*
Bedford Ramblings
Steve Mills

What news media provides the most objective, non-editorialized, non-partisan news?

Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2016, at 7:06 PM
Comments
View 87 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • No.

    All have an agenda. Read them all and understand the truth is usually somewhere in between.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Nov 29, 2016, at 7:29 PM
  • We agree, Quite Mike.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Wed, Nov 30, 2016, at 2:30 AM
  • *

    I agree. There are no strictly "news" organizations around nowadays that I know of. But in my opinion, Fox comes closer than the others to actually reporting the news. And in their analysis segments they almost always at least have the wrong(other) side represented. And of course, their opinion shows are more-so one sided. But when they are strictly reporting news, they tend to deal in facts.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Nov 30, 2016, at 11:04 AM
  • Does Fox have a regular news program or are they all "shows"? Shows have their place but ....

    I used to watch CBS "your world in 90 seconds" until the election made me see their bias more clearly.

    I can't even find a good summary of the news on the internet. I don't have time to watch several to sift the news from the bias, so I just stopped watching all together. I missed the Gatlinburg fires until I was sitting in a doctor's waiting room on Tuesday.

    That is why I sometimes ask such clueless questions.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Wed, Nov 30, 2016, at 7:30 PM
  • *

    The morning shows are news, afternoon some are news and some are opinion, and evening shows are opinion.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Nov 30, 2016, at 9:39 PM
  • When it comes to a "news" network that is the most unreliable and dishonest, Fox "News" beats them all.

    Study after study has shown that Fox News viewers are the most uninformed and misinformed people in America. One recent study even found that people who didn't watch any news programs at all had a firmer grasp on the reality of current events than those who only watched Fox News.

    They are nothing more than a constant propaganda opinion show for the Republican Party.

    So even their slogan, "Fair and Balanced", is a joke.

    At least MSNBC actually has some Republicans that even have their own shows on their network.

    In fact, the show with the most air time is a 3 hour weekday morning show called "Morning Joe" hosted by a former Republican congressman that boasts his conservative views.

    Please name one Democrat that has a show on Fox.

    And there is also a big difference in the hosts of the more "opinionated " shows like Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) compared to Bill O' Reilly (Fox). Maddow tells you upfront that she is a liberal democrat, and her news reports are truthful and factual. On the other hand, Bill O' Reilly still tries to push the "fair and balanced" crap, and he's been caught pushing lies and dishonest stories.

    I usually flip thru the channels to check how they all report what's happening.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 8:54 AM
  • *

    I think the people that watched Fox were much less surprised than the ones that watched bsnbc or cnn when Trump was elected. No reliable "study" to tell me that, just the way I see it.And I don't recall any Fox personnel feeding questions to Trump. And they didn't get him to review their stories ahead of time. Seems to me like the rest of the media has a way to go before they could carry Fox's lunch bucket. But, maybe that is just me. No, on second thought, it is also a lot of the people that got Trump elected. Somehow, the liberal elite just won't learn that lesson.

    -- Posted by fair share on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 10:21 AM
  • Shepard Smith, Greta Van Sustern, Juan Williams are democrats on Fox News.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 3:01 PM
  • -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 3:03 PM
  • And here's the same website's findings on Fox News.

    As you can see, they found Fox much more dishonest.

    If you add Fox's "false" and "pants on fire", they have a whopping 38%.

    Rachel Maddow is at 26%.

    So nothing to really brag about on your end.

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/fox/

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 3:34 PM
  • So a whole network vs. one anchor?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 6:39 PM
  • Yeah, so the most liberal host on MSNBC scores better than the whole Fox "News" network. And here's the link showing how they scored the big three, Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. CNN scores best, followed by MSNBC, with Fox coming in dead last .

    http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2015/jan/27/msnbc-fox-cnn-move-need...

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Fri, Dec 2, 2016, at 9:08 PM
  • The striking thing to me about these "evaluations/studies" is that around 40-80% of them, collectively, are reporting false information. How then, do you consider any of them credible? Let alone, the credibility of the person(s) doing the study. SMH

    There are only 6 corporations that control 90% of the media in the U.S.

    The reality is that the banks/bankers are controlling the world and the media. Virtually all laws and regulations benefit the banking cartels in one way or another. Having control of the media is an absolute must in order to maintain control.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sat, Dec 3, 2016, at 7:39 AM
  • What's even worse than the bias from the Networks, is the outright false and dangerous "fake" news stories that are all over social media. These can have very dangerous consequences because some people, actually a lot of people, actually believe them.

    A man went into a pizza shop with an assault rifle and opened fire the other day because of a fake story he read that claimed Hillary Clinton was involved in a child sex ring run from the establishment.

    They called it "pizza gate".

    It's crazy, yes. But what's even more crazy is that people believe this stuff. And then act on it.

    I can't tell you how many times I saw fake pictures and news stories on my facebook page during the election.

    Some were just unflattering photoshopped pictures of the candidates meant to be humorous.

    But others were taken serious. I have many friends and family members that re-posted these fake photos and stories as fact.

    They might just be a picture of what looked like a Clinton supporter wearing a Clinton t-shirt burning the American flag with a small attached article.

    But the photo is photoshopped and the article completely fake.

    This may seem harmless, but as we are starting to find out this just fuels rage and can have consequences.

    Now I'm not just blaming one side of the political spectrum for this, but just like the wacko at the pizza shop, it does seem like most of these nuts are right-wing Trump followers.

    I've even heard crazy lies like this on our local talk radio station, 99.7.

    They were pushing a story about a year ago that there were neighborhoods here in the U.S. that had been completely taken over by Muslim extremists and were run by "sharia law".

    The worst was a town in Michigan. Law enforcement and state officials in Michigan confirmed these reports were false, much like the supposed Muslim training camps that were rumored to be just outside of Shelbyville somewhere (anyone remember hearing about that?) But that didn't stop the hosts on 99.7 from spreading the lies like a actual news story.

    I don't know if there's anything we can do about this.

    As far as I know, there is no law about spreading lies and false stories to gullible people that could result in violence.

    But it's starting to get a little scary.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 5, 2016, at 11:52 AM
  • WE need to do our own fact checking on what we read. Also we need to have the reporters be held accountable once again for the content of their stories, if it reported as "news" then it needs to be honest, researched INFORMATION, it they can not back it with facts then they should have to state that. There was a day that if the media lied or could not back their accusations they were held accountable if it caused harm to those they were misrepresenting.

    I think that we should be able to call these people out when they intentionally report false information, and we should be able to call them out if they report stories they have neglected to vet their resources. Yes there is freedom of speach but that does not mean they should not be held accountable for the content and the problems their words cause if they are irresponsible or intentionally do harm.

    -- Posted by wonderwhy on Mon, Dec 5, 2016, at 3:29 PM
  • Now I'm not just blaming one side of the political spectrum for this, but just like the wacko at the pizza shop, it does seem like most of these nuts are right-wing Trump followers.

    Really?

    How many riots have Republicans started lately?

    How many traffic jams from idiots standing in the highway?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 5, 2016, at 6:52 PM
  • So, you can equate public protesters to deranged conspiracy therists with assault weapons? OK

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 6, 2016, at 7:15 AM
  • Protestors?

    Is that what liberals call rioters?

    Is that what they call people who paint swastikas?

    Is that what they call thugs who drag someone out of their car and beat them?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 1:25 AM
  • I think we're talking about two different things now. I was touching on the current phenomenon of "fake news". Who's behind it, and the dangerous effects it can pose.

    Protesters and riots have been happening here for hundreds of years. And whether it's political or a mob of fans after a sporting event, there will always be some that go too far.

    What I see happening now is this echo chamber from the far right, or "alt-right", that creates these fake news stories like the one about Hillary Clinton and the pizza shop.

    They push this fear and hatred, tell people that they need to stand up, take thier country back. And then act surprised when some nut with an assault rifle shows up and does exactly what they've been inciting.

    The reason I mostly blame right wing conservatives for this is that these are the ones I see pushing this crap.

    Donald Trumps pick for National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, is someone who actually pushed this "pizza-gate" thing.

    Then you have these others on the right with a strong voice in the media, Limbaugh, Brietbart, Alex Jones, or any number of the other talk radio hosts that push false news.

    I've heard it. I do listen in to 99.7 quite often when I'm at work.

    I've heard some of these crazy conspiracy theorists when they call in to talk live on the air to the hosts.

    It doesn't matter how crazy or just downright false one of their stories might be, the host will either agree with them, or just let them go and not comment. Even if they know it's a load of crap. I actually heard a local guy call in one day telling the host of the Muslim training camp that was supposed to be near Shelbyville. The host didn't confirm or deny his claims, but claimed it could be possible. This is what I'm talking about.

    It's an echo chamber of fear and hate purported by some on the right that has the possible repercussion of violence.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 8:29 AM
  • *

    Hey, Mike, the libs have tried to control the conversation (and win the argument) forever by defining what the words mean. Especially when different from Webster.

    -- Posted by fair share on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 11:30 AM
  • Fake news huh?

    Like Trump hating blacks, women, and gays, nevermind he has all on his team?

    Like Trump is going to start a nuclear war simply for taking a call from Taiwan?

    Like the economy would never recover if Trump was elected?

    Democrats entire message is spreading fear and offering to protect people from those invented fears.

    Social Security

    Medicare

    Obamacare

    Others too countless to name

    Democrats entire purposeis to protect their followers from the horror of being responsible for their own lives.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 12:51 PM
  • Trump's problems with women and minorities stem from direct quotes from Trump himself.

    When you are on tape talking about cheating on your wife and grabbing women by the genitals, that's not fake news.

    When Trump's comments about a Hispanic judge are called "the textbook definition of racism" by the Republican Speaker of the House, that's not fake news.

    If Trump says that he's against marriage equality and will appoint Supreme Court judges that would overturn it. That's not fake news, and you might understand why some gay people might find that a bad thing for them.

    Now if you report that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring inside a pizza shop... THAT...that right there, is fake news.

    Are you starting to see the difference?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 1:57 PM
  • https://www.google.com/amp/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2016/12/...

    Here's a good story that explains the "fake news" thing.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 2:37 PM
  • Adultery =/= hating women.

    Were OJ Simpson's lawyers racist for asking for a change of venue to try and get a predominately black jury, or was it good legal strategy?

    FWIW-The Dow closed at another record high today, the twelfth since the election.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Wed, Dec 7, 2016, at 6:33 PM
  • *

    Quietmike, it seems obvious (to we that live with rationality) that the market has and will continue to reach highs because we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Of course, the haters will give bummer all the credit. But it is starting to look a lot like Christmas, I mean like I might be able to retire before I die. In answer to your question, one of OJ's lawyers was black, so he couldn't be racist. The others were not, so obviously, they were.

    -- Posted by fair share on Thu, Dec 8, 2016, at 12:23 PM
  • RV... I don't know if they can tell the difference.....Isn't that why Trump won.......

    -- Posted by Palindrome on Thu, Dec 8, 2016, at 8:13 PM
  • Trump makes up his own stories so fake news does not bother him.The right keeps fake stories going thinking it will confuse weak people what is true or false. Most of the things said about Trump came out of his own mouth or something he tweeted.Look at the war he has now with a regular citizen that told the truth about the Carrier deal.He has time to have his stupid rallies and tweet nonsense but no time for intelligence briefings.He thinks he knows everything already.

    Now he is singing Obamas praises when he needs advise.

    Looks like he is determined to hold on to his business after Jan 20th.It is going to be interesting to see how this turns out.

    I guess Trump is responsible for 4.6 unemployment rate since he saved 700 jobs quitemike.LOL

    -- Posted by lets be real on Thu, Dec 8, 2016, at 8:34 PM
  • Well obama certainly isn't.

    You can't go from blaming Bush one day for the bad to suddenly taking credit for the good the next day.

    The economy and unemployment improved only after the "party of no" started slapping Obama's hand.

    Too bad that didn't happen before he single handedly doubled the national debt.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 9, 2016, at 3:21 AM
  • You sure can't go from blaming Bush for the bad one day to taking credit for good the next day because it didn't happen suddenly.The 4.6 unemployment rate came down gradually during 8 years of Obama.Like I said before if Obama cured cancer the republican party of "no" would complain.

    Quitemike I will bet you give Bush presidency credit for killing bin Laden even after he said" I am not that concerned about bin Laden or spend much time on him".

    Trump stated he will not take a salary as president,which I have to see to believe.I will bet he forgot he said this.Keeping his business interest,which is a conflict of interest,he wont need a salary.He is going to remain producer of The Apprentice,which is another conflict of interest.Trump is going to be a busy man with his tweeting about people being mean to him,running a business and running the country.

    He also stated he wants people in his cabinet that have made a fortune.These rich wall street billionares do not give a crap about working class Americans.

    Then you have Flynn who is also tweets false news along with his son as national security advisor. We may have someone from the WWE in the cabinet,whose next Big Bird.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 9, 2016, at 10:43 AM
  • Did obama eschew his book royalties while in office? Where was the liberal head spinning over this?

    How did obama afford his fourth house on a presidents salary?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Fri, Dec 9, 2016, at 7:56 PM
  • The Obamas were not exactly what you call poor being Harvard and Princeton graduate lawyers making 6 figure salaries each.He also received royalties from his books which in no ways compares to owning companies in foreign countries.

    Since he hates the media so why is The Apprentice still with NBC?

    Trump actually told his supporters at a crowd yesterday who was chanting "lock her up","nah,forget it,that played great before the election now we don't care". He also told them "I don't need your vote now,but in 4 years I will need your vote" and they still didn't get it.

    Trump is still denying Russia hacked the DNC even after the CIA report tonight.One of his picks for Sec of State even has close ties with Putin.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Fri, Dec 9, 2016, at 10:35 PM
  • If Trump stuck to his guns for locking up Hillary, obama would simply pardon her.

    She is relegated to the dustbin of history with her annointed candidacy going down in flames.

    You do know one of the primary functions of the CIA is spreading disinformation? Do you really believe if the Bay of Pigs had been successful, they would have admitted it?

    Even Assange hinted it was a DNC staffer providing the leaks, a staffer who was murdered.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 10, 2016, at 3:22 AM
  • *

    I expect barry will pardon her anyway since they could start proceedings after he is finally gone. But even if he does, Congress can still investigate . I wonder what the dems would complain about if Trump picked shillary, elizabeth warren (ew), or burney for some cabinet post? It would almost be worth it just to hear them b*tch and moan about it.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sat, Dec 10, 2016, at 9:57 AM
  • Trumps own words"I won't pursue charges against Hillary,she has been through enough".

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Dec 10, 2016, at 1:04 PM
  • News flash....

    Politicians lie, especially politicians at that level.

    Obama said if you like your plan you can keep it.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sat, Dec 10, 2016, at 1:49 PM
  • I liked my plan and I kept it without much of an increase.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sat, Dec 10, 2016, at 10:14 PM
  • In true democrat fashion, that went right over your head.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 2:41 AM
  • Now that CNN is defending a class action lawsuit for racial discrimination, will liberals display the same mock outrage for them?

    Somehow, I doubt it.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 2:54 AM
  • And now that the CIA, The Dept. of Homeland Security, and even Senator John McCain has said that Russia worked covertly to influence our Presidential election by harming Hillary Clinton and promoting Donald Trump,

    Will congressional Republicans tirelessly investigate this like they did Benghazi?

    Somehow, I doubt it

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 11:03 AM
  • You've still shown no concrete sources.

    Sorry.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 12:18 PM
  • The concrete sources are the CIA, The Dept. of Homeland Security, and The Office of The Director of National Intelligence, who have all released statements confirming their findings.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 12:44 PM
  • IF the Russian government actually spearheaded that, could it have been done if Clinton had used secure servers?

    IF the Russians did this, was it to zing Clinton for something she did or did not deliver?

    She was the one offering a conciliatory "Re-set button" so for what?

    Why would they be wanting Mr. Trump to win?

    I realize that none of us probably KNOW the reasons and all of this is conjecture, but..... why?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 3:18 PM
  • RV Where are those statements?

    All I've seen posted are newspaper reports from anonymous sources, and "officials briefed on the matter" .

    Do you have a link to the actual reports?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 3:39 PM
  • Steve, evidently it had nothing to do with Clinton's private server, because they are talking several places being hacked. Including the RNC.

    The "why" is a good question.

    Which is why this needs to be seriously investigated.

    If a hostile foreign government is covertly working to sabotage or influence our elections, that's something we definitely need to worry about. And all those questions need answered...how?, why?, who exactly is all involved?

    Mike, I just seen the hundreds of different news reports also that quote senators and congressmen from both sides talking about the reports from the CIA and intelligence community.

    I don't understand, do you deny that this assessment from the CIA exists?

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 6:54 PM
  • Russia knows Trump is a puppet who will do anything when complimented. They want an inexperienced dummy in the white house who can easily be manipulated. Even ISIS rejoiced when Trump won because the know he is going to destroy the US,they wont have to.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 7:11 PM
  • RV

    Lots seem to take the report as gospel without seeing the actual report itself.

    Second hand information is not usually given much evidentiary value.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 7:23 PM
  • For the sake of argument lets say the Russians did hack the systems.

    How did this influence the election?

    By reporting on things Hillary and the DNC actually did?

    OMGWTFBBQ!

    How dare they do the job that reporters used to do.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 7:26 PM
  • Because some of the emails were fake and some were revised.Who benefits when you hack one side,bingo the other side.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 8:05 PM
  • *

    Steve, if shillary and the DNC had as good security as the RNC, then they wouldn't have been hacked either. But Russia would have done something to make it look like they were interfering in order to try to destabilize us. Kind of a waste of their time since the loons on the left are doing a good job carrying their water.

    LBR?, Russia has had an inexperienced dummy in the WH for the past 8 years. Seems like they would want the person that sold them uranium and promised to stumble down the same road, not the one that picked Mad Dog for Secretary of Offense.

    And RV, of course they "know" it is Russia because it is "consistent with" what they think Russia did in the past. They just can't " prove" it. But at least now, after months of WikiLeaks and various government agencies being hacked, b o is finally going to investigate it. So he can hamper the transfer of power and egg on the snowflakes.

    -- Posted by fair share on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 8:17 PM
  • Because some of the emails were fake and some were revised.Who benefits when you hack one side,bingo the other side.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

    -- Posted by lets be real

    -------

    So the woman who spent years saying she couldn't remember anything knows for certain the wiki leaks emails were fake or altered?

    Just wow.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 8:23 PM
  • Fair Share

    Exactly right. If Hillary had paid as much attention to security as she did wiping her servers with a cloth, it would be a non issue.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 8:26 PM
  • Why would they be wanting Mr. Trump to win?

    I realize that none of us probably KNOW the reasons and all of this is conjecture, but..... why?

    -- Posted by stevemills on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 3:18 PM

    Most likely the answer is that Russia would view Trump as being more reasonable to deal with concerning oil and terrorists.

    Here is a decent article to ponder:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/10/a_real_war_for_oil.html

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 9:21 PM
  • Thank you Livedorlight. Those two ideas make sense.

    They surmised that Clinton would be similar to Obama I regard to those topics and probably so.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 7:00 AM
  • You have to wonder how the Russians got Donna Brazille to give Hillary the debate questions.

    How they got Wasserman Shultz to send those emails about Sanders.

    How they got the Hillary campaing to pay protesters to disrupt Trump rallys.

    Those sneaky ruskies.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 8:39 AM
  • Whatever reasons Russia has for interfering in our elections, you can bet they certainly don't have the best interests of the United States at heart.

    The former U.S. ambassador to Russia said yesterday that it most likely has to do with Russia's involvements in Crimea and Syria. Clinton had taken a much tougher stance on Russia than Trump.

    Whether it's weakening NATO, or expanding their foreign policy. Putin views Trump as easily manipulated.

    Especially since Trump and Putin have their little "bromance" going on.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 10:00 AM
  • I'll have more flexibility after the election.

    Guess who.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 10:08 AM
  • It seems Ted Kennedy had secret communications with Russia asking them to "help" unseat Reagan in his 1984 election

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/kgb-letter-details-kennedy-offer-to-ussr

    Once again democrats have wallowed so deep in the cesspool, they can't accuse ANYONE without being a hypocrite.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 3:01 PM
  • Second hand information is not usually given much evidentiary value.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Sun, Dec 11, 2016, at 7:23 PM

    Did you really post this earlier?

    And then you post this fictional garbage?

    We've almost brought this whole thing full circle as you've brought us right back to conservatives and their gullibility and preponderance of fake news.

    So to say you were really grasping at straws on this one is an understatement.

    Wow.

    And did you even read you own article you posted?

    Even your "news" story doesn't claim Kennedy was asking Russia to "unseat" Reagan.

    It was all about Kennedy and Reagan having different stances on nuclear disarmament.

    But anyway, here's a link that debunks the whole story as a load of crap.

    http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/apr/12/mackubin-thomas-ow...

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 4:07 PM
  • Politifact when you're worried about gullibility and fake news?

    Politifact gave Sanders a true rating for saying black youth unemployment was over 50%, then gave Trump a false rating for saying the same thing.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 6:50 PM
  • Doesn't change the fact that your 30 year old bogus "story" about Kennedy isn't based on any facts and has been debunked years ago.

    A really weak deflection on your part to try to compare that to the current situation we have of the Russian government manipulating our elections to favor Trump.

    But nice try.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 7:38 PM
  • I am afraid I would not trust either one to be totally accurate but that is my point, what IS a reliable source?

    The disqualification by Politifact isn't particularly compelling since they quoted the fellow who supposedly made the overture to the Russians as saying it did not happen. I can think of a few times when I saw people looked straight in the camera to the American people and said, it did not happen, when later admitting it did.

    And saying the Russians are known for disinformation? So are the Americans and probably every nation in the world. And I bet we have "interfered" in more than one government election in other countries. (10, 20 50?)

    It has the "ring" of authenticity, but was Teddy Kennedy aware the offer was extended in his name? Only he could say, so no smoking gun there.

    Dishonesty probably goes back to the creation of man. Sad, but a reality we just have to work with, since I do not see it changing.

    The same with folks thinking the other side is lying if it does not fit their opinion of what they think happened. The truth is HOPEFULLY somewhere in between.

    Maybe instead of "News at 10:00" they should say "Our opinion of the news at 10:00".

    -- Posted by stevemills on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 7:51 PM
  • It was "debunked" because Kennedy and his protege denied it. (yawn)

    Taking the word of a habitual drunkard who killed a woman, yeah that makes perfect sense.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 7:53 PM
  • Seemed to be ok when you had Dick Cheney running things.

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 8:44 PM
  • Trump stated that the CIA said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction'It was Dick Cheney who said it not the CIA.

    Looks like Trump supports Putin in all things over American security.He who protest the loudest has the most to hide.

    He has had no press conference since July.He does not want to answer questions about his business affairs.He was suppose to have a news conference on Dec 15th to inform the American people about this,but has delayed it.He is waiting till after the electoral college vote.

    Will he place a 35% tariff on Ivankas merchandise that she has made overseas with cheap labor( some as low as 30 cents an hour) and sells here in the US? What about his own clothing line made overseas?Why not make them in America and make America great again as he says.

    Then he doesn't want daily briefings and that he want need them later,he will be a minute away if needed. So when he is in the white house he doesn't want to know until the last minute.Isn't that what happened on 9/11.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 9:38 PM
  • RV,

    What woman did Cheney kill?

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 10:13 PM
  • -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 10:16 PM
  • He who protest the loudest has the most to hide.

    -- Posted by lets be real

    -------

    Hilarious considering dems have been protesting since election night.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Dec 12, 2016, at 10:20 PM
  • Oh that's right. Dick Cheney just got drunk and shot a guy in the head with a shotgun.

    My bad

    -- Posted by Rocket Valentine on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 5:00 AM
  • *

    As far as Trump not hearing the exact same thing every single day in the intelligence briefings, perhaps he is using b o as his role model. Chenney talked about WMDs because of the intelligence community ,UN, and other countries. And let's not forget that drunk Teddy also killed his own child when he killed its baby momma. Personally, I would be okay with Trump never having a press conference. Would even be refreshing if he told the press to f/o. But the real excitement in the near future is watching the Dow hit 20k. Today? Tomorrow? And for those that don't know how the market works, this isn't happening because b o has made life better thereby changing fundamentals. Since 11/9, the almost straight up rise is due to investor confidence because of what happened 11/8.

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 6:29 AM
  • I believe that we will never hear the truth,unbiased news and fake news will always be out there.Media is about ratings,sensationalism,and personal feelings.Now something closer to home,I have noticed for awhile that the Sheriff's department doesn't have a American flag flying out front.Does anyone know the reason or have a answer?If they need one,I'll buy it for them.It's just odd to see 3 empty flagpoles.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 9:11 AM
  • RV,

    Did Dick Cheney run to hide behind daddy's lawyers like tippler Teddy?

    Once again, there is nothing democrats can criticize Republicans for doing that a democrat hasn't done the same or worse.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 9:15 AM
  • I figured I would ask the department and the initial response was they did not know and wondered themselves. Called the chief but had to leave a voicemail

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 9:30 AM
  • Bo, The local government building flags used to be provided by the veteran's services office...I think; if not them, it was some veterans group. They kept track and replaced the flags when they became tattered. That was a good idea, since it is not realistic to expect a variety of offices to always have someone to keep tabs on the flag. As I recall, even that job came down to one conscientious guy who kept track. Maybe there has been some change in that office? I bet there would be no complaints if you stepped in to help. I know I stopped once to fix the flag in front of one office, when the lines had become tangled, and other than looking out to see what I was doing, no one complained.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 9:33 AM
  • Quite Mike; Once again, we agree: "...there is nothing democrats can criticize Republicans for doing that a democrat hasn't done the same or worse." Of course, like any simple (and true) equation, this works both ways!

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 9:38 AM
  • Republicans haven't used 2/3 of the budget to support people who should be supporting themselves.

    Republicans aren't responsible for most American wars and Americans killed in war.

    Republicans didn't enslave a significant part of the population.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 9:41 AM
  • Quite Mike; well, the agreement between us only lasted so long. Actually, the Republicans are equally as guilty of using "2/3 of the budget to support people who should be supporting themselves." It is not like the increase in Republicans, who now own the house, senate, and executive branches, has resulted in some sea change in the budget. What you really have here, is an exposure of just how little difference exists in what Republicans and Democrats actually do. The rhetoric might be different, but the actions are much the same.

    What better example of the difference between rhetoric and actions can there be, than Obamacare? With the unhappy circumstance of now having control over every step of the legislative process, the backpedaling has begun in earnest. Time after time, the Republicans supposedly attempted to defund Obamacare (itself a co-opted Republican concept.) The reality of those votes has been exposed, as now that they can do it, suddenly there is all manner of hedging... Some parts of Obamacare have suddenly been discovered to be quite popular, and rather than a complete elimination of Obamacare, suddenly they only want to repeal portions of it and "fix" it. Basically, the Republican approach sounds exactly like the Democrat promises if Clinton had been elected instead of Trump. The only reason for the grandstanding attempts to repeal or defund Obamacare since it was first passed, was the knowledge that there was no chance it could actually happen. Even the "massive changes" that were promised have suddenly become something that can only be achieved in 2 years... or maybe 4....even 8. Why not cut to the chase, and rename the system Republicare, and go about trying to fix it the best they can? They can't just kill it, because their own voters might discover that the Republican voters would lose as much, if not more, than the Democrat voters. I think it was you, Quite Mike, who pointed out the mathematical reality of the situation. Insurance was "cheaper" when the insurance companies were allowed to pare as many people as possible from the pool, who were actually going to use medical care. Providing medical care for people who cannot afford it (almost all of us) means an increase in the cost to healthy people. It does not matter if it is Republicans or Democrats in charge. It is not a matter of whether the Republicans can change math (they can't). It is a matter of trying to sell their faithful on the idea that somehow the same actions and the same results are different.

    -- Posted by lazarus on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:15 AM
  • I'm putting this out for everyone to think about.How about as a community we put the flags up at the Sheriff's department?We could invite veterans and show our patriotic spirit.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:18 AM
  • I am sure the briefings are not the same evey single day.If they are it wont hurt him to have them since he can not remember what he said from one day to the next.He stated he has been busy with his cabinet,but still has time to tweet and meet with Kanye West.He makes time for all those campaign rallies he continues to have.He can't live without hearing people cheer him on.

    I am glad the electoral college is having concerns.

    What about Rick Perry,a guy who wanted to get rid of the energy dept and now he will run it.The hen house is getting full of foxes.

    Trump thinks americans are stupid enough to believe his sons will run his business and not report to papa.He is keeping Ivanka free so she can sit in on his classified meetings with foreign leaders. This will boost her company.

    -- Posted by lets be real on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:27 AM
  • *

    Well, someone changed the math a while back to common core, but it doesn't really add up. Laz, if the end result is the same whether it is R or D running things, how come so many participation trophy winners are convulsing about Trump winning?

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:31 AM
  • Beau, Let me try to confirm why they are not there, then I will start a new blog post and see if the T-G will pick it up as a story.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:32 AM
  • *

    Lbr?, keep on thinking you guys can still steal the election. I'm taking off work inauguration day. Gonna sit at home with my windows open so I can hear all the weeping and nashing of teeth from you guys. If Perry does get Energy shut down, maybe he can move to Interior.

    -- Posted by fair share on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:38 AM
  • Laserus

    That's a deft sidestep but a sidestep nonetheless.

    Democrats are the ones who supported and passed those laws that consume 2/3 of the budget.

    Everytime repubs try to roll back or privatize those programs, dems have press conferences predicting grandma living under a bridge and eating Meow Mix.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 11:58 AM
  • Steve,thank you. I'm curious and am willing to lend a hand in putting them up.For the record on this media issue,I can say nothing that will benefit.I just turn most of it off and busy myself with worthwhile projects.I participated with a cosplay group this past Sunday and lent help on the toy drive.They will be delivering the toys to children who are at Centennial hospital ,who will be at the hospital this Christmas.I feel thankful for being able to lend a hand.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 12:29 PM
  • Nice project Beau.

    The semi-official word from the Sheriff's department is that the flags were damaged. They have a U.S. flag but not a Tennessee flag and would like to have both before they put them up again.

    It would not hurt for someone to double-check me because the conversation took place during several call-ins by officers in the field.

    The flag size needed would be 4' by 6'.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 1:52 PM
  • I found a 4 x 6 heavy duty nylon flag much like the one flown for me on making Eagle scout.It was flown in 1985 over the nation's capitol.This one I found onine is 48 dollars plus shipping and is made in the USA.I will stay on top of this so the flags are put back up.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 4:01 PM
  • Thanks Beau.

    -- Posted by stevemills on Tue, Dec 13, 2016, at 8:52 PM
  • I'll stop by there sometime today and proceed from there.

    -- Posted by beau maverick on Wed, Dec 14, 2016, at 7:58 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: