bbauska
Do

you think the advice is correct on it's face value; regardless of who said it?

There is a difference between being distrustful. And examining information critically.
And one part of critical thinking is the source...
If the source has a record of being misleading, or distorting facts, or makes claims with little or no supporting evidence presented... then you might be right to distrust the source. That's Hannity.

I'm willing to accept information received from the 3 sources Hannity distrusts, if they offer the information supported with evidence. I understand that there is likely to be bias from the two political groups, and some members of the media will also have a bias. One or two might even distort information. But not all information. And not all the time.
But I was taught critical thinking skills in University and even back in High School. And I've not relied upon faith to ground my understanding of the world.

I took my studies quite seriously as well. A few years of debate made it so I am able to think on my own, and take the information at face value, and not need to accept it "just because it is X news site or political party".

I think Dag is saying that the "establishment" has an agenda that cannot be trusted. I do not trust the Establishment Republicans, Establishment Democrats or Establishment News Sources from either side. Thus, I do take information from both sides and make my own mind up.

hahahahahahahahaha

If the source has a record of being misleading, or distorting facts, or makes claims with little or no supporting evidence presented... then you might be right to distrust the source.

this coming from the man who quotes the most liberal sources like the Huffington Post, Politico, CNN, etc

Ricky:

There is objective truth

As a matter of faith I agree with you, however, if there is, it is NOT provable and it is always and everywhere subjectively perceived. And please don't come back with math as your refutation or I will scream.

To bbauska's point, I don't like Hannity. But again as I've said before, even a broken clock can be right a couple times a day.

Your willingness to shoot the messenger is unfortunate and sadly predictable. I can't stand the sight of the criminal who recently ran for the post, but if she were to say something I believed to be true, I would certainly go along with it and even site the source.

And I really should clarify my comment about the Chump. What I should have said is, I wonder if what we are seeing is a reformer in action, warts and all, but someone who may actually shake up the status quo for both parties. Maybe a guy like this can't be appreciated for being a reformer until years from now when history can begin to help us with a focusing lens? I'm NOT saying he is. I am saying maybe it's possible. Maybe it takes a megalomaniac billionaire in our system of politics to dismantle a complacent press and reinvent politics for the post modern age.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:
And I really should clarify my comment about the Chump. What I should have said is, I wonder if what we are seeing is a reformer in action, warts and all, but someone who may actually shake up the status quo for both parties. Maybe a guy like this can't be appreciated for being a reformer until years from now when history can begin to help us with a focusing lens? I'm NOT saying he is. I am saying maybe it's possible. Maybe it takes a megalomaniac billionaire in our system of politics to dismantle a complacent press and reinvent politics for the post modern age.

He may be just the sociopath that we need to dismantle an over-reaching federal bureaucracy passing laws and creating regulations that hurt the very people they claim to care about. Or he may be the biggest disaster, ever. Interesting times ...

Ray Jay wrote:

dag hammarsjkold wrote:
And I really should clarify my comment about the Chump. What I should have said is, I wonder if what we are seeing is a reformer in action, warts and all, but someone who may actually shake up the status quo for both parties. Maybe a guy like this can't be appreciated for being a reformer until years from now when history can begin to help us with a focusing lens? I'm NOT saying he is. I am saying maybe it's possible. Maybe it takes a megalomaniac billionaire in our system of politics to dismantle a complacent press and reinvent politics for the post modern age.

He may be just the sociopath that we need to dismantle an over-reaching federal bureaucracy passing laws and creating regulations that hurt the very people they claim to care about. Or he may be the biggest disaster, ever. Interesting times ...

Interesting indeed. I never would have predicted this (if true): http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/19/o ... overnment/

$10.5 TRILLION in cuts over 10 years???? What?

Who is this and what did they do with Trump?

ray

I never would have predicted this (if true)

: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/19/o ... overnment/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -this.html

If you read this story, and its true, it makes you wonder about Hot Air "source... "
A plan to dismantle beuracracy in the manner they say would require some kind of planning and organization simply not in evidence.

bbauska

To bbauska's point, I don't like Hannity. But again as I've said before, even a broken clock can be right a couple times a day

When you look at a broken clock, how do you know if its right, this time.
Its broken, and therefore useless as a reliable source for the correct time.

This is pretty much why I dismiss Hannity. His track record.

evidence?
http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=hannity

dag

What I should have said is, I wonder if what we are seeing is a reformer in action, warts and all, but someone who may actually shake up the status quo for both parties. Maybe a guy like this can't be appreciated for being a reformer until years from now when history can begin to help us with a focusing lens?

His track record suggests he'll be more likely to be impeached.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31536.html

rickyp wrote:bbauska

To bbauska's point, I don't like Hannity. But again as I've said before, even a broken clock can be right a couple times a day

When you look at a broken clock, how do you know if its right, this time.
Its broken, and therefore useless as a reliable source for the correct time.

This is pretty much why I dismiss Hannity. His track record.

My Grandfather had a saying:
Extremism, in any form... Including Moderation, is bad.

You need to think for yourself. You cannot take the establishment Republican, Democrat, or Media position without thinking for yourself. I consider the extreme acceptance of any Establishment to be problematic. You should not trust any of them. You should be able to compare their statements with the thoughts and ideas that you personally have, and make judgements from that.

Do you blindly trust the Establishment Democrats?

I can say that I do not trust Hannity or the Establishment Republicans one bit. I may agree with them, but I don't trust them.

Hannity did not say one was right or wrong. He said do not trust them. Perhaps you are different and can trust them. I don't know about you.

rickyp wrote:ray

I never would have predicted this (if true)

: http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/19/o ... overnment/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... -this.html

If you read this story, and its true, it makes you wonder about Hot Air "source... "
A plan to dismantle beuracracy in the manner they say would require some kind of planning and organization simply not in evidence.

You remain a dim bulb.

1. You didn't look at the article. If you did, you would have noticed it was based on this. http://thehill.com/policy/finance/31499 ... matic-cuts

2. I'm not Ray Jay.

From the Hill piece:

Two members of Trump’s transition team are discussing the cuts at the White House budget office: Russ Vought, a former aide to Vice President-elect Mike Pence and the former executive director of the RSC, and John Gray, who previously worked for Pence, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) when Ryan headed the House Budget Committee.

I'm so sorry your god is President for only another 17 hours and 40 minutes.