ewen21

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6775061/BBC-faces-probe-biased-reports-pointless-stories-claims-not-impartial.html https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1092413/brexit-news-BBC-Brexit-bias-UK-public-brexit-date-theresa-may-referendum-tv https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/bbc/ These one word responses are lazy

I have to take a little hiatus from this thread. I have personal things to attend to, but I will be back here next week for sure. I applaud chmpuckett for TRYING hard to explain his commitment to civility and finding some common ground.

Once again, that is your choice. He is clarifying again and again and you feign ignorance. His initial post was not only commendable, but also crystal clear AND respectful. Seems like you are having trouble with ti.

Levi, you really need to look at this. These are three posts in succession on the top of page 62. My first post: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/ This is about the most in-depth estimation of Trump's approval rating as I can find. It uses about every single poll there is and tries to average it out. As far as I can tell, it's about 40something approve and 50something disapprove. Whereas here, I would venture to say it is about 95% disapprove and 5% too afraid to comment, My response: It's an aggregate from a lot of sources. I'm really not interested in polls, but I wanted to look for a fair reflection. It feels to you all these sources have a pro Trump bias. That is certainly possible Could it be that there is an anti-Trump bias here I was speaking about POLLS having a PRO-TRUMP bias. I mused.... Does this site (if it were polled) have an anti-Trump bias Bias is a very rudimentary term in statistics. This is why random sampling occurs. For heaven's sake. I have clarified this a number of times and it wasn't even all that confusing unless you chose to be, reacting to the word BIAS. Why in the world do you keep referencing this after I have clarified this several times? This is what chmpuckett was talking about, quite frankly. Get off it already. It's done. If you have any further question PM me. Stop carrying on here.

Trump has no leverage in this Omar controversy. For him to not denounce the Charlotteville marchers renders him useless here.

Heaven knows Minnesota has done quite a job going out of its way to give these people a great setup plan for life. Would be nice to see them make an attempt to assmiliate if they want citizenship. Sorry if this offends anyone

I can't say I am suprised no one brought up Ilhan Omar, are Somali immigrants like Hindu cows here?

See. There you go. I think you're very wrong about that and I am pretty sure you know I am not lacking in confidence. If you do not see that maybe you aren't all that perceptive?

For what it's worth, I read this page for a while on and off and never really felt it was OK to make certain observations here. Discount that if you want. Doesn't really phase me

I am sorry, but if he sufered the injury during some sort of raucous celebration (for a winter league WS) then that is sheer stupidity. I was on board with Miguel totally when I saw the pic of him and Rocco and was very complimentary of his turnaround. Call it an accident if you want, but when these "accidents" go on around him often enough at some point it ceases being a coincidence. That is about where I am. Kid needs to wise up. And I don't want to hear about "we were all 26 at one time" Right. We all were. But he is in a position of amazing privilege and with that comes certain responsibilities. That's all there is to it.

I agree. He had his best season by far last year and if defense is a big thing getting factored in here wait and see his range and durability (already questionable) dissipate. He is 29 and singed up until he is 36. This is a pretty strange profile to match with another player past or present. Rare is the player who is better in his 30s than in his 20s. This is to say nothing of the fact that he is a .236 lifetime hitter at age 29. This contract is exhibit A for why people should stop saying players don't make enough money. This is like a Gary Matthews Jr. contract

Not sure how much longer anyone can say "it's just bad luck" for Sano. It was just bad luck that he ran over that cop last winter. Just bad luck he was accused of something by a female reporter. Just bad luck now after getting cut during a winter balll championship celebration? Honestly? What kind of celebrations are the norm in winter ball? I thought it was for conditioning and working your game. A "championship" in winter ball doesn't require champagne and dancing. Not sure how exactly that injury occurred, but the sky is the limit. Sounds like a really odd injury that haopened in a raucous environmnet. Poor judgment at best.

I think the club is all-inclusive Everyone here probably could write a headline judging from the style/quality of writing I see here. Not a bad thing

Agree with me or not, Mike. It's OK because you do follow what you say here. Thanks for staying true to it and I will try to be more like that. I would like to add that when I try to clarify (something I do upon request) I will do my best to make sure I am clear. I have been known to say a thing or two for shock value I readily admit it

What about dealing with opinions that are fundamentally different. Reading through here I haven't seen it. Almost nowhere. Not all opinions on the right or the left are correct. From what I can tell this board is overwhelmingly liberal. I actually took a "politics test" on my nephews phone during Christmastime because he could not pin me down. The assessment took about 15 minutes to complete. The results were displayed on a Cartesian Plane and it showed me to be almost dead center, slightly left. I didn't vote for Trump (bet you thought I did). For you to reject the idea there is not a "liberal narrative" here is absurd. Maybe that phrase doesn't work for you. How about erase that term and say this forum is dominated almost entirely by liberals. What is the shame in admitting that?

Oh please. Was any of it inaccurate? How is it possibly unfair to state facts in the light of what Badsmurf allegedly said? The KKK has an indoctrination process and here is your link on senators with time in the KKK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_United_States_politics Robert Byrd served all he way until 2010. That is a fact. Facts don't necessarily prove things, though... Off the strength of that fact should I go around saying "The Democratic Party is the KKK party" because I have the link to back it up? (I guess I just said it, but that isn't something I earnestly believe) To say, "not all republicans are Nazi" is saying what exactly? Is that a concession in some way? Nazi is a very specific term and when someone broadly labels republicans or Trump supporters in that way they should expect to hear it from someone. It is absurd. It would be the same if I go around saying "The Democratic Party is the slavery party! The Democratic Party is the KKK party!" That kind of garbage should be curbed, in my opinion. That is what chmpuckett was saying and I think he's dead on center.

Amazing post. One of the best I have read on any message board in about 20 years of posting on message boards. I've actually read it several times and may read it several more. Thank you for the contribution!

To be fair, the Democratic party had a whole list of senators who were at one time open about their membership in the KKK. This was all the way up to around the time I was born in the mid-60s. I don't know of any now for sure, but Ralph Northam D-VA did not seem to have a problem wearing KKK garb AND taking a photo of it when he was in college in the 1980s. I was in college then. I can't say he is a KKK member, but there is that. Which republican members of congress are Nazi's, in your opinion?

Why don't you PM him like he asked? Seems to me he just wanted to make a statement and didn't want to get into any kind of back and forth in front of an audience.

I don't know what to tell you. Write a letter to nothing. By the definition of socialism there are no actual Socialist nations. There are only nations that have socialist characteristics. That is all.

Since you use the source, Merriam-Webster's definition begins with this: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" This is THE core principle of socialism. In it's true form there is no private property or private ownership in a socialist government. These conditions do not exist in any of the nations mentioned earlier. You can't label a government as being "socialist" without

Essentially you're contention is these people are not genuine. They are part of a right wing conspiracy where they have been bought off to spread this message.

You put these #walkway videos on the same level as those videos from African American's defending slavery. The way you put them together suggests you view both as being equally as dumb. Please explain why you have mentioned these two things together at least twice. I find it to be blatantly disrespectful to African Americans who have made a choice not to align themselves with the democrat party for you to mention them with those "defending slavery"

Name me a country where a socialist government actually worked. Better yet, explain to me your impression of how many Americans emigrated to socialist nations as compared to those who emigrated to the US from socialist nations.

Blexit and #walkaway are not movements toward conservatism on the part of African Americans?