Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

Now do MSNBC. 24/7 anti-Republican programming. Then, some of the same "journalist" head over to NBC to deliver National News.

Anyone that tells you the media is unbiased should stop licking windows and eating crayons.

Conservatives do not have a MSM outlet that isn't on broadcast TV. Name ONE unbiased journalist on ABC, CBS or NBC. Just one.

Among several good things President Trump did was expose to the American people just how much influence the MARXIST PARTY has over broadcast news. And for those that ask what my opinion is of claiming someone is a MARXIST... read the MARXIST manifesto.

Control the information you control the people.

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

Absolutely.

Or even worse get their news from memes and YouTube conspiracy rabbit holes.

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

Cronkite did have his biases though. He turned public opinion on the Vietnam War.

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

I think Tucker does a good job at providing opinion around todays news. I also think Tucker does a reasonably good job at calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy they bring to the table. It appears that Tucker is no fan of the Republican "so-called" leadership teams…

So, I would agree that Tucker is an opinion show; however, I also think most of his segments provide good contextual information that can help form a mindset…

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

I think Tucker does a good job at providing opinion around todays news. I also think Tucker does a reasonably good job at calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy they bring to the table. It appears that Tucker is no fan of the Republican "so-called" leadership teams…

So, I would agree that Tucker is an opinion show; however, I also think most of his segments provide good contextual information that can help form a mindset…

---

Chem "doesn't" like Tucker, because his wife (and potentially his kids) tells him that he can't...

Guy is literally scared to actually say what he really believes in... or feels "shamed" into needing to say otherwise.

Not even up for debate anymore.

---

Tucker has been around for over 20 years on cable news. You don't think his current pivot isn't the least bit contrived for ratings?

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

I think Tucker does a good job at providing opinion around todays news. I also think Tucker does a reasonably good job at calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy they bring to the table. It appears that Tucker is no fan of the Republican "so-called" leadership teams…

So, I would agree that Tucker is an opinion show; however, I also think most of his segments provide good contextual information that can help form a mindset…

---

Chem "doesn't" like Tucker, because his wife (and potentially his kids) tells him that he can't...

Guy is literally scared to actually say what he really believes in... or feels "shamed" into needing to say otherwise.

Not even up for debate anymore.

---

Lol. That feels a bit personal.

I think Tuckwr is like pretty much every other of the news entertainers a blowhard who knows the harder he goes on points, the more their fam base will respond.
Though, TBH, I don't watch any of them except on rare
occasions.

New proposal to buy out the SCOTUS justices

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/offer-large-sums-public-money-law-professor-calls-congress-buyout-conservative-justices

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

I think Tucker does a good job at providing opinion around todays news. I also think Tucker does a reasonably good job at calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy they bring to the table. It appears that Tucker is no fan of the Republican "so-called" leadership teams…

So, I would agree that Tucker is an opinion show; however, I also think most of his segments provide good contextual information that can help form a mindset…

---

Chem "doesn't" like Tucker, because his wife (and potentially his kids) tells him that he can't...

Guy is literally scared to actually say what he really believes in... or feels "shamed" into needing to say otherwise.

Not even up for debate anymore.

---

Tucker has been around for over 20 years on cable news. You don't think his current pivot isn't the least bit contrived for ratings?

---

Actually, I think Tucker has been a consistent conservative. I also think he has modified his views some because he has recognized that the Republicans (in general) are as bad as the Democrats. Not that he is less conservative; rather, who he aligns with…

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

I think Tucker does a good job at providing opinion around todays news. I also think Tucker does a reasonably good job at calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy they bring to the table. It appears that Tucker is no fan of the Republican "so-called" leadership teams…

So, I would agree that Tucker is an opinion show; however, I also think most of his segments provide good contextual information that can help form a mindset…

---

Chem "doesn't" like Tucker, because his wife (and potentially his kids) tells him that he can't...

Guy is literally scared to actually say what he really believes in... or feels "shamed" into needing to say otherwise.

Not even up for debate anymore.

---

Lol. That feels a bit personal.

I think Tuckwr is like pretty much every other of the news entertainers a blowhard who knows the harder he goes on points, the more their fam base will respond.
Though, TBH, I don't watch any of them except on rare
occasions.

---

But yet, you and your wife still watch ABC World News Tonight with David Muir almost every night?!?

How can you even watch that tripe anymore? I grew up on it also (in fact "Nightline" with Ted Koppel started my freshman year at State due to the Iran Hostage Crisis), but I finally had to throw in the towel on ABC, Year 1 into the Trump term... I mean the "we've finally got him this time" **** - EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. for the solid first 15 minutes of each newscast got f'n old, real fast for me... I mean, it was like an obsession with them. And now we know that it was completely "made up"... contrived by Hillary Clinton herself...

And yet, you want to talk about Tucker Carlson?

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

caryking said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

Civilized said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

hokiewolf said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

#1 it's spelled "Reagan"...

Hokie, how old were you when Reagan was in office since you're such an expert on him? I've seen you post previously about having school age kids in other threads, and so yeah, it's a valid question.

(Watch him turn out to be older than me)

---

early 40s. I was a kid when he was President but I've read four books on him.

---

So essentially, you were an infant when he was first elected... and then maybe 4 or 5 when he was re-elected...

---

LOL, so can we never discuss Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, King, etc anymore, since we weren't of age when they were doing their things?

---

Do you think I would know more about those guys than someone who was there with them at the time?

---

Depends on how that aware that someone was and where they were getting their news from, no different than now.

I imagine there were significant swaths of society without the means, interest, education, or freedom to consume much factual news about their political leaders.

There's also the issue of news of the present day being politicized vs. rearward-looking historical assessments being more sober and clear-eyed since they're removed from the emotion of the moment and they've got the benefit of hindsight.

---

Last paragraph is good. I've looked at newspaper, from the 1700's and the use of satire was extremely prevalent then. So, while not living then, we could draw a conclusion that politics were rough, back then; however, the instantaneous access was not…

---

100%.

Politics was a messy game from the jump and the mainstream media was never some unbiased beacon of objectivity that people make the historical standard out to be. Papers in the 1800's were trying to drive sales just like today.

Hell when you go back and read snippets of those old papers I'd say journalistic standards are noticeably higher today, as crazy as that sounds given we all know how liberal j-schools and the preponderance of news sources trend. Papers back then read way more like tabloids than factual news sources.

---

no argument from me...

That said, perhaps people accept news more (in general) literally than they use too...

---

I'd argue people have become accustomed to team-based news. We trust the news from our preferred sources, and think the other side is lying.

---

I'm aware that Fox leans right, especially with their talking head opinion shows. That said I don't consider Fox *News* to be nearly as far right as their editorial shows. The same is true of all networks. Don Lemon is not reporting the news. Tucker Carlson is not reporting the news.

---

Agreed. But I think there is a high % of people who don't recognize the above. Cronkite used to influence Americans thru his reporting of the news. Now people are influenced by Carlson and Lemon, who conflate opinion vs news, blur the lines, until people don't get the difference

---

I think Tucker does a good job at providing opinion around todays news. I also think Tucker does a reasonably good job at calling out Republicans for the hypocrisy they bring to the table. It appears that Tucker is no fan of the Republican "so-called" leadership teams…

So, I would agree that Tucker is an opinion show; however, I also think most of his segments provide good contextual information that can help form a mindset…

---

Chem "doesn't" like Tucker, because his wife (and potentially his kids) tells him that he can't...

Guy is literally scared to actually say what he really believes in... or feels "shamed" into needing to say otherwise.

Not even up for debate anymore.

---

Lol. That feels a bit personal.

I think Tuckwr is like pretty much every other of the news entertainers a blowhard who knows the harder he goes on points, the more their fam base will respond.
Though, TBH, I don't watch any of them except on rare
occasions.

---

But yet, you and your wife still watch ABC World News Tonight with David Muir almost every night?!?

How can you even watch that tripe anymore? I grew up on it also (in fact "Nightline" with Ted Koppel started my freshman year at State due to the Iran Hostage Crisis), but I finally had to throw in the towel on ABC, Year 1 into the Trump term... I mean the "we've finally got him this time" **** - EVERY. SINGLE. NIGHT. for the solid first 15 minutes of each newscast got f'n old, real fast for me... I mean, it was like an obsession with them. And now we know that it was completely "made up"... contrived by Hillary Clinton herself...

And yet, you want to talk about Tucker Carlson?

---

I mentioned those opinion shows in general, responding to another poster who referenced those two guys (Carlson and Lemon). From my limited observations of them, they are 100% blowhard "give them what they want to hear" team guys. I find ABC News very formulaic and most certainly somewhat leftward leaning, but much better than the wench on CBS news.

I've watched the 630 national news pretty much my whole life. I've tried multiple networks. I've settled on ABC for now and watching with my wife. If either of those choices offends you, I can live with myself

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

TheStorm said:

---

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

---

Yep, you got me! Consuming 20 minutes a day of news forms every one of my opinions (well, the ones my wife allows me to have, of course).

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

---

Yep, you got me! Consuming 20 minutes a day of news forms every one of my opinions (well, the ones my wife allows me to have, of course).

---

You damn sure parrot the lefty narrative on here that is evident. And by doing that all you are doing is repeating what you are told to believe.

You have NEVER shown any indication that you put forth an effort to try and see if what you are regurgitating is truth or propaganda.

I know that for lefties putting forth effort is difficult when it's easier to sit back and let Uncle Government take care of you and solve all of your problems.

Therein lies your MARXISM.

Thanks for proving my point.

BBW12OG said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

---

Yep, you got me! Consuming 20 minutes a day of news forms every one of my opinions (well, the ones my wife allows me to have, of course).

---

You damn sure parrot the lefty narrative on here that is evident. And by doing that all you are doing is repeating what you are told to believe.

You have NEVER shown any indication that you put forth an effort to try and see if what you are regurgitating is truth or propaganda.

I know that for lefties putting forth effort is difficult when it's easier to sit back and let Uncle Government take care of you and solve all of your problems.

Therein lies your MARXISM.

Thanks for proving my point.

---

I actually disagree with one comment BBW…. I really don't see Chem parroting the lefty narrative; rather, Chem usually doesn't have an opinion. Chem, I see you as not really giving your opinion in a coherent way. Typically, you come across as wishy/washy…

Perhaps that's intentional, I don't know. Stating clearly your position isn't a bad thing, just do it…

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

---

Yep, you got me! Consuming 20 minutes a day of news forms every one of my opinions (well, the ones my wife allows me to have, of course).

---

You damn sure parrot the lefty narrative on here that is evident. And by doing that all you are doing is repeating what you are told to believe.

You have NEVER shown any indication that you put forth an effort to try and see if what you are regurgitating is truth or propaganda.

I know that for lefties putting forth effort is difficult when it's easier to sit back and let Uncle Government take care of you and solve all of your problems.

Therein lies your MARXISM.

Thanks for proving my point.

---

I actually disagree with one comment BBW…. I really don't see Chem parroting the lefty narrative; rather, Chem usually doesn't have an opinion. Chem, I see you as not really giving your opinion in a coherent way. Typically, you come across as wishy/washy…

Perhaps that's intentional, I don't know. Stating clearly your position isn't a bad thing, just do it…

---

Chem's not wishy-washy, Cary, he's nuanced.

I don't think he's unclear, he's just moderate and not someone you can easily put in a box.

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

---

Yep, you got me! Consuming 20 minutes a day of news forms every one of my opinions (well, the ones my wife allows me to have, of course).

---

You damn sure parrot the lefty narrative on here that is evident. And by doing that all you are doing is repeating what you are told to believe.

You have NEVER shown any indication that you put forth an effort to try and see if what you are regurgitating is truth or propaganda.

I know that for lefties putting forth effort is difficult when it's easier to sit back and let Uncle Government take care of you and solve all of your problems.

Therein lies your MARXISM.

Thanks for proving my point.

---

I actually disagree with one comment BBW…. I really don't see Chem parroting the lefty narrative; rather, Chem usually doesn't have an opinion. Chem, I see you as not really giving your opinion in a coherent way. Typically, you come across as wishy/washy…

Perhaps that's intentional, I don't know. Stating clearly your position isn't a bad thing, just do it…

---

Lol. On topics of interest, you will know my opinion - which is why I stay in Dutch on many things here.

I just don't adhere to one side strongly. Some of you are so strong minded as you've said, you have no desire to compromise. I'm 180 degrees different, i think this country is built off of collaboration and compromise and that if we can't see both sides of the coin, we are doomed to see what we see today. That is, everyone breaks into camps, amd nothing gets done.
That is not leadership, IMO.

Packchem91 said:

---

caryking said:

---

BBW12OG said:

---

Packchem91 said:

---

TheStorm said:

---

Not a problem... you can obviously watch whatever you want, whenever you want.

But thanks for proving my point.

---

Yep, you got me! Consuming 20 minutes a day of news forms every one of my opinions (well, the ones my wife allows me to have, of course).

---

You damn sure parrot the lefty narrative on here that is evident. And by doing that all you are doing is repeating what you are told to believe.

You have NEVER shown any indication that you put forth an effort to try and see if what you are regurgitating is truth or propaganda.

I know that for lefties putting forth effort is difficult when it's easier to sit back and let Uncle Government take care of you and solve all of your problems.

Therein lies your MARXISM.

Thanks for proving my point.

---

I actually disagree with one comment BBW…. I really don't see Chem parroting the lefty narrative; rather, Chem usually doesn't have an opinion. Chem, I see you as not really giving your opinion in a coherent way. Typically, you come across as wishy/washy…

Perhaps that's intentional, I don't know. Stating clearly your position isn't a bad thing, just do it…

---

Lol. On topics of interest, you will know my opinion - which is why I stay in Dutch on many things here.

I just don't adhere to one side strongly. Some of you are so strong minded as you've said, you have no desire to compromise. I'm 180 degrees different, i think this country is built off of collaboration and compromise and that if we can't see both sides of the coin, we are doomed to see what we see today. That is, everyone breaks into camps, amd nothing gets done.
That is not leadership, IMO.

---

Chem, you know, I'm very willing to accept others have different opinions. That is not the problem for me…. Where I'm not willing to compromise is the constitution. I start from a very simple premise:

The States created the Federal Government. Within that creation, they gave certain (few at that) powers to the Federal Government to manage on behalf of the States. So, when we get to issues, that people get passion about, I try and put my personal feelings and/or opinions aside. My first questions is: is there a delegated power? If yes, them my opinion will come out. If no, then I'm going to argue constitutionality.

If that is considered adhering to one side strongly, then call me guilty. I think compromise can truly happen if people would take their passionate opinions and think about them within their own home.

Example: marriage - government doesn't have a role, so people can create their own unions or get married in the church. If people want to create a legal document for separation, then go to a lawyer and draw it up.

Abortion: the latest ruling was spot on.

With that decision to overturn R v.W,Dems will win the midterm!Bank it,that's all they needed,was an excuse to vote,now they will!

Marco said:

---

With that decision to overturn R v.W,Dems will win the midterm!Bank it,that's all they needed,was an excuse to vote,now they will!

---

I think overturning Roe will galvanize the left some but will ultimately just mean they lose less badly.

Dems are losing the House for sure. There's a puncher's chance they could hold the Senate.

Totally agree, and it will drive be this country into the ground, along with dumbass social media/disinformation.

PackBacker07 said:

---

Totally agree, and it will drive be this country into the ground, along with dumbass social media/disinformation.

---

What is going to drive this country in the ground are the people that don't fully understand what made this country great. One must learn how the States formed a Federal Government for certain roles to play. No intention of the Federal Government to play big roles like they do. No intention for the US Supreme Court to create "lived-by" rulings that are interpreted as laws.

When people realize that Roe v Wade was not a law and never really had any power, then we all can have functioning conversations. Until then, it's difficult…

PackBacker07 said:

---

Totally agree, and it will drive be this country into the ground, along with dumbass social media/disinformation.

---

Do you feel that mainstream media should strongly favor one party over the other in its "reporting"?

If you take both the moral issue and any constitutional/legal issue out of abortion, the Dems should see the practical reason why they should promote the pro-life cause. For the same reason why historically governments have only recognized heterosexual marriage…..they both are integral to the production of the next generation of taxpayers which isn't a matter of "rights", it's a matter of being in the best interest of the State.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people"

John Adams .....1770's and 17080's we're amazing times

Werewolf said:

---

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people"

John Adams .....1770's and 17080's we're amazing times

---

Right. Because our founding fathers didn't include a number of freethinkers/atheists/deists.

"One nation under God" definitely means we're a Christian theocracy!

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

...

---

Right. Because our founding fathers didn't include a number of freethinkers/atheists/deists.

"One nation under God" definitely means we're a Christian theocracy!

---

circa 1954

Civilized said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people"

John Adams .....1770's and 17080's we're amazing times

---

Right. Because our founding fathers didn't include a number of freethinkers/atheists/deists.

"One nation under God" definitely means we're a Christian theocracy!

---

Civ… no one thinks we are a theocracy and/or should be a Theocracy. The people (not all) were rooted in Christianity and believed that a divine power rules over us and therefore provides us with our rights. Some would use natural rights!

^^ He/she has obviously been sitting in WOKE classrooms in the 2000's. Maybe he/she has given us an alternative gender pronoun and I've missed it so correct me please.

One day Donald Trump will be gone but your dishonor will remain-Liz Cheney!!Don't shoot me,I'am just the messenger!!I'am on the blue side,for sure,totally agree with her and she on the red side!God bless America!!

Anybody here know what this is supposed to stand for?

We are "Against" bbw12og?

BBW12OG said:

---

We are "Against" bbw12og?

---

Nah, man... I'm being serious.

This is one of the flags that were pictured during the protests in Kavanaugh and Barrett's neighborhoods. I'm not up on this stuff all that great, but my assumption is that it is a pride flag with an antifa logo on it... am I missing the connection here?

Please help me out.