House Intel votes to release FISA memo...

[carpedm9587]

So you found yourself a little website that harshly judges conservative sources and treats liberal sources with kid gloves, and you're satisfied with that.

What a shocking development.

Any website that rates Snopes as unbiased is selling you a bill of goods.

Since they rank CNN and MSNCB in much the same way they rank Fox, that claim would seem to fail. I have gone through several of their rankings, and have found them to be as critical left as they are right. I have also found them to align with multiple other sources, and theuir methodology appears sound. Since they rank Briebart as "extreme" in bias and "mixed" in accuracy, it is no surprise to me tat you reject them.

[carpedm9587]

Then you have former CIA counterterrorism official Phil Mudd telling CNN that the FBI is ticked at Trump for releasing the memo and says, "I know how this game is going to be played, and we’re going to win.”

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2018/...yre-going-win/

Rather chilling words when you consider the sort of corruption the FBI is potentially guilty of. Have they forgotten that they are answerable to Congress and the President himself? Statements like this almost make it sound like they think they're a fourth branch of the government that is beholden to no one. That's dangerous territory.

I am truly curious. Do you read anything other than Brietbart? The vast majority of your links arise from this one site.

[carpedm9587]

I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys how one site or another rates Breitbart or any other news source. I have enough confidence in my own abilities to accurately assess the credibility of sources and don't depend on anybody else to tell me what I should think.

What I find curious is that carpe admitted in another thread that he had a high opinion of CNN until Media Bias Fact Check told him not to. That speaks volumes to me.

I actually did have an skewed perspective of CNN. I would have ranked them as "left-center" for bias and "high" for accuracy. The fact that I found this site's methodology sound, and they ranked them as "left" (pretty far left actually) and "mixed" for accuracy caused me to re-examine that opinion. You see, when someone/something provides data that suggests something I believe may be "off," I try to pay attention. I don't "have enough confidence in my own abilities" because I know that I am as prone to being in a "bubble" of self-reaffirming data as anyone else. If I only trust my own abilities, then I will never question my bubble and I will stay firmly in it.

As a result, I went back and cross checked this ranking with other sites, and went back to CNN itself, which I don't frequent, to review some of their articles. With a new possible perspective, I found myself more critical, and more open to the possibility that their stories could be skewed. I found that perspective pretty much confirmed. I knew their opinion pieces were, but I was a bit surprised to find their news articles also were, though to a lesser degree.

[rogue06]

I'm not finding independent confirmation of any of this, and none of it surfaced in my research. Can you provide your sources, please?

I also found nothing about him "maintaining his position," which got him fired. I am finding that he was suspended when he made the Facebook post, he retracted it and admitted the previous IRS involvement. The station investigated and found just cause to let him go on the basis of his original post and the impact on his credibility as a journalist.

I'm not at home now, getting ready for a party tonight but what you doing here is either glossing over or being deliberately misleading. They let him go because they said it would be a conflict of interest for him to comment on Obama, the IRS scandals etc. not because they didn't deem him credible. He appears to have dropped the charge in an attempt to save his job (he never AFAICT disavowed it), but when it became clear they were going to let him go regardless, he doubled down -- even noting how when he was immediately picked up by a competitor that he was now free to express himself openly.

[rogue06]

Rogue, Sinclair owns the local media outlets, which includes CBS, ABC, and NBC affiliates. They have their set of "required programming" for news programs, which creates a high-degree of parallelism between outlets, and on the conservative/right side. Your view that NBC/CBS/ABC are universally "liberal" is simply no longer true given this dominance. Add to that the dominance of Fox News on cable, and the emergence of Brietbart and other such online outlets as the "favorites" of most of Trump's base, which represents 30+% of the voting public, it would seem that the right has made incredible in-roads. This meme that media is liberal-dominated, with these shifts, is simply no longer supportable, IMO. As far as I can see, they are essentially at par today - and the viewer has to learn how to sort through the partisan nature of media outlets across the board.

Put the bong down carp.

[Cerebrum123]

Put the bong down carp.

Are you saying he's a smoked carp?

[shunyadragon]

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/04/politics/john-brennan-nunes-memo/index.html

Former CIA Director Brennan says Nunes 'abused his office'

(CNN)Former CIA Director John Brennan scorned House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes for the release of the controversial GOP memo alleging FBI surveillance abuses, calling aspects of the move "exceptionally partisan" and saying Nunes has "abused the office" in refusing to allow Democrats on his panel to make their rebuttal document public.

"That Devin Nunes and Republicans denied the ability of the minority, the Democratic members of that committee, to put out its report is just appalling. I think it, it really underscores just how partisan Mr. Nunes has been. He has abused the office of the chairmanship of HPSCI. And I don't say that lightly," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He also said the failure to provide the classified information that the memo is based on shows Nunes is being "exceptionally partisan."
"We don't have access to the underlying information of the Nunes memo which really, you know, clearly indicates that he was being exceptionally partisan in this."
This is not the first time Brennan has spoken out about the memo. He tweeted Thursday morning that he had never seen such "reckless partisan behavior."
The memo alleges the FBI, in seeking a warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, relied on an opposition research dossier of allegations about Trump and Russia compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, but failed to disclose that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign.
House Intelligence ranking member Adam Schiff has called that assertion "not accurate" and said the FISA court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information.
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said Sunday that the recently released memo does not have "any impact on the Russia probe," and even without the Steele dossier, there would be a Russia investigation.
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy, who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," days after he announced his decision not to seek re-election.

© Copyright Original Source

[Cow Poke]

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/04/politics/john-brennan-nunes-memo/index.html

Former CIA Director Brennan says Nunes 'abused his office'

(CNN)Former CIA Director John Brennan scorned House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes for the release of the controversial GOP memo alleging FBI surveillance abuses, calling aspects of the move "exceptionally partisan" and saying Nunes has "abused the office" in refusing to allow Democrats on his panel to make their rebuttal document public.

"That Devin Nunes and Republicans denied the ability of the minority, the Democratic members of that committee, to put out its report is just appalling. I think it, it really underscores just how partisan Mr. Nunes has been. He has abused the office of the chairmanship of HPSCI. And I don't say that lightly," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
He also said the failure to provide the classified information that the memo is based on shows Nunes is being "exceptionally partisan."
"We don't have access to the underlying information of the Nunes memo which really, you know, clearly indicates that he was being exceptionally partisan in this."
This is not the first time Brennan has spoken out about the memo. He tweeted Thursday morning that he had never seen such "reckless partisan behavior."
The memo alleges the FBI, in seeking a warrant on former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, relied on an opposition research dossier of allegations about Trump and Russia compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, but failed to disclose that the dossier was funded in part by Hillary Clinton's campaign.
House Intelligence ranking member Adam Schiff has called that assertion "not accurate" and said the FISA court was aware that there was a "likely political motivation" behind the dossier. The California Democrat also said it is normal in FISA applications not to name individuals who may be sources of information.
Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina said Sunday that the recently released memo does not have "any impact on the Russia probe," and even without the Steele dossier, there would be a Russia investigation.
"There is a Russia investigation without a dossier," Gowdy, who is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS's "Face the Nation," days after he announced his decision not to seek re-election.

© Copyright Original Source

This is called an opinion.

[Mountain Man]

I am truly curious. Do you read anything other than Brietbart? The vast majority of your links arise from this one site.

What does it matter? Either the information is accurate, or it isn't, and since all you did was whine about my source, I'm going to assume you can't dispute the information.

[Mountain Man]

I don't "have enough confidence in my own abilities" because I know that I am as prone to being in a "bubble" of self-reaffirming data as anyone else.

Interesting that you take your own failures and try to project them onto everybody else.

[carpedm9587]

Are you saying he's a smoked carp?

[carpedm9587]

What does it matter? Either the information is accurate, or it isn't, and since all you did was whine about my source, I'm going to assume you can't dispute the information.

It matters because it is indicative of the degree to which you are locked into a bubble. In my experience, folks who are locked into a single (especially dubious) outlet, have lost/sacrificed perspective.

[carpedm9587]

Interesting that you take your own failures and try to project them onto everybody else.

Actually, I take a demonstrably widespread dynamic and tend to assume it is widespread, especially when someone affirms, bu post after post, that they are locked into exactly that dynamic.

Look, MM, I'm going to let you have the final word here. I do not expect you to admit you have locked yourself into a "bubble," and going back in forth is just a waste of time. You're perspective on me is not going to change, and I cannot see mine about you changing unless something in your behavior/posts changes. 'Nuf said....

[Tassman]

What does it matter? Either the information is accurate, or it isn't, and since all you did was whine about my source, I'm going to assume you can't dispute the information.

It matters in that one needs to take into account it's extreme right-wing bias. “Breitbart News Network is a politically conservative American news and opinion website founded in 2007 by conservative commentator and entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart (1969–2012). It also has a daily radio program, Breitbart News Daily. The content ranges from extreme right wing bias to conspiracy to racism”.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/

The fact that you quote Breitbart almost exclusively puts you in the same category.

[Mountain Man]

It matters because it is indicative of the degree to which you are locked into a bubble. In my experience, folks who are locked into a single (especially dubious) outlet, have lost/sacrificed perspective.

So now you double down with the ad hominem fallacy and still haven't credibly disputed the article in question.

Nicely played.