Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release

  • Thread starter Thread starter slMike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
I’d say it was appropriate. Unless you can honestly claim you weren’t trying to cleverly insinuate that Fox News isn’t a new station, in a snarky way. But everyone knows what you did, so just own up and don’t call foul, man. Catholic Answers themselves considers Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC all new legitimate new sources.

While décor and respect are important for all adults, and certainly a Catholic message board, the frequent accusations of uncharitability that pop up remind me of the “Choose Civility” bumper stickers that are all the rage in the mid-atlantic.

As though I’ll be driving along in a surly mood and suddenly I realize, “you know that Honda accord is right!”

I thought Mary’s comment was appropriate.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure “Grow up” is uncharitable, so I don’t think I’m being unfair, and yes, I do not consider Fox News a reliable news source on political scandal when involving Democrats. Because CAF allows Fox News to be a primary source for a news article does not mean that it is reliable in these matters, as I am sure that CAF allowing it as a primary source does not indicate that they consider Fox News always correct.
 
mary_bobo said:
Seems to me that most correspondence going to and from the SoS would be classified, certainly most of them would be. This excuse that they were not marked as such is a farce.
Click to expand...
Particularly when the Secretary of State would be the one of the ones with the authority to mark them top secret–the fact that they are being classified now indicates that either she was failing to recognize the nature of the material (lack of intelligence) or failing to do her duty (lack of competence), or perhaps something more nefarious.
 
Crossbones said:
I’m pretty sure “Grow up” is uncharitable, so I don’t think I’m being unfair, and yes, I do not consider Fox News a reliable news source on political scandal when involving Democrats. Because CAF allows Fox News to be a primary source for a news article does not mean that it is reliable in these matters, as I am sure that CAF allowing it as a primary source does not indicate that they consider Fox News always correct.
Click to expand...
I don’t consider Fox reliable, either. They will refuse to report negatives about Republicans and exaggerate negatives about Democrats.

You are entirely right. CAF is not sanctioning Fox as a reliable news source. CAF is simply strives to be as politically non-slanted as possible, so they allow opinions from Fox, MSNBC, CNN, and other news outlets. They don’t consider any of them particularly correct.
 
A balanced view of the news has people turning to different sources, understanding fully that every source has its own biases and its own slants.

The value of Fox news is that its bias is a counterbalance to the other main sources of main stream media, which tend to the other end of the political spectrum than Fox.

All news media report the facts selectively. Fox is very mainstream in that regard too.

Fair and balanced readers and observers would never discount facts because they are reported by Fox, or MSNBC, or the NYT. Fair and balanced observers would discount facts because they are false.

Discussion forums become useful when people are able to counter the skew of one source of news but presenting the other side of the story that other journalists and news organizations with different political goals report.

So the question is whether Clinton is barely squeaking by the lightweight old time socialist Sanders because Democrats have all become raging socialists, or because even Democrats are having a hard time stomaching what Fox is reporting about Clinton?

There is no positive spin that any legitimate news sources can put on the appalling choices that Hillary has made with this e-mail scandal. That is why Fox is able to be so exclusive in their reporting of the news.
 
Crossbones said:
I’m pretty sure “Grow up” is uncharitable, so I don’t think I’m being unfair, and yes, I do not consider Fox News a reliable news source on political scandal when involving Democrats. Because CAF allows Fox News to be a primary source for a news article does not mean that it is reliable in these matters, as I am sure that CAF allowing it as a primary source does not indicate that they consider Fox News always correct.
Click to expand...
I apologize if you think “grow up” is uncharitable. It seems to me childish to discount a news network for things reported there unless they are not true. Offer some examples of this and I will consider. And Fox does report on misbehavior of republicans. Guess you did not know that as you probably do not listen to Fox. But they are the top in ratings of the cable news networks. So some of us do not agree with your assessment of Fox.
 
mary_bobo said:
I apologize if you think “grow up” is uncharitable. It seems to me childish to discount a news network for things reported there unless they are not true. Offer some examples of this and I will consider. And Fox does report on misbehavior of republicans. Guess you did not know that as you probably do not listen to Fox. But they are the top in ratings of the cable news networks. So some of us do not agree with your assessment of Fox.
Click to expand...
He made a snarky comment. He knew what he was doing. If the comment had been “I don’t trust Fox News when it comes to being honest. That’s just me” it would have been fine. Instead, Crossbones said “She asked why it hadn’t been on news stations.” Come on. I don’t mind snark, but don’t be defensive about it Crossbones!

Note it doesn’t bother me, but let’s not act like he wasn’t being so.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I don’t consider Fox reliable, either. They will refuse to report negatives about Republicans and exaggerate negatives about Democrats.
{snip}
Click to expand...
You must not watch Fox News then. They regularly criticize Republicans and often praise Democrats. They do lean right, though, which earns them the wrath of lefties, who dominate the news media.
 
mary_bobo said:
I apologize if you think “grow up” is uncharitable. It seems to me childish to discount a news network for things reported there unless they are not true. Offer some examples of this and I will consider. And Fox does report on misbehavior of republicans. Guess you did not know that as you probably do not listen to Fox. But they are the top in ratings of the cable news networks. So some of us do not agree with your assessment of Fox.
Click to expand...
+1
 
qui_est_ce said:
You must not watch Fox News then. They regularly criticize Republicans and often praise Democrats. They do lean right, though, which earns them the wrath of lefties, who dominate the news media.
Click to expand...
Liberals are all for diversity of opinion… until you disagree with them.
 
Democrats are a tolerant party for all who do not feel “the world owes them something.” There are other parties for that kind of thing.
 
Darryl1958 said:
A balanced view of the news has people turning to different sources, understanding fully that every source has its own biases and its own slants.

The value of Fox news is that its bias is a counterbalance to the other main sources of main stream media, which tend to the other end of the political spectrum than Fox.

All news media report the facts selectively. Fox is very mainstream in that regard too.

Fair and balanced readers and observers would never discount facts because they are reported by Fox, or MSNBC, or the NYT. Fair and balanced observers would discount facts because they are false.

Discussion forums become useful when people are able to counter the skew of one source of news but presenting the other side of the story that other journalists and news organizations with different political goals report.

So the question is whether Clinton is barely squeaking by the lightweight old time socialist Sanders because Democrats have all become raging socialists, or because even Democrats are having a hard time stomaching what Fox is reporting about Clinton?

There is no positive spin that any legitimate news sources can put on the appalling choices that Hillary has made with this e-mail scandal. That is why Fox is able to be so exclusive in their reporting of the news.
Click to expand...
Another issue is that people confuse news reporting with news opinion or commentary. All main stream news media do both. They have those who report the news and those who forum opinions of the news and present commentary of those opinions. We have to be smart consumers to determine the difference.

For instance, Ted Cruz ended with a win in Iowa. That is news. Why he won, should he have won, did he cheat to win, is Trumper tantrum a thing, is all opinion with associated commentary.
 
qui_est_ce said:
They are not tolerant of pro-lifers and Catholic Teaching.
Click to expand...
Sure they are. The problem for Catholics is that the Democratic Party is pro-choice. They defend the right to abort or not to abort, a dilemma for Catholicism, although it is permissible for a Catholic to be a Democrat if he or she works to end abortion and change that aspect of the party.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Sure they are. The problem for Catholics is that the Democratic Party is pro-choice. They defend the right to abort or not to abort, a dilemma for Catholicism, although it is permissible for a Catholic to be a Democrat if he or she works to end abortion and change that aspect of the party.
Click to expand...
:banghead::banghead: end the dilemma, end the Democrat Party!
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Sure they are. The problem for Catholics is that the Democratic Party is pro-choice. They defend the right to abort or not to abort, a dilemma for Catholicism, although it is permissible for a Catholic to be a Democrat if he or she works to end abortion and change that aspect of the party.
Click to expand...
And, of course. Not vote for pro-abortion candidates
 
Lily_Bernans said:
Sure they are. The problem for Catholics is that the Democratic Party is pro-choice. They defend the right to abort or not to abort, a dilemma for Catholicism, although it is permissible for a Catholic to be a Democrat if he or she works to end abortion and change that aspect of the party.
Click to expand...
Dilemma? It’s not a dilemma.

Catholics should end their relationship with a political party that promotes intrinsic evils. It’s just as simple as that.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” - G.K. Chesterton
 
estesbob said:
And, of course. Not vote for pro-abortion candidates
Click to expand...
Are there Democratic pro-lifers? I have Catholic friends who are Dems and this is thinking I’ve never understood. How does one support a party or candidate who is feels that not only is abortion ok but that it is an absolute right of women? As far as I know both Clinton & Sanders have a similar stance on the issue.
 
zz912 said:
Dilemma? It’s not a dilemma.

Catholics should end their relationship with a political party that promotes intrinsic evils. It’s just as simple as that.

“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” - G.K. Chesterton
Click to expand...
If they don’t work to change it, who will? Proponents of abortion would just go elsewhere, to another party. If Rosa Parks had taken a seat at the back of the bus instead trying to right wrongs African-Americans might still be oppressed.

It’s better to right wrongs than to turn a blind eye to them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top