McGarnicle
Footballguy
This what now??I hope Dodds will reconsider this no-politics policy.
This what now??I hope Dodds will reconsider this no-politics policy.
Henry, it's a dumb idea.So just two of us on the left and no one else willing to do the challenge?
I guess I'll keep checking back, but doesn't look good.
Ok, that makes sense. Just so I understand, the summary is straight as if the source was legit to me, and we are passing it along, but not to show how that news "hits" another perspective. Why?You just give sources. The person reads what he/she wants to - but only those sources for a week's worth of news. Write up a summary of what you have read. After the week, exchange summaries with your partner. Simple.
Treat it as the news. Whatever it is. Like your high school teacher gave you those sources of information for a class. If you have to pretend it's an alternate reality, fine, but those are "current events" for the week.
The summary is as if you had to submit it to your (possibly crazy but definitely in charge of your grade) high school teacher. Because it was solely suggested as a way to kind of bridge the gap. I don't particularly want to start a thread where we all bash each other's news sources, there are plenty of those. I just want us all to actually reasonably read each other's basic news sources.Ok, that makes sense. Just so I understand, the summary is straight as if the source was legit to me, and we are passing it along, but not to show how that news "hits" another perspective. Why?
I work along similar lines with a couple partisan friends IRL, so I'll do it. You can put me down as left or a moderate. For sources, let's say Reuters, AFP and UPI.
I'm going to assume you didn't adddress my last question because it was a clear "duh, yes."
350 an hour counsellor.I don't want you to argue anything. Just read and summarize.
Some what have yousUm, first there are some provisos, a few quid pro quos...
If I had to pick a few publishers, I guess I would choose fivethirtyeight.com and bloomberg.com; but it's not really the publishers I like so much as specific authors who happen to write for them. In Bloomberg's case, for example, I like Megan McArdle, Cass Sunstein, and Tyler Cowen -- but I liked them just as much when they wrote for other publications instead.I'll start with my list:
1. Reuters
2. The Financial Times
3. The New York Times
4. PBS
5. BBC
6. The Real News
(and if you really want to get lefty, my infotainment is)
7. Mother Jones
POTY.TobiasFunke said:In DC I mostly stick to community blogs and the local section of the Post. But anyone in Southern California looking for coverage of would-be robberies thwarted by dildo-hurling sex shop employees really can't go wrong with ABC 7, IMO.
Nice. You turned me on to Megan McArdle as a responsible op-ed writer, Tyler Cowen was already on the agenda. He recently wrote a great article about free trade and Trump. As far as Mr. Sunstein, he's long been on the radar since law school. I'm not surprised you find him thoughtful, though I would disagree with him on many issues.Maurile Tremblay said:If I had to pick a few publishers, I guess I would choose fivethirtyeight.com and bloomberg.com; but it's not really the publishers I like so much as specific authors who happen to write for them. In Bloomberg's case, for example, I like Megan McArdle, Cass Sunstein, and Tyler Cowen -- but I liked them just as much when they wrote for other publications instead.
And here it occurs to me that I don't really read the news so much as I read commentary about the news.
I wouldn't make fun of anyone. I was asking a little for myself but mostly for the crowd. Cool idea, Mr Ford. I'm in if you need people.Henry Ford said:The summary is as if you had to submit it to your (possibly crazy but definitely in charge of your grade) high school teacher. Because it was solely suggested as a way to kind of bridge the gap. I don't particularly want to start a thread where we all bash each other's news sources, there are plenty of those. I just want us all to actually reasonably read each other's basic news sources.
Nobody has to do this. But I think it would be nifty.
Does this mean the Venezuelan human-hunting parties are not real?McGarnicle said:Someone at a Trump rally was holding up a Trump-Pence sign with that URL written on it. I love how they have a real news section and an alt-news section and all of it is complete nutbaggery.
Doesn't look like we do, apparently. I'll let you know if that changes and people want to do this.The Football Freak said:Ok, that makes sense. Just so I understand, the summary is straight as if the source was legit to me, and we are passing it along, but not to show how that news "hits" another perspective. Why?
I work along similar lines with a couple partisan friends IRL, so I'll do it. You can put me down as left or a moderate. For sources, let's say Reuters, AFP and UPI.
I'm going to assume you didn't adddress my last question because it was a clear "duh, yes."
It does seem like :crickets: on at least one side of the exchange. Wonder why that would beDoesn't look like we do, apparently. I'll let you know if that changes and people want to do this.
Not in the slightest. By my age I know what I like.The Henry Ford First Annual Trans-News Exchange
I see that you're bi-curious![]()
Seems like you could read National Review, The Federalist, Instapundit (news aggregator), Daily Caller, Breibart, anything on the right, really.It does seem like :crickets: on at least one side of the exchange. Wonder why that would be
The Blue Buckley! He does exist!Yankee23Fan said:Um, first there are some provisos, a few quid pro quos...
There now, it's all going to be alright. Have a cup of hot chocolate and you will feel better.Seems like you could read National Review, The Federalist, Instapundit (news aggregator), Daily Caller, Breibart, anything on the right, really.
It seems you wouldn't have to look that hard. It seems like other of us have other things to do.
By the way, your middle finger in Tim's thread, if not a joke, is part of the reason your political threads are now banned here.
Good work, dude.
I actually laughed at that. Not sure why you see me as the enemy. I only quoted you because it came up in the quote function after a long time. I might have accidentally scrolled it.There now, it's all going to be alright. Have a cup of hot chocolate and you will feel better.
No, I think your idea is great, but with a flawed premise that somehow government news is news (PBS, BBC) and investigative journals and op-eds are candy.Jesus, just stop it. The whole point of this thread is to try to understand where everyone's coming from and respect it, even if we think it's insane at the moment. Does it really have to devolve into insults and one-up-manship?
I love when my local NPR just switches over to BBC late at night.Henry Ford said:I'll start with my list:
1. Reuters
2. The Financial Times
3. The New York Times
4. PBS
5. BBC
6. The Real News
(and if you really want to get lefty, my infotainment is)
7. Mother Jones
I have advanced no such premise. I've said what I read for my news sources, and the whole point is to trade sources for a week. If someone wants to point me to solely op-ed type things for a week, I'll do that. And the two you mentioned are #4 and #5 on my list.No, I think your idea is great, but with a flawed premise that somehow government news is news (PBS, BBC) and investigative journals and op-eds are candy.
I think we find our truth in the op-eds, our death in the news.
Yes, because no one knows how to have a conversation anymore, let alone a debate or disagreement. When it comes to actual communicating we have devolved as a species something awful.Jesus, just stop it. The whole point of this thread is to try to understand where everyone's coming from and respect it, even if we think it's insane at the moment. Does it really have to devolve into insults and one-up-manship?
I've actually just poured a glass of white wine (it's 80F outside) and it is about to do wonders for meI actually laughed at that. Not sure why you see me as the enemy. I only quoted you because it came up in the quote function after a long time. I might have accidentally scrolled it.
Sorry, dude. I've always liked your posts; maybe a cup of hot chocolate would benefit the other side of the debate?
Which is my point.Yes, because no one knows how to have a conversation anymore, let alone a debate or disagreement. When it comes to actual communicating we have devolved as a species something awful.
Damnit Henry if I wasn't so damned loaded right now I would sign up.Henry Ford said:Self-Identified "Other":
???
So wait a couple days. I'll be here. You read things I consider crazy, I'm pretty sure you'd consider what I read to be crazy.Damnit Henry if I wasn't so damned loaded right now I would sign up.
Even when joking around Maurile finds a way to have the best post in a thread.Hot chocolate is awesome. I am literally for real going to have a hot chocolate right now.
No way, I'm in a Loyalist mood. We live in "The Swamp" these ######s don't know what they're dealing with. Call `em all out.So wait a couple days. I'll be here. You read things I consider crazy, I'm pretty sure you'd consider what I read to be crazy.
I'm not calling anyone out, seriously.Henry is Louisiana. He';s a fighter, I swear I'd sign up to fight by his side like a real Louisiana Tiger if any if if any of the bastards he's calling out would tee it up.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
However right now I have to write and drink.
I'm never drinking with you in person. I'm too old for bar fights.No way, I'm in a Loyalist mood. We live in "The Swamp" these ######s don't know what they're dealing with. Call `em all out.
I am not going to let this bother me.I've actually just poured a glass of white wine (it's 80F outside) and it is about to do wonders for me
![]()
I'm sorry that my choice of drink offends youI am not going to let this bother me.
But I am bout to hit the Vieux Carre like a mfer and the weather is perfect so there is that.
Henry apologies, I'm in a wild mood, but aren't you - we - doing that? Why should we not?I'm not calling anyone out, seriously.
Everyone I talk to these days says "you don't know what's going on because you don't read the real news." Either side of the aisle, whatever their sources, they think they have the pipeline to "facts" that the other doesn't have. Here's the chance to, on a very small scale, get a very small group of people together who can have a conversation about these things without those accusations - if only for a week.
Man it's the weather that offended me - Ha! Just usual NO in between stuff here. The wine is fine.I'm sorry that my choice of drink offends you![]()
Vieux Carre the place? Enjoy!
If Vieux Carre the drink, enjoy that too![]()
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvNkdakBexUHenry apologies, I'm in a wild mood, but aren't you - we - doing that? Why should we not?
I respect your rationality and honestly I'm disheartened by the course of what I am seeing on the FFA.
I have posted on three forums, all time. This is one. I say that because I have never ever tried to persuade anyone on a forum, or at least not in a very long time. I question the whole slings/arrows thing, is it better to suffer the trolling of fools or is better to stand in this one quarter of the world and thrown down on principle? These days are troubling. Things looked great in the 90s. I thought We - humanity - democracy, civilization had arrived. Sure, we bickered over abortion and bathrooms but damnit this was a new age. We were talking "ideas". How do we arrive back at a place where we've scrapped the 'ili' stuff and talk about Democracy, Free Speech, Dignity, Humanity, Stability, Order?
The fact that we're here is a call to arms. Marchand, then, marchand.
This is almost unfair.
It's not a debate. It was a town hall where Trump supporters talked directly to Bernie. That woman was a hard core Trump supporter, the entire audience were Trump supporters and they gave him a standing ovation when he was done. Because he listened to what they actually wanted to say before responding with actual positions.This is almost unfair.
Who is that woman that Bernie is debating with?
Bernie has been in Debate Alley since the early 60s. Who is she?
I agree with Bernie on SS but IMO anyone who has ever paid into SS should get every penny back with just a wee bit of interest. Like everyone, and I realize I'm in a small minority on that based on original promises made in the 30s but whatever.
The problem based on your OP is no one believes anything that anyone says, the right doesn't believe MSM and the left just totally disagrees with the right's sources. So anyone who believes in nothing will fall for anything.
I love the premise of the OP. I have to admit I have not read through but I bet you have no takers.
But I'm happy to. I'm ecstatic to make this into a real discussion of news in general. Of perspective and interpretation and facts and inferences and the columns that shape our perceptions of the world. Just don't have any takers yet.I welcome a list of sites Ford approves. You don't have to read any of my news sites but I am grateful to have some new ones.
Personally I did not mean debate in a bad way. He's a beautiful man rooted in dialectic. He's an historical accident at this point. You're asking for dialectic here, dare I say socratism.It's not a debate. It was a town hall where Trump supporters talked directly to Bernie. That woman was a hard core Trump supporter, the entire audience were Trump supporters and they gave him a standing ovation when he was done. Because he listened to what they actually wanted to say before responding with actual positions.