RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.

That is exactly what I do. I look at all the sources I can.

It helps most of them just post the same Reuters articles.

FOX gets better ratings because conservatives who like biased coverage that favors the GOP all watch it while everyone else is divided amongst the rest of the news channels.

Sorry for derailing again, so what do people who don't have any party leanings and just want to be updated with the news do? Which network do they turn to?

Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.

If only white people had their own version of Jesse Jackson that they could listen too and get upset over what the blacks are doing.

If only white people had their own version of Jesse Jackson that they could listen too and get upset over what the blacks are doing.

So if folks like Jesse Jackson kept his rhetoric toned down like the conservative talking heads you guys would be fine with that? (I'll wait for a reply but you know what's coming)

On the August 24 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity aired video footage of musician and right-wing activist Ted Nugent at an August 21 concert calling Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) a "piece of shit" and referring to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as a "worthless bitch." In the video clip, Nugent holds up what appear to be two assault rifles and says he told Obama "to suck on my machine gun" and says he told Clinton "you might want to ride one of these into the sunset." After airing the clip, Hannity referred to Nugent as a "friend and frequent guest on the program,"

Limbaugh once told a black caller to take the bone out of her nose.

And, more to the point, which conservative talking head did anything similar to that and was allowed to keep his or her prestigious reputation as a network TV talk show host and/or unofficial US ambassador? [O]nly one side gets to do these things and keep their "credibility" with the mainstream press and the political class.

And, more to the point, which conservative talking head did anything similar to that and was allowed to keep his or her prestigious reputation as a network TV talk show host and/or unofficial US ambassador? [O]nly one side gets to do these things and keep their "credibility" with the mainstream press and the political class.

That's what Duke University psychologist Dan Ariely said this morning on NPR's Morning Edition about a survey he recently conducted:

Dan Ariely: We recently did a study on this. We just asked a few hundred people online to what extent they think that their candidates could be dishonest if it promoted their political agenda.

Ari Shapiro: He found that people were totally comfortable with politicians of their own party being dishonest to get elected.

Dan Ariely: By the way, for Democrats this was a slightly more endorsed position than for Republicans. The Democrats were more willing for their politicians to lie to a higher degree than Republicans.

The NPR segment goes on to talk about the pervasiveness of confirmation bias. Ariely's survey backs recent research that argues that human brains are not designed to find out facts, but to persuade people to do what we want them to do. As the New York Times reported:

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too, but we’ll get to that) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

The idea, labeled the argumentative theory of reasoning, is the brainchild of French cognitive social scientists, and it has stirred excited discussion (and appalled dissent) among philosophers, political scientists, educators and psychologists, some of whom say it offers profound insight into the way people think and behave. The Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences devoted its April issue to debates over the theory, with participants challenging everything from the definition of reason to the origins of verbal communication.

“Reasoning doesn’t have this function of helping us to get better beliefs and make better decisions,” said Hugo Mercier, who is a co-author of the journal article, with Dan Sperber. “It was a purely social phenomenon. It evolved to help us convince others and to be careful when others try to convince us.” Truth and accuracy were beside the point.

I live in a "swing state" so we've been inundated with plain dishonest campaign ads by both Obama and Romney. So far no heavy objects have yet been hurled at the screen, but....

I have been fascinated with research on confirmation bias for a long time. For more background see my columns, Everyone Who Knows What They Are Talking About Agrees With Me, Climate Change and Confirmation Bias, and More Information Confirms What You Already Know.

By the way, for Democrats this was a slightly more endorsed position than for Republicans. The Democrats were more willing for their politicians to lie to a higher degree than Republicans.

You're going to try and keep ignoring my point, aren't you? Let me say it again:


I fully concede that members of each side tolerate behavior from their own that they might criticize in the other side. But when does the "objective media" do it?

Show me where the supposedly objective mainstream media, not members of the conservative's own party, allows a conservative to get away with the same type of thing they excuse when Jackson and Sharpton does it.

Cite an example of a sitting administration, not somebody running for office, letting a conservative talk show host act as a de facto head of state, the way that Jackson does.

If Rush Limbaugh has his own network TV approved talk show, tell me when its on. If G. Gordon Liddy negotiates on behalf of the US government at the invite of the president, link to a news story about it.

Give me one example of the above fact-patterns. If, as you claim, it happens all the time, it shouldn't be that hard.

Fact patterns? Conservatives have tv shows on cable too so when you link to Al Sharpton being on MSNBC you'll have to explain how that's different than say Sean Hannity having a show on FOX's cable channel.

Also your link to Jesse Jackson saying he's willing to negotiate something, did the government take him up on it?

Mr Jackson was named in October 1997 as a special US envoy to Africa...

I don't know why Ronald Reagen used Jesse Jackson for this type of stuff...

Considering the government also pipes in Rush's show to the troops...

Clinton was president in 1997, not Reagan.



Along with, for example, NPR and Ed Schultz, which (given the wide disparity of viewpoints there) would seem to indicate there's no endorsement of anyone's views, including Limbaugh's, intended.

...

In other words, M E M will continue to evade the question, and toss up subject-changing clutter to try and hide tha fact that he evaded it.

In other words, M E M will continue to evade the question, and toss up subject-changing clutter to try and hide tha fact that he evaded it.

According to the author of the [stand your ground] law at issue, it isn't even applicable in this case:

• if you carefully read the statute, which most of the critics have not, and read the legislative analysis, there's nothing in this statute that authorizes you to pursue or confront other people. If anything, this law would have protected the victim in this case; it could have...So - and in fact, the gentleman - Mr. Zimmerman's attorney, who when he first appeared on CNN the other night, he actually said he was not going to use this statute. The governor, Jeb Bush, has said it does not apply.

I am against the "stand your ground" law but that hardly means I'm against all self defense laws. This is just bad law and this case is probably going to be used as an example of why it's bad law as long as it's allowed to exist. Despite your claims that this law isn't in play here, it clearly is. The police said so and Zimmerman's lawyers are mounting a defense using it.

Zimmerman defense lawyers won't argue 'stand-your-ground' in Florida shooting case: The attorney for the man who shot and killed unarmed Florida teenager Trayvon Martin said Monday he'll seek to get the case dismissed using a traditional self-defense argument and not the state's "stand your ground" statute.

Actually G-man despite your title, Stand Your Ground does apply.

Intersting that [Zimmerman's lawyer is] choosing the defense that has a higher threshold. I thought lawyers were obligated to go with the best defense.

Zimmerman's attorneys seek 'stand your ground' hearing, say evidence supports self-defense
Zimmerman will seek 'stand your ground' hearing
By CURT ANDERSON | Associated Press | Aug 9, 2012 11:33 AM CDT in

George Zimmerman will seek to have second-degree murder charges dismissed under Florida's "stand your ground" law in the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, his attorney said Thursday.

The hearing, which likely won't take place for several months, will amount to a mini-trial involving much of the evidence collected by prosecutors as well as expert testimony from both sides. Although the posting did not say so, legal experts say it's likely that Zimmerman himself would testify since he is the sole survivor of the Feb. 26 confrontation.

"Most of the arguments, witnesses, experts and evidence that the defense would muster in a criminal trial will be presented in the `stand your ground' hearing," said the statement posted on Zimmerman's official defense website.

Under the law, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester can dismiss the charges if Zimmerman conclusively shows he fatally shot Martin because he "reasonably believed" he might be killed or suffer "great bodily harm" at the hands of the unarmed teenager. The law also says a person has no duty to retreat in the face of such a threat.

...

Wait your trying to say Zimmerman's lawyer up till just a couple of days ago wasn't using stand your ground as a defense previously or that the police initially didn't charge Zimmerman because of the stand your ground law?

I'm saying the lawyer is making a choice not to use stand your ground. Also of note is if they're still having the stand your ground mini trial than it's still being used.