biggentleben

Obama also had two years of 8 with a majority working with him to execute policy, and once he didn't have both houses, the opposition was so vitriolic against him that they would almost literally oppose anything he came out in support of...

...and frankly, I had little issue with putting in the decade. I gained an incredible amount from doing the work I did. However, I took on a career path, knowing that I would be incredibly underpaid, because there was to be a light at the end of that tunnel. Much like many of our teachers, who go in, expecting tremendous healthcare and retirement benefits, but now due to the destruction of unions, those same teachers are expected to do their job for a minimal raise over previous employment and substantially worse benefits once their union is broken. My grandfather was not a learned man. He had an 8th grade education and worked his entire life hard to compensate for it, encouraging all of his grandchildren to study hard and put in the time in the classroom needed to have a real chance in life. However, one thing he was adamant about that went against many of his right-leaning beliefs otherwise was the need to ensure low-level healthcare workers, social workers, and teachers were all very well-compensated. Near the end of his life, he once talked with me as he discussed the pay disparity between the Twin Cities and South Dakota for my wife (fiance at the time) in teaching. He stated that in those jobs, we want the absolute best of our society, right alongside those who are the doctors, we want the best to become teachers and nurses and counselors. Those jobs are so critical for the long-term health of the society that if they're neglected, it won't take long to see elderly mistreated, our children falling behind dramatically in education, and our standard of life decreasing. He's not even been gone 5 years, but it's as if he was writing a near-future playbook rather than a long-term warning...

...but then it needs to be funded correctly by those in power for the decades of time that it will typically cover.

...or perceived MO. Or truth. Perhaps there's a reason that the U.S. is one of the only friends that places like Saudi Arabia and Israel have in the world sphere. No one would dare connect that would they, though?

So I come from a different angle on this. I was someone who came in with a load of freshman scholarships and a promise from coaches that after I walked on, there would be a scholarship for me. Well, if you think it's bad for the scholarship player who has limited medical coverage on something that ends his/her sports career, but they still technically do have a contract that unless they violated it by doing something egregious to cause the injury, the school has to honor for tuition, just imagine what it's like for the thousands of non-scholarship athletes who are injured and can no longer play. I'd put in 20 credit hour terms for a year, nearly impossibly tanked my GPA, and ended up ignoring the signs of my eye issues because of football. In the end, not a single flip was given about that for me, but if I'd have tried to even transfer to a more local school, the damage to my GPA by that point would have screwed me. I was much better off finding any window I could for work study or other such things in college to get through at the U because moving on from there would cost me even more than staying. That led to plenty of loans. Of course, then I took my marketing degree, graduated soon after 9/11, about the worst time to graduate with such a degree, and examined programs out there that offered loan forgiveness for 10 years of social work. Only, as was recently pointed out by a few places that have fact-checked the policy since it came to graduation, less than 0.5% of all those who should be eligible were actually getting processed and having their loans forgiven by the program due to a whole host of hang-ups that were not part of the program until the point that funds needed to be distributed. I've got roughly 11 years of social work that would be eligible. I've not even attempted to apply at this point. So, even when life dealt you a turd sandwich, and you somehow found the mustard and lettuce enough to handle it, the government takes away the bread. That's the real crux of this whole issue.

Obviously not. The comment was that Israel did not attack American citizens. Israelis have killed Americans in their recent attacks. That used to bring extreme negative reaction, but it's now essentially brushed over.

Not true. Multiple documented such attacks in Palestine of late. Vice News had an excellent piece on it roughly last summer.

Give me something to do rather than writing code for my new website, and I'm game!

Of course, as long as people agree 100% with how you see the world. Then, of course, we're headed in the right direction. Otherwise, we're all hopeless.

Just again your attempt to shadow your attempt to speak down to the choice here to converse about issues at hand in this world from many different angles. You've apparently chosen not to engage in these discussions, but to berate those who do have discussions on concerns of the world. Use verbal vaguery around it all you'd like, the intention is no less obvious.

Not saying all media covers things the same, but those claiming to be legitimate news media require journalistic integrity and face legal challenges if they do not tell an accurate, true story. Those registered as entertainment news or not registered at all are not held to that standard. Comparing one to the other in what they can cover is not comparing apples to apples.

Page 68 of this thread...first entry into the discussion. You certainly weren't discussing the media when stating this: That has nothing to do with the line you're currently pushing toward media.This is an attempt to talk down those who speak on this forum and state that they would attack anyone not choosing to agree with them. It took you going through multiple vague angles to finally get enough responses asking you to pony up with actual conversation to get this "negativity" and "piling on" that you obviously pre-judged all of us with. Your own words...

Eventually, you need to play the game, though.

Not at all. You're being intentionally vague and unrelated AT ALL to this thread. As far as I'm concerned, tremendous patience has been displayed by all engaging in your attempt to derail a political thread away from politics. No one has asked you to leave. The request is to join in the conversation of the subject at hand, which is politics. You've expressed multiple times now that you do not wish to discuss politics. The request has been to engage in the subject of this thread rather than derail it, not to leave altogether. Your interpretation could say significant amounts about your preconceptions about what you would face, and continuing in generalities until you received something close enough to claim what you wanted to show as "bad" among the members here was your method to receive that interpreted response. I'm affronted that you would assume so little of the members of this forum. I've been chatting with people on this board for nearly 20 years as a Braves fan and never been asked to leave. Assuming this would be your response from these members is offensive and demeaning.

When you next actually articulately and descriptively state your case...it will be the first time. That is the problem.

Except for 15 pages of the "general politics" thread...

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/sports/mlb-gambling-mgm-resorts.html

I own all of the episodes on DVD. Hank was the all-time winner in the competition and made more money one offseason between that and one commercial than his entire season's paycheck.

Consider where the team that this site is associated with hails from and the political makeup of that state. Primarily, the heaviest supporters of the Minnesota Twins are coming from a state that is very Democrat, with only Nixon taking a Republican vote in a Presidential race in the state since 1932.

Except they aren't. They were established as an entertainment news organization. That has allowed them to avoid numerous lawsuits since their inception. They "play" news, but they are not held to the same standard as actual organizations that are held to standards of journalistic integrity.

...or not every home utilizes television, radio, and the internet in the same way, and there are hundreds if not thousands of ways for children of the same community to have their perspectives influenced. That said, now you're either trying feebly to add in education into this massive media bias within the board without a shred of evidence, or you're grasping at straws. I'm not attacking you here, but I do not believe that your arguments are saying what you think they are saying... That, or you're just attempting to troll, and if so, well done, as we're going to achieve 15-20 pages on this...

This to the Nth degree. I've been astounded as I've pushed farther into the sports media world just the difference in those who put in the work and the effort to develop and hone sources, and those who are looking for clicks and views. The Braves offseason has been a great example of exactly that. Respected, well-regarded journalists may not come out with the hottest takes, but in the end, their stuff passes the sniff test over and over. It's true in all aspects of media.

That's the whole crux of the issue here. Seldom does the discussion here remain at the surface level of news coverage or even the first level of coverage that a cable news service like CNN or entertainment news service like Fox attempt in a story. Around here, the story really moves into the background to the real issues at play in the story itself, which is where the debate is coming for you, I do believe. I could not have cared less about the actual incident with the boys at the Catholic school. The background of what happened that day - that was relevant. The view of Native Americans and the absolute rip that took place on a Native person immediately from the right and even moreso the second that there was found to be more to the story than initially covered - raising 5 Native children, that is a HUGE piece of that story to me. Finally, the discussion about stepping back and not overreacting and at least tempering our reactions when we're presented something solely on social media was a very good discussion. That stuff was nearly completely ignored by any cable news or national news entity covering the story in their base news coverage, so attempting to say that discussion here is parroting the news will strike a chord with many who have participated in discussions on politics in this group (and previously BYTO and ESPN before that) with one another for some time as the beat has been fairly similar for year - break down what's truly at hand and discuss that, not the 30-60 second talking points that propagate news media coverage of an event. Like it or not, these events shape our culture and our world. My father's view of the incident at Kent State in 1970 strongly shaped how he viewed the world and the government. Reflecting back on that incident years later for his youngest sibling led to a very different viewpoint. That's common for all in our culture. We are shaped by the time we live in, and to ignore the world simply isolates us from the reality of it.

The issue here...you're hammering at an issue that, with specifics, would bring about a relevant discussion. Instead, it's being left as a general "problem here" and "things you cannot see". I would say that very seldom is the argument based on one side or the other bias. When the board as collective will take apart something like Medicare for All or the 2nd Amendment and review it piece by piece, it's not with intense media stories as backing, it's with personal experiences and data that arguments are made. If not with personal perspective and facts, what elements should be utilized in forming discussion points? One thing I've appreciated in discussing politics with some on this thread now for 20ish years is that there is seldom an issue affecting politics and life that is a 100% - rarely, if ever, is there a topic that someone is 100% for every argument on one side of an issue or even one angle of an issue. For instance, to me, guns in this country are by no means a 2-sided issue. They are more like a stop sign in angles that make up the entirety of guns in this country. While there are some points of an extreme "take 'em all" argument that I can understand and even agree with, there are points of the "keep your paws off my ammo" crowd that I get as well, and that doesn't even consider the differing angles of the NRA's involvement on the issue in this country and the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. This has now been nearly a dozen pages that this generalistic line has been morphed from a heavy slant to one side to then completely influenced by the media in our discussions, and none of it really approached with specific points in hand, though I, like I truly believe anyone else in this thread, would gladly discuss the merits of our opinion on a particular discussion if you were able to point to a topic or even a singular post as emblemizing the media wash that you're supposing in the discussion.

I would say that it's a great counterpoint to Champ's assertion that the talking points on this site are media-based. If that was the truth, we'd have been on this issue for the last few days, would constantly be discussing AOC, and would have Mueller/House hearings on our tongues constant over the last 7-10 days. When big events do happen that capture the nation's attention, I would say the issues behind the event is what is at discussion here, as by and large, the discussion here is nothing akin to the media discussion and coverage of the event.