The Evangelical Universalist Forum

How To Live Under An Unqualified President by John Piper

Well, this forum thread is like the story, “Goldilocks and the 3 bears”.

Some like to sleep, in the papa bear bed (i.e. right wing) - which Goldilocks finds too hard.
Some like to sleep, in the mama bear bed (i.e. extreme left) - which Goldilocks finds too soft.

And she ends of sleeping, in the baby bear bed (i.e. somewhere in the middle - like I am). Which she finds just right.

And those taking the extreme bed positions - just keep on complaining :exclamation: :laughing:

and those taking the extreme bed positions - just keep on complaining :exclamation: :laughing:

Truth be told “unfair” is a leftist mantra! Part of the social justice movement. Not that i’m against social justice but the left has there own version.
Their vision is “equal outcome” whereas mine is “equal opportunity.”

BTW i’m laughing my “Ossoff.”

"Fake news has come to mean a lot of things these days. But the definition that the right and the left can both agree on is sites that just make up things for money. NPR pursued the “godfather” of some of these fake news sites and discovered that he’s a lefty who’s doing this to undermine conservatives.

The sites include NationalReport.net, USAToday.com.co, WashingtonPost.com.co. All the addresses linked to a single rented server inside Amazon Web Services. That meant they were all likely owned by the same company.

“The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction,” Coler says.

So we’ve got sites hosted by a company run by the owner of the Washington Post which are run by a guy whose stated goal is to plant fake news stories to undermine the right.

NPR eats this up with a jumbo spoon, but the underlying admission is that the fake news problem has the same source as the mainstream media’s fake news problem. Hostility to conservatives.

While the mainstream media pushes fake news to liberals, guys like this plant fake news on the right to sow chaos and undermine conservative news consumers. The fake news problem, from the top down, is a left-wing propaganda problem. " - frontpagemag.com/point/26706 … greenfield

While the mainstream media pushes fake news to liberals, guys like this plant fake news on the right to sow chaos and undermine conservative news consumers. The fake news problem, from the top down, is a left-wing propaganda problem. " - frontpagemag.com/point/26706 … greenfield

Definitely a left wing tact. I get these tweets almost daily with 90% of it being false, really “false news” is a better description and as you said it’s about the money! What does the bible say about “money?”

Fake news is like scams. Suppose i get a call, from the IRS. They say I owe some back taxes. They will take me away in handcuffs, if I don’t pay via debit card.

Well, I never heard of this. And the IRS normally sends several letters - by mail first.

Now I can’t find this IRS procedure, on either social media or a Google search. So it’s fake news. And costly too - if I send the phony IRS agent some money.

Now I read a supermarket tabloid story. It says Trump took a ride - in a UFO. Well, I don’t buy into it. But if ALL supermarket tabloids, were running variations of the same story. Guess what? I might say, it’s in the realm of possibility.

Same goes for a story, in the New York times, CNN, etc. If one station or newspaper runs it - it’s probably fake news. But if everybody runs it (including the international news sources - like the BBC). Guess what? It’s within the realm of possibility.

What I look at - is this. The number of news sources (both nationally and internationally), are reporting variations of the same story. Meaning they are approaching, a bell shaped curve. Which means that both liberal and conservative news bodies, should be fact checking it.

It’s now a part of my framework. Or my existential, phenomenological perspective.

If later some fact or aspect, renders the story incoherent - guess what? I alter my framework or my existential, phenomenological perspective - ever so slightly.

The funny thing about the truth is - it’s true.
Fake news is not news - it is lies. It’s often what someone wishes were the truth, what they feel MUST be the truth - but, even considering the oft-quoted ‘truth is a slippery concept’ (think Hillary) - what is true is what counts. Nowadays we have to work to get it.

Same goes for a story, in the New York times, CNN, etc. If one station or newspaper runs it - it’s probably fake news. But if everybody runs it (including the international news sources - like the BBC). Guess what? It’s within the realm of possibility.

Yes it is but not a slam dunk because they often just copy each other and ask questions later! This is a new behavior mode because of instant news, nobody wants to be left holding the chair!

Obamacare’s opacity was a deliberate strategy

Gruber made an argument that many of Obamacare’s critics have long made, including me. It’s that the law’s complex system of insurance regulation is a way of concealing from voters what Obamacare really is: a huge redistribution of wealth from the young and healthy to the old and unhealthy. In the video, Gruber points out that if Democrats had been honest about these facts, and that the law’s individual mandate is in effect a major tax hike, Obamacare would never have passed Congress.

“Mark [Pauly] made a couple of comments that I do want to take issue with, one about transparency in financing and the other is about moving from community rating to risk-rated subsidies. You can’t do it politically. You just literally cannot do it, okay, transparent financing…and also transparent spending.” Gruber said. “In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in—you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed, okay. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass…
-https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#161c8f047c05

Well, nothing is a slam dunk. But I will run with it. Same with ideas in theology, philosophy and science. If some piece of info comes,… to question my existential, phenomenological field of perception…or my intellectual framework - I’ll reevaluate it.

Take some of the theological ideas - presented here. And I am NOT talking about universalism. Maybe one of the far-out theologies presented here - is right. And those that aprpoach, the bell shaped curb - are wrong. I’m sure God will inform me, at the end of time. And God won’t fault me, foll following bell-shaped curb theologies…followed by the majority of mankind.

I just need to follow - the yellow, brick road.

And stay away from anything - that deviates me from my journey. :laughing:

Yeah, better to rely on reliable news sources with a penchant for veracity like The Blaze, Breitbart, and infowars for facts…
qaz

Posts: 1121
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Well i do like The Blaze and a new one CRTV with Mark Levin AKA “the great one” and of course Fox & One America News & Newsmax. Somebody has to counter Rachel Madcow at MSNBC!
It was nice watching CNN announcing Ossoff losing, it was like watching CNN talking heads heading to a funeral.

Well, first of all, I will ask you qaz does any of this political talk and banter, change your view of what Christ had done for humanity? :astonished:

There’s a BBC story from today entitled Donald Trump talks up solar panel plan for Mexico wall at bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40363390.

Well, while folks on this forum, have been in a heated debate (pro and con), regarding climate change - guess what? I have advocated a pragmatic approach. Let me benefit, from all the energy saving technology and research. It looks like Trump, is also showing some pragmatism.

Rachel Maddow does commentary. Just because MSNBC employs liberal commentators doesn’t mean its reporters regularly commit libel. For you to a priori accuse reporters of lying is itself libel.

Where did you come up with your conclusions from my statement about conservative commentators countering Maddow who is very liberal? Where did i accuse her of lying?

The constant insinuation from right wingers (including you and Dave) that news stories covering the harmful effects of GOP policy can’t be trusted.

That seems pretty self evident at this point. As i learned from watching Perry Mason reruns if you tell the truth about someone it’s not libel plus i’m confident my opinion is covered under free speech.
BTW the leftist press that i comment on is not talking about GOP policies. If they have opinions on issues that’s great, that’s called debate and airing ideas which is what the USA has been about but i’ve been referring to conspiracy theories mainly from “unnamed sources” to demonize individual people on the “right.”
If i saw that on the right wing media i prefer to watch i wouldn’t like it any better, i really wouldn’t. I’m really interested in issues and what works short and long term.

Actually, I’m an equal-opportunity distruster of media - I don’t automatically trust either ‘side’. But I have closely watched and read reporting from a number of sources and I honestly have to say that the leftist media is overwhelmingly a propaganda machine rather than a journalistic endeavor. And otoh, I’ve found that Fox, Mark Levin, Rush, Lars, Erik - give a more truthful report of the facts. That they are all conservative happens to be the case.
That they are biased is also the case.

If you have evidence that something reported is false, then you need to prove it if you are going to claim the story can’t be trusted. A priori insinuating that a writer is lying is slander/libel, yes.
qaz

Posts: 1129
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am
Top
Print view this postand

I need to prove it to who? Who decides if my proof is actually proof? Obviously bias is going to color anyone’s interpretation of “proof” or "truth."In the public arena people can have opinions about whether something is accurate or not accurate. Usually i do preface my opinion with “IMO” or “IMHO” i believe opinions are covered under “free speech.”

Are any of these proposals good in any way at all, or all they all just bad? :

• Help stabilize collapsing insurance markets by creating a short-term stabilization fund to provide $15 billion per year in 2018 and 2019 and $10 billion in each of the next two years to address coverage disruption. It would also continue federal assistance to low-income Americans through 2019.

• End “onerous Obamacare mandates” by repealing individual and employer mandates.

• Improve the affordability of health insurance by expanding tax-free Health Savings Accounts, repealing ObamaCare taxes, implementing targeted tax credits and empower states to make changes in what markets are available to residents.

• Preserve access to care for Americans with pre-existing conditions, and allow children to stay on their parents’ health insurance through age 26.

• Strengthen Medicaid by giving states more flexibility while ensuring that those who rely on this program won’t have the rug pulled out from under them.
-http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/22/whats-in-senate-proposal-key-provisions-better-care-reconciliation-act-2017.html

You need to prove it to your audience. Adding “IMO” to an insinuation that someone is lying doesn’t exonerate you from offering evidence. You can’t just say “IMO Mr. Smith is a pedophile.” If you are going to try and damage someone’s reputation by accusing them of unethical behavior, you have a responsibility to explain why. A priori dismissal of a news story as being made up is slanderous.

Well i think accusing someone of being a pedophile is quite different then accusing the MSM of being biased or having a left wing agenda. I have heard several times that Harvard came out with a study that claimed that CNNs comments about Trump have been 93% negative and the other MSM were in the high 80%. I think that’s evidence, perhaps not proof but it is evidence.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re accusing someone of child molestation or libel – you’re claiming someone has done something unethical and now YOU need to back your claim up. “Negative” does not mean “false”. If it’s reported that out of pocket expenses will go up under Trump’s healthcare law, that’s negative but it’s NOT FALSE.

I disagree, i think the gravity of the charge is very important and i think your belief that i or anyone critiquing something in the public arena has to back it up is so vague and so subject to interpretation it’s almost meaningless. As i said the MSM accuses people often of various things and their backup is “unnamed sources”, does that concern you?