Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: AbrahamG on December 01, 2020, 01:29:58 PM
-
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/anti-lgbtq-pro-family-lawmaker-quits-after-being-arrested-for-breaking-lockdown-at-gay-gang-bang/
-
Hungarian politician József Szájer is a total hypocrite.
What is being a hypocrite?
A person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
-
It's crazy how the people who scream the loudest against something are many times part of it.
Whenever i hear someone that is firmly against something like this, i often wonder if they are just trying to "cover" up.
I worked with a guy years ago who was a very devote Christian, his entire life was about God. Didn't drink or smoke, didn't cuss. A few years ago he was caught in a trashy motel in a bad part of town with two hookers and a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine. His wife had hired a PI to look into him because she kept noticing money disappearing every few months. She also found a bunch of gay porn on his laptop. Apparently he had been doing this for over 10 years.
How embarrassing for this politician to get caught at a "gang bang". :D
-
muhammadan pedo follower & glory holes swallower pretend to be Get Big moralists !.
-
It's crazy how the people who scream the loudest against something are many times part of it.
Whenever i hear someone that is firmly against something like this, i often wonder if they are just trying to "cover" up.
I worked with a guy years ago who was a very devote Christian, his entire life was about God. Didn't drink or smoke, didn't cuss. A few years ago he was caught in a trashy motel in a bad part of town with two hookers and a few hundred dollars worth of cocaine. His wife had hired a PI to look into him because she kept noticing money disappearing every few months. She also found a bunch of gay porn on his laptop. Apparently he had been doing this for over 10 years.
How embarrassing for this politician to get caught at a "gang bang". :D
In some cases, I do muster some empathy for right wing christians who've been indoctrinated into anti homo bias from birth that get exposed as being gay. Nobody should have to hide who they are. But this piece of shit from Hungary is just a fucking deviant. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the gang bang. The same would apply if he were joining in a gang bang hetero style. But, you are right. The biggest closet cases are often the most vocal against it. Hear that getbig?
-
In some cases, I do muster some empathy for right wing christians who've been indoctrinated into anti homo bias from birth that get exposed as being gay. Nobody should have to hide who they are. But this piece of shit from Hungary is just a fucking deviant. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the gang bang. The same would apply if he were joining in a gang bang hetero style. But, you are right. The biggest closet cases are often the most vocal against it. Hear that getbig?
Abra, why is that Hungarian pissing you off & old glory holes Saggy not !.
Do you like chorizo & beacon pizza !.
-
Abra, why is that Hungarian pissing you off & old glory holes Saggy not !.
Do you like chorizo & beacon pizza !.
I like both chorizo and bacon but not on pizza. Also, I am not pissed off even in the slightest. Prime Muscle is a good man. We should do a Time Magazine person of the year type thing around here but for getbiggers. I nominate Prime for getbigger of the year. Also, that woman from Michigan, Ms. Whitmer has been nominated for Time's Person of the Year. I'm just going to sit back and watch heads explode.
-
In some cases, I do muster some empathy for right wing christians who've been indoctrinated into anti homo bias from birth that get exposed as being gay. Nobody should have to hide who they are. But this piece of shit from Hungary is just a fucking deviant. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the gang bang. The same would apply if he were joining in a gang bang hetero style. But, you are right. The biggest closet cases are often the most vocal against it. Hear that getbig?
I was raised in an extremely religious family in SE Texas. It's something people don't really talk about, but most Christians are very homophobic, they are raised to believe it's wrong and you will go to hell. They think gay people are dirty and will straight up avoid them, not even talk to them. It's so weird.
I have no problem with gay people, just don't try to force that mentality on me and we are cool.
I don't have an issue with him renting out his asshole to a few dudes in his spare time, but i hate double standards. He's a dirty bastard but whatever, it's his butthole.
That's the beef i have with Christians and a lot of Conservatives, too many double standards. I've met Senators who wanted to ban alcohol sales in their area, but carried a flask in their boot. When you mix religion and politics, it leads to lots of bullshit. But this is America and it's part of our culture.
I'm agnostic and it still bothers my parents who are in their late 60's. They try all the time to force me back into religion, i'm not having any of it.
-
I was raised in an extremely religious family in SE Texas. It's something people don't really talk about, but most Christians are very homophobic, they are raised to believe it's wrong and you will go to hell. They think gay people are dirty and will straight up avoid them, not even talk to them. It's so weird.
I have no problem with gay people, just don't try to force that mentality on me and we are cool.
I don't have an issue with him renting out his asshole to a few dudes in his spare time, but i hate double standards. He's a dirty bastard but whatever, it's his butthole.
That's the beef i have with Christians and a lot of Conservatives, too many double standards. I've met Senators who wanted to ban alcohol sales in their area, but carried a flask in their boot. When you mix religion and politics, it leads to lots of bullshit. But this is America and it's part of our culture.
I'm agnostic and it still bothers my parents who are in their late 60's. They try all the time to force me back into religion, i'm not having any of it.
I was raised Catholic and to this day the people that mean the most to me in life happen to be Catholic. I would fall into the agnostic category but atheism isn't out of reach. I guess being taught from the womb that God exists and all that good stuff is hard to completely let go of. Both of my parents have passed on. It's too depressing to think I'll never see them again which is probably why I still have some hope, hence the agnostic outlook versus all out atheism.
-
I was raised Catholic and to this day the people that mean the most to me in life happen to be Catholic. I would fall into the agnostic category but atheism isn't out of reach. I guess being taught from the womb that God exists and all that good stuff is hard to completely let go of. Both of my parents have passed on. It's too depressing to think I'll never see them again which is probably why I still have some hope, hence the agnostic outlook versus all out atheism.
Same here, i'm agnostic because i believe there is a "chance" something God related may exist. Even if it's an alien race that controls the universe. I cannot completely renounce a greater power than what we can see, but i have a hard time believing in Christianity as a whole.
My brother is a full blown atheist, but i tell him there is always a chance something out there exists that is much greater than us. Perhaps we lack the ability to see it or communicate with it? Who knows.
Today is actually the 40th birthday of one of my best friends who died a little over a year ago. I think it would be amazing to have a heaven, but at this point in my life i just can't fathom it.
-
Same here, i'm agnostic because i believe there is a "chance" something God related may exist. Even if it's an alien race that controls the universe. I cannot completely renounce a greater power than what we can see, but i have a hard time believing in Christianity as a whole.
My brother is a full blown atheist, but i tell him there is always a chance something out there exists that is much greater than us. Perhaps we lack the ability to see it or communicate with it? Who knows.
Today is actually the 40th birthday of one of my best friends who died a little over a year ago. I think it would be amazing to have a heaven, but at this point in my life i just can't fathom it.
That's sad when someone goes so young. Let's just hope that there is something better down the road.
-
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/anti-lgbtq-pro-family-lawmaker-quits-after-being-arrested-for-breaking-lockdown-at-gay-gang-bang/
What was his role in this alleged gangbang?
-
https://www.rawstory.com/2020/12/anti-lgbtq-pro-family-lawmaker-quits-after-being-arrested-for-breaking-lockdown-at-gay-gang-bang/
lol
-
In some cases, I do muster some empathy for right wing christians who've been indoctrinated into anti homo bias from birth that get exposed as being gay. Nobody should have to hide who they are. But this piece of shit from Hungary is just a fucking deviant. Not because of the homosexuality but because of the gang bang. The same would apply if he were joining in a gang bang hetero style. But, you are right. The biggest closet cases are often the most vocal against it. Hear that getbig?
I agree that engaging in group sex whether gay or straight sex is just plain stupid and irresponsible, especially right now with Covid.
-
I like both chorizo and bacon but not on pizza. Also, I am not pissed off even in the slightest. Prime Muscle is a good man. We should do a Time Magazine person of the year type thing around here but for getbiggers. I nominate Prime for getbigger of the year. Also, that woman from Michigan, Ms. Whitmer has been nominated for Time's Person of the Year. I'm just going to sit back and watch heads explode.
Visit him in West Linn & do little bit of clubbing with him ;D, just keep kids away from him !.
Nobody buy's Time rag anymore , outdated "title" !.
-
It would be great if after you die you go to a heaven and see everybody you loved in life.
It would be awesome.
Floating around on pink clouds in complete happiness. The whole 50 virgins concept of the Jihadists.
Instead of virgins I'd have experienced women.
You go to heaven and have sex with Playboy bunnies anytime you want.
Train in heaven's gym with Reg Park.
It's a very seductive idea.
It's depressing to be logical and accept that when you die it's over and you are worm food.
-
It would be awesome.
Floating around on pink clouds in complete happiness. The whole 50 virgins concept of the Jihadists.
72 not 50 "virgins", there is no info about age of those females .......... ;D ;D ;D
-
I was raised Catholic and to this day the people that mean the most to me in life happen to be Catholic. I would fall into the agnostic category but atheism isn't out of reach. I guess being taught from the womb that God exists and all that good stuff is hard to completely let go of. Both of my parents have passed on. It's too depressing to think I'll never see them again which is probably why I still have some hope, hence the agnostic outlook versus all out atheism.
You are 1 bullshiting muslim , re-read your old posts !.
-
Visit him in West Linn & do little bit of clubbing with him ;D, just keep kids away from him !.
Nobody buy's Time rag anymore , outdated "title" !.
You mean keep you away from kids. You are the type of toxic person who poisons young impressionable people's minds with your warped, evil thinking.
-
virginity is not exclusive to women
72 cocks for arabs pussy ;D
-
You mean keep you away from kids. You are the type of toxic person who poisons young impressionable people's minds with your warped, evil thinking.
Glory holes stalking swallower , just drop off !.
Joe must be so proud of yours vote ;D
-
You are 1 bullshiting muslim , re-read your old posts !.
You really want me to fuck you. It's so obvious. I don't roll that way but wish you success in finding mr. right.
-
You really want me to fuck you. It's so obvious. I don't roll that way but wish you success in finding mr. right.
mohammadan sicko, try at home ,father & son or daughter combo is permitted in yours religion of "love & peace'' !.
& re-read your own postings
-
if you were not so lonely I would say you are insecure
He's clearly on the spectrum.
-
He's clearly on the spectrum.
Just the one..?
-
if you were not so lonely I would say you are insecure
Oh, another PAKI who "knows" me ;D
Post more ;D
-
He's clearly on the spectrum.
Still no FATWA , I'm so disapointed :-\
Sheitan wins 8)
-
Just the one..?
O, gee another PAKI :D
-
72 not 50 "virgins", there is no info about age of those females .......... ;D ;D ;D
Are they actually female virgins?
-
wwwhhaaaaqaaa gay, lgggttvvxcxcxssqqqtttbbb b, climate change, guns, tax the rich, wwwwhhhaaaaaaa, guns climate change, trannies, lggqqttbbbbbb wwwaahhhaaaaaa
-
wwwhhaaaaqaaa gay, lgggttvvxcxcxssqqqtttbbb b, climate change, guns, tax the rich, wwwwhhhaaaaaaa, guns climate change, trannies, lggqqttbbbbbb wwwaahhhaaaaaa
Apparently a popular gay twitter account was congratulation Mayor Pete on being the first openly gay cabinet member.
People were quick to remind the account of Grenell.
More proof of the left isolating themselves in a TDS bubble for four years.
In addition, Buttiegieg getting nominated lends more credence that the Democrats fixed super tuesday for biden.
-
Apparently a popular gay twitter account was congratulation Mayor Pete on being the first openly gay cabinet member.
People were quick to remind the account of Grenell.
More proof of the left isolating themselves in a TDS bubble for four years.
In addition, Buttiegieg getting nominated lends more credence that the Democrats fixed super tuesday for biden.
Some argue the Grenell was technically not the first openly gay cabinet member because he was the Acting Director of National Intelligence. It seems nit picky to me. But that's what others are saying. Anyway, who cares. Being gay neither qualifies nor disqualifies someone from being a cabinet member. Therefore, it should not be a big deal.
-
Some argue the Grenell was technically not the first openly gay cabinet member because he was the Acting Director of National Intelligence. It seems nit picky to me. But that's what others are saying. Anyway, who cares. Being gay neither qualifies nor disqualifies someone from being a cabinet member. Therefore, it should not be a big deal.
It's only a big deal because they're making it one.
But in their attempt to do that, they are giving false credit to Biden, and none to Trump.
Par for the course.
-
It's only a big deal because they're making it one.
But in their attempt to do that, they are giving false credit to Biden, and none to Trump.
Par for the course.
That's fair. By 'they're', you mean the media and not Biden. Many if not most liberals don't care whether someone is gay or not. They care whether the person can do a good job.
-
That's fair. By 'they're', you mean the media and not Biden. Many if not most liberals don't care whether someone is gay or not. They care whether the person can do a good job.
Gtfo. Most libfaggets only care that someone checks the boxes of being black a gay a tranny etc.
-
Gtfo. Most libfaggets only care that someone checks the boxes of being black a gay a tranny etc.
That is your opinion, which doesn't count for much since you don't actually know any liberals well enough to know what they care about. I'm a liberal and I don't care that Buttigieg is a gay married man. If I were to ask my liberal family and friends, I'm confident they don't care either. It's possible some gay folks care about this, be they liberal or conservative.
-
That's fair. By 'they're', you mean the media and not Biden. Many if not most liberals don't care whether someone is gay or not. They care whether the person can do a good job.
Yes, the media and other non media leftists, not Biden.
Most PEOPLE, Republican or Democrat, do not care if someone is gay. Yes, the left is more socially liberal (yet ironically less tolerant, but that's a different topic), but most people fall towards being more centrist, including Republicans.
However, this is another example of the media, and the left, ignoring something Trump did because it doesn't fit their narrative around him.
-
Yes, the media and other non media leftists, not Biden.
Most PEOPLE, Republican or Democrat, do not care if someone is gay. Yes, the left is more socially liberal (yet ironically less tolerant, but that's a different topic), but most people fall towards being more centrist, including Republicans.
However, this is another example of the media, and the left, ignoring something Trump did because it doesn't fit their narrative around him.
The media may have ignored it which would explain why the public would too. It's not like most people would know or seek to know an appointees sexual orientation. BTW, it would seem the right ignored it too. Otherwise, we'd all know about it. Trump supporters have no problem touting everything he does as being great.
-
BTW, it would seem the right ignored it too. Otherwise, we'd all know about it. Trump supporters have no problem touting everything he does as being great.
This is easily proven false by the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The entire right not only knew, but was screaming about it from the rooftops, including the President.
A recent poll showed that 35% of Biden voters had not even heard the story.
-
This is easily proven false by the Hunter Biden laptop story.
The entire right not only knew, but was screaming about it from the rooftops, including the President.
A recent poll showed that 35% of Biden voters had not even heard the story.
Can you post an excerpt from the Hunter Biden laptop story that shows the right both knew and screamed about Trumps appointee being gay? I am really interested in reading it. Oh and send me a copy of that poll. Also, help me to understand how Hunter Biden's laptop story has anything to do with Buttigieg or Grenell.
On another note, Bill Barr sees no reason to appoint special counsels to investigate Hunter Biden or the election. Barr not going out quietly.
-
Can you post an excerpt from the Hunter Biden laptop story that shows the right both knew and screamed about Trumps appointee being gay? I am really interested in reading it. Oh and send me a copy of that poll. Also, help me to understand how Hunter Biden's laptop story has anything to do with Buttigieg or Grenell.
On another note, Bill Barr sees no reason to appoint special counsels to investigate Hunter Biden or the election. Barr not going out quietly.
Have you ever heard of drawing a parallel to make a point?
You're a big copy/paste guy, so here is the Webster definition:
to indicate ways in which two distinct things are similar
You made a point that if Trump supporters know something, everyone knows about - (paraphrasing your point).
I counter with a DIFFERENT EXAMPLE to show why your statement isn't necessarily true.
For some reason, you then conflate everything together and completely misrepresent what I said.
-
Yes, the media and other non media leftists, not Biden.
Most PEOPLE, Republican or Democrat, do not care if someone is gay. Yes, the left is more socially liberal (yet ironically less tolerant, but that's a different topic), but most people fall towards being more centrist, including Republicans.
However, this is another example of the media, and the left, ignoring something Trump did because it doesn't fit their narrative around him.
I'm the left and I'm pretty much tolerant of everything except intolerance. It is not incumbent on me or any good person to tolerate intolerance.
-
Barr not going out quietly.
Or Barr resigned so that he can now be a material witness in any criminal proceedings before Jan 20......
(https://shannonmckemie.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/sherlock-holmes-147255_1280-768x1168.png)
-
I'm the left and I'm pretty much tolerant of everything except intolerance. It is not incumbent on me or any good person to tolerate intolerance.
I will tolerate your intolerance of intolerance.
But, yes you are on the left, but can actually be normal when something ridiculous happens on the left - like Newsom's birthday thing.
Others here cannot do that.
-
Have you ever heard of drawing a parallel to make a point?
You're a big copy/paste guy, so here is the Webster definition:
You made a point that if Trump supporters know something, everyone knows about - (paraphrasing your point).
I counter with a DIFFERENT EXAMPLE to show why your statement isn't necessarily true.
For some reason, you then conflate everything together and completely misrepresent what I said.
Seems like when someone is making a point by drawing a parallel between two distinctly different things they should qualify it by saying that' s what they are doing so there is no room for confusion. But then, a few people accuse me of being dense or clueless. If you agree with this, all the more reason to make yourself perfectly clear, no?
Not all republicans or even Trump supporters know everything about most everything.
Not sure I misrepresented what you said. I simply asked you some questions in hopes that you would help me to understand where you were coming from.
My 'statement' was my opinion based on observation and it was not necessarily a statement of fact. From my perspective, those who are adamant about something (Trump supporters) have no problem expressing how the feel or what they believe.
Maybe the media tries to suppress or simply not report on some issues in order to appeal to their audience. But not all the media is coming from the same perspective. I've seen many posts on Getbig where folks have said FOX News has the highest viewership of any of the cable news channels. No doubt some would say FOX plays to their audience too. Suppression by omission most likely happens from the liberal media and the conservative media alike.
I am a big copy and paste person. Mainly so as to not confuse what is just my opinion with what many people consider to be fact.
-
Seems like when someone is making a point by drawing a parallel between two distinctly different things they should qualify it by saying that' s what they are doing so there is no room for confusion. But then, a few people accuse me of being dense or clueless. If you agree with this, all the more reason to make yourself perfectly clear, no?
Not all republicans or even Trump supporters know everything about most everything.
Not sure I misrepresented what you said. I simply asked you some questions in hopes that you would help me to understand where you were coming from.
My 'statement' was my opinion based on observation and it was not necessarily a statement of fact. From my perspective, those who are adamant about something (Trump supporters) have no problem expressing how the feel or what they believe.
Maybe the media tries to suppress or simply not report on some issues in order to appeal to their audience. But not all the media is coming from the same perspective. I've seen many posts on Getbig where folks have said FOX News has the highest viewership of any of the cable news channels. No doubt some would say FOX plays to their audience too. Suppression by omission most likely happens from the liberal media and the conservative media alike.
I am a big copy and paste person. Mainly so as to not confuse what is just my opinion with what many people consider to be fact.
I'll ignore the first part since it's subjective. I thought I was perfectly clear, but doesn't matter.
Of course Fox plays to conservatives. But it is not "suppression by omission" that has conservative media outlets and platforms having to testify before congress recently. It's the suppression OF conservative views, or just suppression of real stories that may be damaging to the left that has platforms in danger of losing their gov't liability protection.
There are always examples of both sides doing things, but this isn't that. This is widespread, and completely biased towards one side.
-
I'll ignore the first part since it's subjective. I thought I was perfectly clear, but doesn't matter.
Of course Fox plays to conservatives. But it is not "suppression by omission" that has conservative media outlets and platforms having to testify before congress recently. It's the suppression OF conservative views, or just suppression of real stories that may be damaging to the left that has platforms in danger of losing their gov't liability protection.
There are always examples of both sides doing things, but this isn't that. This is widespread, and completely biased towards one side.
Social media giants Facebook, Google and Twitter C.E.O.s defended their content moderation at a Senate hearing in October 2020. Apparently it is not only conservative media that is having to testify before Congress. It is common practice for Congress to hold hearings on a variety of issues where people testify. I've testified at various legislative committees in Oregon a few times. In fact, one of the major functions of these committees is to hear testimony before making decisions about all kinds of issues.
-
Social media giants Facebook, Google and Twitter C.E.O.s defended their content moderation at a Senate hearing in October 2020. Apparently it is not only conservative media that is having to testify before Congress. It is common practice for Congress to hold hearings on a variety of issues where people testify. I've testified at various legislative committees in Oregon a few times. In fact, one of the major functions of these committees is to hear testimony before making decisions about all kinds of issues.
I listened to the whole thing live, that's exactly what I was referring to.
I didn't say it was conservative media, I said it's NOT them.
I can see how you may have been confused there, but how did you not think THIS referred to Twitter and Facebook?
So, in a nutshell, both sides have bias, but it's overwhelmingly anti-conservative in aggregate.
It's the suppression OF conservative views, or just suppression of real stories that may be damaging to the left that has platforms in danger of losing their gov't liability protection.
The Senate October hearings were platforms (Facebook, Twitter), in danger of losing Section 230 protection.
-
I listened to the whole thing live, that's exactly what I was referring to.
I didn't say it was conservative media, I said it's NOT them.
I can see how you may have been confused there, but how did you not think THIS referred to Twitter and Facebook?
"The Senate October hearings were platforms (Facebook, Twitter), in danger of losing Section 230 protection.
What can I say? I am 76 years old. Sometimes I get confused when people aren't absolutely clear about what they are saying.
For example, please explain why you believe this to be the case "it's overwhelmingly anti-conservative in aggregate." And just to humor me, please be specific.
-
What can I say? I am 76 years old. Sometimes I get confused when people aren't absolutely clear about what they are saying.
For example, please explain why you believe this to be the case "it's overwhelmingly anti-conservative in aggregate." And just to humor me, please be specific.
Ok...makes sense.
I will leave the googling to you if you want to dig in to numbers, but, a couple statements from mostly memory.
Obviously some of these are just single examples, but they add up.
1. The Hunter Biden lack of coverage, intentional spread of disinformation (it was Russian!) happened in real time in front of all of us.
2. Zuckerberg admitting their algorithm needed tweaking as it was too anti-conservative
3. The Senate hearings and stats/examples brought up in the hearings against Facebook and Twitter.
4. Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media study which showed 80% of coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, whereas Obama's was 59% positive.
5. How the "very fine people", "veterans are losers" myths were perpetuated
6. How little coverage positive things were given - Trump making cruelty to animals a federal offense, Trump admonishing countries who outlaw homosexuality, no wars, nobel peace nominations, trade reform.
7. Killing Solemani was criticized heavily, whereas killing Bin Laden was universally celebrated.
8. Not one Republican White House reporter
9. Center for Public Integrity study showed that 96% of media donations were to Democrats
10. Kids in cages stories blaming Trump, when it was Obama's admin that started it.
11. The complete lack of any tough questions levelled at Biden during his non-campaign.
12. Lack of transparency over what the $700 in taxes really represented.
Plenty more.
-
Ok...makes sense.
I will leave the googling to you if you want to dig in to numbers, but, a couple statements from mostly memory.
Obviously some of these are just single examples, but they add up.
1. The Hunter Biden lack of coverage, intentional spread of disinformation (it was Russian!) happened in real time in front of all of us.
2. Zuckerberg admitting their algorithm needed tweaking as it was too anti-conservative
3. The Senate hearings and stats/examples brought up in the hearings against Facebook and Twitter.
4. Harvard’s Shorenstein Center on Media study which showed 80% of coverage of Trumps first 100 days was negative, whereas Obama's was 59% positive.
5. How the "very fine people", "veterans are losers" myths were perpetuated
6. How little coverage positive things were given - Trump making cruelty to animals a federal offense, Trump admonishing countries who outlaw homosexuality, no wars, nobel peace nominations, trade reform.
7. Killing Solemani was criticized heavily, whereas killing Bin Laden was universally celebrated.
8. Not one Republican White House reporter
9. Center for Public Integrity study showed that 96% of media donations were to Democrats
10. Kids in cages stories blaming Trump, when it was Obama's admin that started it.
11. The complete lack of any tough questions levelled at Biden during his non-campaign.
12. Lack of transparency over what the $700 in taxes really represented.
Plenty more.
Thank you for going to the trouble to explain this to me by mostly offering you opinion on the matter of fair media coverage. I did a smattering of checking and found where some of the issues you listed were also reported in centrist and leftist media. How it was reported was no doubt reflective of each side's bias.
“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans
-
Thank you for going to the trouble to explain this to me by mostly offering you opinion on the matter of fair media coverage. I did a smattering of checking and found where some of the issues you listed were also reported in centrist and leftist media. How it was reported was no doubt reflective of each side's bias.
“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans
The examples given were not opinion, but factual.
I also didn't say that the left didn't cover them. There were examples of non-coverage, but also misinformation, biased lack of context, and anti conservative slants.
As stated, it is NOT conservative platforms in danger of losing 230 liability coverage, it is NOT an overwhelmingly conservative press, etc.....
In aggregate, there is more anti-right / pro-left bias in the media.
-
The examples given were not opinion, but factual.
I also didn't say that the left didn't cover them. There were examples of non-coverage, but also misinformation, biased lack of context, and anti conservative slants.
As stated, it is NOT conservative platforms in danger of losing 230 liability coverage, it is NOT an overwhelmingly conservative press, etc.....
In aggregate, there is more anti-right / pro-left bias in the media.
“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans
Why do you suppose much of mainstream media leans left of center? Does mainstream media reflect the views of most people and is that why it is mainstream? In other words, are they reporting what they believe to be the truth or what they think most people want to hear?
-
“There are three sides to every story – yours, mine, and the truth.” Robert Evans
Why do you suppose much of mainstream media leans left of center? Does mainstream media reflect the views of most people and is that why it is mainstream? In other words, are they reporting what they believe to be the truth or what they think most people want to hear?
I understand the concept of the three sides theory, but what I posted actually happened.
I don't know the answer to the first sentence about why the media is liberal, but it appears constant, even amongst sportswriters, for example.
For the second (does mainstream reflect the mainstream views), I don't think so, given the Election Vote totals showed 70+ million on both sides. We're pretty split as a country.
As to how we got to such a strong bias, if I was to theorize, I would say most of the united states is more centrist, regardless of party affiliation. In other words, I'd think most people want fiscal responsibility, strong military and borders, less taxes, but also want racial equity, better healthcare, education reform, etc.
But, I think there was an enormous mindset shift when Trump won. It was inconceivable, so people panicked to figure out why. Unfortunately, instead of doing an honest introspective and viewing their shortcomings, they went into pure attack mode, blame mode, etc and the thing has snowballed to the point where rationality disappeared and the only thing that mattered was getting rid of Trump.
This has led to the decline of traditional unbiased journalism.
-
I understand the concept of the three sides theory, but what I posted actually happened.
I don't know the answer to the first sentence about why the media is liberal, but it appears constant, even amongst sportswriters, for example.
For the second (does mainstream reflect the mainstream views), I don't think so, given the Election Vote totals showed 70+ million on both sides. We're pretty split as a country.
As to how we got to such a strong bias, if I was to theorize, I would say most of the united states is more centrist, regardless of party affiliation. In other words, I'd think most people want fiscal responsibility, strong military and borders, less taxes, but also want racial equity, better healthcare, education reform, etc.
But, I think there was an enormous mindset shift when Trump won. It was inconceivable, so people panicked to figure out why. Unfortunately, instead of doing an honest introspective and viewing their shortcomings, they went into pure attack mode, blame mode, etc and the thing has snowballed to the point where rationality disappeared and the only thing that mattered was getting rid of Trump.
This has led to the decline of traditional unbiased journalism.
Yes. Biden only got 7,000,000 more votes than Trump. Considering the total number of votes, some might see a 10% difference as being almost evenly split.
The media, regardless of type, is a business. They rely on having a large audience to survive. Therefore they give the people what they want at least in terms of bias. If conservatives and liberals are evenly split wouldn't it follow that media's bias would be too? I agree that media should be more centrist and they'd probably do okay because like you mentioned most people fall somewhere in the middle between left and right values. I think I am pretty centrist based on your description.
Here's a thought. When there's an issue that is likely to create strong feelings and division, folks become more interested in the media, which is financially good for the industry. One danger is that people get bored when everything is as expected. For example, you know what you're going to get when you watch FOX News and the same is true for MSNBC and CNN. I watch less and less cable news lately. 10 minutes in and I've heard everything they have to say. Don Lemon is always going to act like Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson will always be Tucker Carlson, until people stop tuning in to them because they've become a big yawn. The first time I watched Rachel Maddow I thought she was as sharp as a tack firing off one zinger after another. Then, she started to annoy me. She didn't change. I just got tired of her routine.
This is speculation, but I think the country began it's divide when Obama was elected. Look back through Getbig posts to the years he was President and you'll read a lot of angry posts about him. Granted, most folks here lean to the right, some more so than others. So, anti Obama posts are expected. People either loved him or hated him. The same is true for Trump. If there's a middle ground, the people in it don't express it very often.
Even if I thought Trump's policies were right on target, I still wouldn't like him as a person. I never have. To me, his values are off and he's an egomaniac....always has been. That's one of the reasons I never watched his reality show....maybe I saw one episode or just part of one because I couldn't make it all the way through the show without having to change the channel.
-
The examples given were not opinion, but factual.
I also didn't say that the left didn't cover them. There were examples of non-coverage, but also misinformation, biased lack of context, and anti conservative slants.
As stated, it is NOT conservative platforms in danger of losing 230 liability coverage, it is NOT an overwhelmingly conservative press, etc.....
In aggregate, there is more anti-right / pro-left bias in the media.
You'll give yourself a headache. ;)
-
You'll give yourself a headache. ;)
He's already given me a headache. We have been talking in circles about something that probably won't ever change or at least neither he nor I will change it.
Grape does love to use the word aggregate.
Isn't that what Getbig is all about...futile disagreements? ;) back at you.
-
Yes. Biden only got 7,000,000 more votes than Trump. Considering the total number of votes, some might see a 10% difference as being almost evenly split.
The media, regardless of type, is a business. They rely on having a large audience to survive. Therefore they give the people what they want at least in terms of bias. If conservatives and liberals are evenly split wouldn't it follow that media's bias would be too? I agree that media should be more centrist and they'd probably do okay because like you mentioned most people fall somewhere in the middle between left and right values. I think I am pretty centrist based on your description.
Here's a thought. When there's an issue that is likely to create strong feelings and division, folks become more interested in the media, which is financially good for the industry. One danger is that people get bored when everything is as expected. For example, you know what you're going to get when you watch FOX News and the same is true for MSNBC and CNN. I watch less and less cable news lately. 10 minutes in and I've heard everything they have to say. Don Lemon is always going to act like Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson will always be Tucker Carlson, until people stop tuning in to them because they've become a big yawn. The first time I watched Rachel Maddow I thought she was as sharp as a tack firing off one zinger after another. Then, she started to annoy me. She didn't change. I just got tired of her routine.
This is speculation, but I think the country began it's divide when Obama was elected. Look back through Getbig posts to the years he was President and you'll read a lot of angry posts about him. Granted, most folks here lean to the right, some more so than others. So, anti Obama posts are expected. People either loved him or hated him. The same is true for Trump. If there's a middle ground, the people in it don't express it very often.
Even if I thought Trump's policies were right on target, I still wouldn't like him as a person. I never have. To me, his values are off and he's an egomaniac....always has been. That's one of the reasons I never watched his reality show....maybe I saw one episode or just part of one because I couldn't make it all the way through the show without having to change the channel.
Exactly. The country DID begin to divide under Obama. Which is precisely how we ended up with Trump.
But the left did not try to understand why we divided under Obama. They were quick to categorize Trump supporters as brainless simpletons, easily manipulated by a con artist.
What they should have done was look at the reasons WHY people may have wanted to elect a non-politician, or a disruptor.
-
Exactly. The country DID begin to divide under Obama. Which is precisely how we ended up with Trump.
But the left did not try to understand why we divided under Obama. They were quick to categorize Trump supporters as brainless simpletons, easily manipulated by a con artist.
What they should have done was look at the reasons WHY people may have wanted to elect a non-politician, or a disruptor.
Time will tell. I don't believe Trump supporters are all brainless simpletons, but it is looking more and more everyday like a lot of folks have been manipulated by a con artist extraordinaire.
BTW, where is the disruptor now? Well, he's in Palm Beach at Mar-a-Largo either tweeting the night away or getting his 'beauty sleep' in preparation for a few rounds of golf while Congress tries to figure out the mess he's left behind; a vetoed annual defense policy bill which included a military pay raise and he leaves Washington in limbo with the relief veto threat. So much for supporting the military or helping the folks with the greatest need as a result of the pandemic.
(https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2020-12/newscredarmynavygametrump1800.jpeg.jpg?itok=3PgJkjXT)
This is the face of a man who feels no empathy for anyone but himself.
-
Time will tell. I don't believe Trump supporters are all brainless simpletons, but it is looking more and more everyday like a lot of folks have been manipulated by a con artist extraordinaire.
BTW, where is the disruptor now? Well, he's in Palm Beach at Mar-a-Largo either tweeting the night away or getting his 'beauty sleep' in preparation for a few rounds of golf while Congress tries to figure out the mess he's left behind; a vetoed annual defense policy bill which included a military pay raise and he leaves Washington in limbo with the relief veto threat. So much for supporting the military or helping the folks with the greatest need as a result of the pandemic.
(https://images03.military.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/2020-12/newscredarmynavygametrump1800.jpeg.jpg?itok=3PgJkjXT)
This is the face of a man who feels no empathy for anyone but himself.
Providing examples, rather than broad generalizations would help understand your point. What were people conned out of?
"The disruptor" recently told Congress their Covid bill was full of pork to other countries and that the average American was getting ripped off, and told them to increase the $ to them.
And you don't give reasons why he vetoed the military bill. Context is always key in evaluating these things.
Otherwise, they're just statements.
-
Providing examples, rather than broad generalizations would help understand your point. What were people conned out of?
"The disruptor" recently told Congress their Covid bill was full of pork to other countries and that the average American was getting ripped off, and told them to increase the $ to them.
And you don't give reasons why he vetoed the military bill. Context is always key in evaluating these things.
Otherwise, they're just statements.
Good advice. Do you know why he vetoed the military bill?
Could it be this?
President Donald Trump on Wednesday vetoed the annual military spending bill because it did not modify a law that provides liability protections to tech companies and would have authorized the renaming of military bases named for Confederate generals.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-vetoes-military-spending-bill-setting-standoff-gop-lawmakers-n1252281
Trump said he vetoed the annual National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, because it “fails to include critical national security measures, includes provisions that fail to respect our veterans and our military’s history, and contradicts efforts by my administration to put America first in our national security and foreign policy actions”.
A key measure in the NDAA to which Trump objects is the move to rename US military bases currently named for leaders of the Confederacy, which seceded from the union over slavery, leading to the civil war of 1861 to 1865.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/dec/23/trump-vetoes-us-defense-spending-bill-congress-override
That the Covid bill is "full of pork to other countries" is interesting because House Republicans on Thursday blocked a bill by Democrats to provide direct checks of $2,000 to individuals on Thursday, after President Trump called on Congress to amend a newly passed coronavirus relief bill to increase direct payments to $2,000, with $4,000 for a couple. House Republicans blocked the proposal, which Democrats tried to pass by unanimous consent, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi said there will be a full House vote on the measure next week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stimulus-check-2000-dollar-direct-payments-democrats/
Pelosi urges Trump to press Republicans to back $2,000 stimulus checks ... House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged swift action on new legislation
https://fortune.com/2020/12/23/us-covid-relief-stimulus-checks-pelosi-trump/