What Yamaha is expressing is what a great many white Americans think. That's why we're a polarized society - many people are deeply racist. They're polite on the surface, but underneath that false veneer is hate.
EDIT: There are a lot of Libertarians outside the Libertarian Party. Also, you can dispute the libertarian credentials of some people in it. It's not exactly representative of libertarianism as a whole, therefore.
And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
Can you defend this or are you just throwing this out there? I've seen no evidence prior to this point, confirmed or unconfirmed, to support this point.
This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.
As far as I've seen, this seems to be the issue American Libertarians argue the most. Not if they should have equal rights, but who gets to make the laws to grant equal rights.
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
No sir, this is not a totalitarian state run by your sociology professors. You do not have the authority to decide what words are/aren't allowed to mean.
No one is telling you that you can't use words as you see fit. I get that that's a fight you'd desperately like to pick, but it's not happening here. This isn't even a good attempt.
I'm placing them in the same category because they're both news stories that are entirely make believe.
Good for you. You can categorize them however you'd like. But your accusation was that "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing". The left isn't vilifying anyone under your definition of "fake news". Whether or not CNN's reporting fits your definition is irrelevant - because your definition isn't what "the left" is using when they do the vilifying. In order to demonstrate any hypocrisy here, you'd need to show that CNN's reporting fits the definition of "fake news" used to vilify Breitbart and friends. It very clearly doesn't.
People have differences of opinion on words and phrases. Why is it so hard for the left to get that? You can redefine racism and sexism as you have and start using your own wacky definitions, you're allowed. But you don't get to tell other people how to use language. If you want to convince them to do so, you can do that. But this is still America, so you don't get to impose that on everyone.
Fake, not genuine, made up, concocted - it's what this report is and I'm fine using the phrase fake news to describe it.
So your explanation for why you would say, "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing" is that the left vilifies the right for producing and promoting fake news, and you have chosen to redefine the term "fake news" to mean something substantively different from what the right does. You therefore conclude that because you use the same words "fake news", it constitutes the same thing. Tell me, have you also redefined the term "same" to mean something new that would make any of this make even the tiniest bit of sense?
It's terrible journalistic ethics to publish (or in CNN's case, ideologically promote) explosive allegations with no corroboration. I'm fine with the description 'fake news.'
Is that what's got you all riled up? I get that you're giddy about seeing the lamestream media taken down a peg or whatever, but how about getting your facts straight first?
The other way around - what's interesting is the left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing. Since our fact-checking organizations of the future will apparently be Snopes and Pravda, expect fake left news to take off this year.
Oh, the left does the same thing? Like how Obama never answered any questions from Fox? Oh wait...
Yes, I know it's trending.
Yes, I know you can google it.
No, we're not reporting it.
Why?
We can't independently verify it.
Real journalists have standards.
Whatdya know? Turns out that many people don't have a problem with fake news per se, but fake news that pushes a point that they don't like.
So, long story short, they were right and you didn't notice. Figures.
Trump went off today on fake news outlets Buzzfeed and CNN. There are plenty of things that are going to be bad about a Trump presidency, but this campaign that he's running against the garbage in the media is fantastic. Here's the video evidence.
Refusing to take a question from CNN while taking a question from Breitbart is not cracking down on fake news, it's cracking down on oppositional news, and hoping people like you won't be able to tell the difference.
Stopped them from staling an underwater drone to...
My point was that the coverage was not even close to the 'Russian' hacks.
That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
Yet all the hacks from China draws the stridulating of crickets.
Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:
Since mid-2014, we have seen a notable decline in China-based groups’ overall intrusion
activity against entities in the U.S. and 25 other countries. We suspect that this shift
in operations reflects the influence of ongoing military reforms, widespread exposure
of Chinese cyber operations, and actions taken by the U.S. government.
The majority of Trump supporter's beliefs are entirely factual things that almost every mentally healthy adult understands.
Their beliefs are not entirely uncorrelated with truth, that's absurd.
When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.
You aren't interested in being productive about it, but you still want to say something. Don't.
I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.
And I bet you can dispute the Scotsman credentials of some people in Scotland.
This was a question during the 2016 debate. Derryl Perry said heroine should be as legal as tomatoes, and he was met with raucous applause. Austin Peterson said that he supports state-level laws that say "you should not be able to sell heroine to a five year old". He was met with boos.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?409916-1/libertarian-party-holds-presidential-debate&start=7296
Question is asked at about 1:58:00
Here's the clip with just Peterson's answer and the boos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2Nad1b_3yY
These are the issues that the party deems contentious enough to warrant a segment of their presidential debate.
That's weird, as far as I've seen the libertarian party spends its time arguing over whether you should be able to sell heroine to children.
DLC was a centrist-leaning democratic thinktank/strategy group that backed the Clintons and other politicians like Joe Lieberman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
No one is telling you that you can't use words as you see fit. I get that that's a fight you'd desperately like to pick, but it's not happening here. This isn't even a good attempt.
Good for you. You can categorize them however you'd like. But your accusation was that "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing". The left isn't vilifying anyone under your definition of "fake news". Whether or not CNN's reporting fits your definition is irrelevant - because your definition isn't what "the left" is using when they do the vilifying. In order to demonstrate any hypocrisy here, you'd need to show that CNN's reporting fits the definition of "fake news" used to vilify Breitbart and friends. It very clearly doesn't.
So your explanation for why you would say, "left does the same things that it vilifies the right for doing" is that the left vilifies the right for producing and promoting fake news, and you have chosen to redefine the term "fake news" to mean something substantively different from what the right does. You therefore conclude that because you use the same words "fake news", it constitutes the same thing. Tell me, have you also redefined the term "same" to mean something new that would make any of this make even the tiniest bit of sense?
Is that what's got you all riled up? I get that you're giddy about seeing the lamestream media taken down a peg or whatever, but how about getting your facts straight first?
Oh, the left does the same thing? Like how Obama never answered any questions from Fox? Oh wait...
So, long story short, they were right and you didn't notice. Figures.
Refusing to take a question from CNN while taking a question from Breitbart is not cracking down on fake news, it's cracking down on oppositional news, and hoping people like you won't be able to tell the difference.
That's because there isn't an idiot president-elect out there trying to claim that China isn't behind the hacks. If there were, then it'd be a controversy, and it'd get more coverage.
Maybe if you're not paying any attention? The Obama administration has been cracking down on Chinese hacking over the last few years. They even took the unprecedented step of naming and charging in absentia five members of the Chinese military:
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-charges-five-chinese-military-hackers-cyber-espionage-against-us-corporations-and-labor
They further threatened China with trade sanctions unless China stopped hacking the US private sector:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/09/16/obama-china-cyber-security-hacking-internet-warfare/32498869/
And it worked:
https://www.fireeye.com/content/dam/fireeye-www/current-threats/pdfs/rpt-china-espionage.pdf
But sure, crickets.
I think you know what I meant. You're just continuing the trend of nit-picking rather than addressing any substance.
If you let it go unchallenged, it can look like you've tacitly acknowledged it as valid, or at least unobjectionable.
When things are accepted by everyone, it does not signal critical thinking to also accept them. Such basic facts aren't a relevant indicator.
I've already been productive about it. What I'm not interested in is seeing such drivel go unchallenged.