None of this follows from what I wrote and is just you appealing to pseudo-intellectualism. I spoke of healing, you answer that with a one-size fits all approach rarely works. Healing is clearly putting people first, whereas treatment is clearly putting ideas/methodology above the concern for...
I'm pretty sure I've brought this up before on RF, but I've seen plenty of evidence of national Dems dismissing science when it comes to politics around eCigs/vaping. Schumer for sure, and if I did a wee bit of investigating, I know I can name other names. They (Dems) are waging a clear...
Yes. People dying prematurely will happen for as long as there are people on this planet.
Healing goes (far) further than treatment. Literally like comparing a mountain to a mole hill.
I have read every post in the thread and decided to come back to this one.
First things first, I'm glad ACA was repealed. Not super duper glad, but it does undo a bit of legacy for O, and it was a political football for last 5 or so years. Now Pubs will have to run on something else, and Dems...
And he did so in an entirely whiny manner. Hence why he was treated poorly by Trump. Seems Shep and you want to completely downplay that part of this. Sorry, I don't.
I don't know where to post this, so I chose here. I currently cannot engage in any conversations (PMs) and can't start any new threads. And I no longer have "preview" available for any posts that I write. Plus formatting on all lists of threads, for any forum/sub-forum is wonky. Other than that...
All of this is either not true or debatable. But we get it, it's your schtick and you'll not budge from this type of rhetoric. It's become comical, cause this was being said pre-election and how RW media was fooling people and Hillary will win in historical landslide. You'll see that I'm right...
I'm saying bias is unavoidable. It visibly occurs in science, so to think journalism would somehow, magically be devoid of it, is nonsensical.
Btw, you lost your point with me at the word "should."
But that's not what you asked me.
Also doesn't pertain to what you asked me.
You said "in any way, actually align with your personal beliefs." I would think answering no to that would be odd. Like if Fox News reports that President Obama did such and such, that would mean if your answer is...
But that is your view of what their point/mission is. Anyone can surely play that rhetorical game with any news outlet in history. Define what their point and function is from own perspective. If the news outlet has "mission statement" type documents that contradict that expressed point and...
I think sexual orientation is chosen if the orientation is something other than bisexual. As a bisexual, I found my own orientation was chosen by reason. While this seems to contradict the first sentence, I find that it is not me that is doing the choosing when it comes to aligning myself with...
You violated my 17th rule (paragraph 8, sentence 7) for proper internet debate. When you mention many people in a post and I am one of them, but do not specifically address which point applies to me, then you are wrong and there's no nice way to state that. My rules are the nicest way I can...
This doesn't follow from earlier conversation. It's as if you (again) think you have the 'right' information and I'm playing catch up to your point(s).
You earlier said: "Not necessarily. I think their [Fox News] journalistic news programs, while not innacruate, are biased in both the stance...
Then you are where I was as an American voter, when I was in my early 20's. Or IOW, when I was naive.
People believing in falsehoods, is why we even have a thing as "leader of the country."
That's not accurate assessment of my philosophical position. I believe you failed in the debate to establish an objective reality. If you feel otherwise, we can go outside of the political section to further that debate.
The very first sentence of OP attempts to establish such bias, where you...