. Maybe they what they want is equally healthy, thus making the claim that republicans are fighting healthy lunches seem a little disingenuous.

Really you have to fight bias with facts. If the article is wrong, outright lying, or omitting information (another type of lie) then you may have a point.

Feel free to address those.

Jeff92se

Mike. The feeling that you're ice skating uphill is going to overcome you in 3...2...1.

MikeSEA

Mike. The feeling that you're ice skating uphill is going to overcome you in 3...2...1.

Man, and this my recovery week, too.

fit4mom

Prove to me that msn is not left wing.This is on Wikipedia:
Following several years in which many observers noted promotion of liberal political positions and emergence of politically partisan views in the channel's programming, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressivism in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward."[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] In a June 2011 interview, MSNBC president Phil Griffin stated that "MSNBC has established a sensibility, a position, a platform" and that "MSNBC is really the place to go for progressives."[17]

Jeff92se

Prove to me you're not a hunger driven loonie today

fit4mom

Hillary Clinton is a professed Progressive and a Democrat.

CaptainGordo

Not only has the bed been shat, the thread has jumped the shark and nuked the fridge.

fit4mom

Not hungry at all.

MikeSEA

Prove to me that msn is not left wing.This is on Wikipedia:
Following several years in which many observers noted promotion of liberal political positions and emergence of politically partisan views in the channel's programming, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressivism in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward."[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] In a June 2011 interview, MSNBC president Phil Griffin stated that "MSNBC has established a sensibility, a position, a platform" and that "MSNBC is really the place to go for progressives."[17]

I'll take a stab at this, just cause it's Friday.

1. Wikipedia is a fantastic place to start research and terrible place to end it.
2. Let's say msn is biased. So what? What you're doing here is a kind of a typical ad hominem attack (attack against the man). We can't say that any information is [whatever quality] based purely on the source without looking at the information itself. It's a logical fallacy. This is why we asked for examples and are having a discussion based on those examples. You could post a picture of a banner flying outside of MSN headquarters that reads, "We're MSN, we're big liberals. Down with Conservatives." and it wouldn't actually help you here.

fit4mom

MSN is known for being biased toward liberal progressives as wikipedia claims.