DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 07, 2016, 01:24:34 PM
-
Seeing as most of them are college graduates, they don't bear the full blame. They are taught by dishonest and irresponsible academics.
-
That is what happens when people are smart.
-
Those would be the ones who refrain from joining the media ranks
-
Jon Stewart and Rachael Maddow are smarter than any of the right wing pundits.
None of the commercial TV networks are worth a damn as far as their actual coverage of the news goes: too superficial and the incessant commercials make the content irrelevant. PBS, NPR and BBC are the only viable broadcast networks. The magazines are best at opinions.
Listening to Fox demonstrably causes people to "know" less than not watching at all.
-
That's merely your opinion as to how smart you think they are, not to mention they're not the media being referenced. They're just opinionated talking heads. We're talking about just how stupid & biased the media & reporters have demonstrated themselves to be, which we can place at the foot of present day academia
-
There is no such thing as "Academia", any more that there is an identifiable consensus of transmission repairmen known as "mechanicademia"
Professors have a huge range of opinions at every institution I have attended.
Most are just able to present arguments less idiotic than the constant crap you repost.
-
There is no such thing as "Academia"
So, you don't apparently have a problem with being proven wrong so often. Glad we got that cleared up. Per Webesters:
Academia; the life, community, or world of teachers, schools, and education
So obviously, there IS such a thing
-
The assumption is that all the professor and teachers of the 4000 colleges and secondary schools of the country are a unified collective, called "Academia" and they have incorrectly and deliberately educated each and every member of the media (except Fox, where they are engaged in abusing women).
It is a FALSE assumption. Ratbag right wingers like simple solutions, because they are simpletons.
-
So Websters dictionary & definitions is now a RW rag?? Riiiiiiiiiight ::)
-
Mechanics and technicians do have community and shared viewpoints , even attending conventions.
Is there no community of academy?
I think it is no discovery at this point that a large majority of editors and reporters vote and contribute far to the left of most of us.
This academy community thing is just a theory of how it happened.
-
What you think is "most of us" is really a minority.
College professors tend to associate in groups: Humanities, Sciences, Business, Social Sciences.
There is not a lot of consensus about politics. Except that professors all believe in the benefits of education, and the scientific method is generally respected more than miracles.
-
What you think is "most of us" is really a minority.
College professors tend to associate in groups: Humanities, Sciences, Business, Social Sciences.
There is not a lot of consensus about politics. Except that professors all believe in the benefits of education, and the scientific method is generally respected more than miracles.
Does this affirm the accusation?
Any Group is likely to consider itself superior among its members.
-
Indeed, it does. The point being made here is that the term Academia, simply refers to its textbook definition....the life, community, or world of teachers, schools, and education. Nothing more. It's folks like xo, who apparently are trying to redefine the term in some manner as being defined by folks like myself...thereby, and once again, arguing a point, no one is making
-
Your claim is that somehow "Academia" is to blame for the awfulness of the "lamestream media", like somehow there is this conspiracy to cause all future journalists to be biased against abortion, gun control, better regulation of the banks, and waste in the military.
The people who write the news are not the same as the talking heads who deliver the news. There is a huge amount of pressure by advertisers to favor their products. Look how long it took to get tobacco to be declared harmful, and to get the tetraethyl of lead out of leaded gasoline.
There is very little coverage of the immense damage done to people by adding sugar and corn syrup sweeteners to almost everything. Diabetes and obesity are a major problem as a result. The Fanjul Brothers and their Florida Crystal Sugar company and others are wrecking the Everglades with too much fertilizer runoff. Governor Rick Scott and Asshole Marco Rubio are their main supporters.
-
Well, considering how you yourself give them some sort of "intelligence", that they had to obtain in their "educational years", yea, Academia is at the foot of that. Nor am I talking about talking heads. I'm talking about the media and those who go out and "report it". They're the ones who produced the biased reporting, making sure to paint their stories with the proper propaganda shade, making sure to minimize, if completely ignore Nixon-like hands caught in the cookie-jar like stories about Clinton, while spending 24/7 news on how racist Trump is, in brushing his teeth in the AM. That's a product of Academia, when you have such a group think effort. Matt Lauer was a perfect example, at that forum. He came across as debating Trump, while merely interviewing Clinton
-
Trump is not a racist, he is a Trumpist. There are two kinds of people: Trump & co. and Inferior people. He uses racism to sell his crap. He has no principles whatever.
The guy who actually WROTE The Art if the Deal followed the schmuck around for about two years and know what a big bag of useless hot air he is. Trump is ignorant, he has the attention span of a gnat, he looses as often as he wins. But lately he simply sticks his na,e on shit, and if people do not buy it, he takes his name off. He invests no money, so he has nothing to lose.
Trump is running because his main product is his celebrity, and win or lose, his investment in his campaign will give him more celebrity.
You sorry losers are utterly pathetic to fall for this oaf.
-
xo protocol for responding, when unable to refute point being made
- deflection...check
- rant....check
- personal insulting.... check
Got them all checked off....bravo
-
Matt Lauer was a terrible interviewer,
This debate was about national defense in a future administration, but all he did was interrupt Hillary about e mail crap.
Trump claims that the generals were "reduced to rubble" How? If this country was as weak as Trump claims, Kim Jung Un would be occupying the Oval Office.
-
although he wasn't nearly as tough on her as he was on Trump, the "e-mail crap" is founded in national security. It's part and parcel to what kind of priority she would possess when it came to national security. It was clear how woeful her responses, but more so her actions, would be.
Trump never claimed we were as weak as Taiwan. We are far weaker as the United States, than we've been since the Carter years. THAT's the point Trump was accurately making
-
........... Look how long it took to get tobacco to be declared harmful, and to get the tetraethyl of lead out of leaded gasoline.
There is very little coverage of the immense damage done to people by adding sugar and corn syrup sweeteners to almost everything. .....................
Well there you go.
When these guys are right , it is good that they have clout.
Two things are unfortunate about it.
1) They have the same clout when they are wrong.
2) They can't believe ,ever, that they are wrong.