They come from the same newspaper or media outlet, and sometimes it is hard to tell whether a media outlet is presenting something as opinion or as fact. For instance, people who listen to fox or limbaugh think that they are getting facts.
It does require some level of critical thinking (though I do not think all that much) to discern which is which, and the idea that there may be some who do not posses that sort of skill is not that far out there. In fact, in another thread, there is a poster dumb enough to be making the argument that because Pelosi made a snide remark about Trump’s priorities, that she is stupid and thinks that travel itineraries should be alphabetized. So, while it is obvious that there are posters here who do not posses the necessary critical thinking skills to separate the two, I do not feel that I fall into that trap so easily.
And, keep in mind that opinion, in the form of editorial pieces, often contains quite a bit of fact as well. The editorial may contain opinions as to what those facts portend, but the facts themselves are solid.
Yeah, I caught part of that, and while I kind of understood where he/she was going with it, found it to be more than a bit of a stretch. I don’t recall the specifics, but it was obvious that that poster was fairly alone in that sentiment.
No, I didn’t misread you. I was just approaching it from a different, more realistic angle. Frankly, your literal statement is nonsense, and I’m surprised you’re doubling down on it.
I guess I did read you exactly correctly, then. More importantly, though, I don’t accept that you can speak for the posters in this thread I was referring to.
And guess what? That doesn’t bother me either. Good for Al Franken. Perhaps it’s not the most civilized response to the accusation of being “sissified,” but it’s a genuine one. I like it, and I have no problem with either his lunge at the Dean protester or his offer to fight someone in a parking garage.
Clarification, are you really a lawyer that is telling here to others that fighting words or to set up what amounts to a duel are things that are recommended?
The Post article is dated 2004, 5 years before Franken took office, so if you’re saying a Democrat set the precedent of an acting congressman committing assault, that doesn’t hit the mark.
What a misleading excerpt you’ve chosen. Here’s the relevant part of the Union Leader’s report, including your excerpt:
If you cannot see the difference between that conduct and body-slamming a reporter for asking a question, then your bias is overwhelming your objectivity.
Of course I would have a problem with Franken assaulting someone who was merely protesting. If you wouldn’t, then some decent part of you has broken and died.
“All lives matter” was a response to Black Lives Matter, and accompanied the accusations against them, complete with invective and fake news etc. Basically saying that they were mutually exclusive, and that it was racist to say Black Lives Matter. Was that you? In that case it was “you either believe that all lives matter or you don’t.”
Someone could reasonably say that “pro-life” is the same kind of term that black lives matter was. In other words: in need of clarification. The term “pro-foetus” has been cited. I’m going to say that’s much more accurately saying what you are in this instance.
Or you can admit that BLM was a legitimate response to events in the real world, to which “All lives matter” was a cowardly, inadequate and cruel taunt.
But I don’t agree that Franken’s conduct falls outside the line-in-the-sand standard that was proposed in this thread before Franken’s conduct was brought to light. Before, what was being said was that a physical assault was disqualifying. Now you’re adding in the motivation – okay to wrap a demonstrator by the knees and take him to the ground in a wrestling move, but not to do the same to a reporter for asking a question.
I’d like to learn a few more of your rules. What if the reporter asked the same question over and over again in a heckling manner? Is there some point when he would transform into a heckler and become vulnerable to a future senator’s grappling takedown?
I don’t recall taking a position on the issue. Perhaps reading my words on the matter would refresh my recollection as to my thinking.
Can you provide a link to my words?
I agree that “Black Lives Matter,” is a legitimate response to events in the real world. But I don’t necessarily agree that “all lives matter,” was a cowardly, inadequate and cruel taunt. Perhaps it arose from the same wellspring that believed “pro-life” should mean “pro-government health insurance,” which is simply the desire to parse the literal words and not the term of art that meant the movement.