From festivals to better food, amusement parks are adding features for older adults. Take a look at what's new!

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
489
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

489 Views
Message 1 of 29

Lk, those with postgraduate degrees do tend to be liberal, but I agree that these sources on the left side of corb's graph tend to provide old-school investigative journalism, which tends to appeal to those with a liberal bias, whether they have an advanced degree or not. It's a state of mind. Some people are more curious than others.

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
489
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
503
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

503 Views
Message 2 of 29

@MIseker wrote:

@corb0505 wrote:

@lk152 wrote:

I posted the NY Times editirial in its entirety because I felt that it was too important to leave out segments. This is a great step forward toward progress for a lasting peace as well as restored relations between the United States and Iran.


 

PEW-FOX.gif

See where the NY Times falls on PEW's bias chart?  Further left than Fox is to the right.  So why would you ever in your wildest dreams expect them to say anything other than the usual left wing spin, innuendo, half-truths and lies?  And why would you expect ANYONE to take an EDITORIAL as evidence of anything? 

  


Corb, if you are against the Iran deal, what it boils down to is supporting Persians like we do Arabs. SInce Persians WILL fight ISIS on the ground,and a lot of Arabs wont, why are you against this?

It also opens up more oil resourses, and we can turn down the spigot from the sauds to help starve ISIS. Are you against starving ISIS in this manner?

This is a geopolitical issue, and goes much further than a few nuts that manage to get on TV shouting DEATH TO AMERICA!!. OF COURSE they put the trump type supporters on TV..its ad revenue.

As far as their ayatollah saying DEATH TO ISRAEL..of course he does he is a THEOLOGICAL leader. He doesnt run the military.


Why I don't know because there was no attack, no nothing other than facts from the USIP.  Appaently he doesn't like the facts.  Take it up with him  and I'll take it up with AARP.  AGAIN.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
503
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
515
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

515 Views
Message 3 of 29

One thing that I am sick and tired of in politics in the United States today is this constant preaching to the choir. Both political parties are gulity of this. Sure a rally or speech in front of a favorable partisan audience gives the impression that there is a lot of support for that candidate, but it hides the fact that perhaps there are a lot of people out there who are not in favor of that candidate or politician. 

 

Anyone can rally the troops who are already true believers and get them enthused. But it takes real guts and chutzpa for a politician or elected official to get in front of an audience that may be hostile. Addressing a hostile audience or an audience that may be less supportive of a politician takes courage, something that is sorely lacking in our politicians today. 

 

JFK got a lot of credibility when he, a Roman Catholic from the Boston area, addressed a gathering on mainly Protestant rural folks in West Virginia when he was campaigning for the Democratic nomination in 1960. While the audience was not entirely hostile, the audience was suspicous of a Roman Catholic running for President. JFK wanted to convince the audience that he wasn't ruled by the Vatican or the Pope and that he was concerned about those people in West Virginia. 

 

Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders is not going to convince anyone to change their vote by addressing an audience of conservative voters in Texas or Alabama. But they might be able to win a small measure of respect from those people. 

 

That is what disturbs me the most from the Donald Trump and Ted Cruz campaigns; that they are spending so much time preaching to the choir and not enough time meeting others that may hold different points of view. This constant preaching to the choir in a presidential election tends to make the particular candidate believe that they only have to represent those who are in the choir and not every man, woman and child in the United States.

 

No wonder this nation is so divided politically. This nation is a diverse nation of more than 310 million people spanning more than a continent with the world's largest economy and the world's best equipped military. We don't need a President who is more of a tribal leader but a President who can represent everyone in the country and place the nation's best interests ahead of the party's interests and their particular tribe. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
515
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
517
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

517 Views
Message 4 of 29

Not as rampant as it seems to be with the Republican Congressmen.  They still think Israel is an ally

 

So now the "dividers" of the left choose to use Israel as one more R vs D issue.

 

Is there nothing we can agree on?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
517
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
521
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

521 Views
Message 5 of 29

cat, your post said a lot in a brief statement. Perhaps it is that those who get their news from sources like the NY Times, PBC, the major networks, MSNBC and those "liberal" sources are better educated than those tho get most of their information from those sources more to the right. 

 

One thing that I noticed about many of those sources on the left of the spectrum is that they provide much more in depth reporting of the news and that most of their opinion writers are more well versed as more experienced. As far as actually getting the news right, Fox News consistently scores near the bottom as far as accuracy according to many measures. It is as "fair and balanced" as the old Soviet newspaper Pravda ("truth" in Russian). 

 

Suffice to say that those who tend to identify as more progressive and liberal want more in depth material and reporting while those who identify as more conservative just seek ammunition to use in their arguments or reinforcement of their pre held beliefs. 

 

However cat, you are correct, whether an audience is more liberal or conservative has no bearing on the reporting or opinions expressed on the media source. It is just which audience is more tuned in. 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
521
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
533
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

533 Views
Message 6 of 29

Corb apparently doesn't understand his own chart. It measures sources of information by whether the audience tilts left or right. The fact that the NYT appears further toward the left side of the graph means that those individuals who identify as progressives or liberals are more likely to consume reliable journalistic sources than those on the right. It does not attempt to prove ideological balance on the part of the source.

 

Look at the headline above the chart: "Ideological Placement of Each Source's Audience." Enough said.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
533
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
549
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

549 Views
Message 7 of 29

@corb0505 wrote:

@lk152 wrote:

I posted the NY Times editirial in its entirety because I felt that it was too important to leave out segments. This is a great step forward toward progress for a lasting peace as well as restored relations between the United States and Iran.


 

PEW-FOX.gif

See where the NY Times falls on PEW's bias chart?  Further left than Fox is to the right.  So why would you ever in your wildest dreams expect them to say anything other than the usual left wing spin, innuendo, half-truths and lies?  And why would you expect ANYONE to take an EDITORIAL as evidence of anything? 

  


Corb, if you are against the Iran deal, what it boils down to is supporting Persians like we do Arabs. SInce Persians WILL fight ISIS on the ground,and a lot of Arabs wont, why are you against this?

It also opens up more oil resourses, and we can turn down the spigot from the sauds to help starve ISIS. Are you against starving ISIS in this manner?

This is a geopolitical issue, and goes much further than a few nuts that manage to get on TV shouting DEATH TO AMERICA!!. OF COURSE they put the trump type supporters on TV..its ad revenue.

As far as their ayatollah saying DEATH TO ISRAEL..of course he does he is a THEOLOGICAL leader. He doesnt run the military.

So it begins.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
549
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
556
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

556 Views
Message 8 of 29

@lk152 wrote:

I posted the NY Times editirial in its entirety because I felt that it was too important to leave out segments. This is a great step forward toward progress for a lasting peace as well as restored relations between the United States and Iran.


 

PEW-FOX.gif

See where the NY Times falls on PEW's bias chart?  Further left than Fox is to the right.  So why would you ever in your wildest dreams expect them to say anything other than the usual left wing spin, innuendo, half-truths and lies?  And why would you expect ANYONE to take an EDITORIAL as evidence of anything? 

  

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
556
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
562
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

562 Views
Message 9 of 29

I posted the NY Times editirial in its entirety because I felt that it was too important to leave out segments. This is a great step forward toward progress for a lasting peace as well as restored relations between the United States and Iran. Sure Iran benefits greatly from this deal since the nation would now be able to become a major power in the region and be back as a "player" on the international stage. 

 

But this is a positive development. A major "player" on the international stage is not very likely to be a state sponsor of terrorism or be so willing to support terrorist groups. The threat of economic sanctions as well as a much more prosperous population would not stand for future economic sanctions. 

 

i have read several articles from well versed sources that have all been saying that most of the population of Iran has very little memory of the Shah's regime or the events that led to the establishment of the throcratic government in Iran. But the economic sanctions has crippled Iran's economy and the people of Iran want to become part of the international community and are tired of the extreme hard liners in Iran. 

 

Of course we all will have to see how this all plays out. But if Iran prospers and a strong middle class emerges, it will be very difficult for hard line religious leaders to maintain or gain power in Iran. 

 

In addition Iran now views the rise of ISIS (an extremist Sunni Moslem group) as a larger threat to itself than the United States. Perhaps this will lead to a restoration of relations between the United States and Iran. 

 

The Republican party's opposition to the Iran deal, which borders on treason, is unwarranted and dangerous. Perhaps the major reason for the Republican opposition and attempts to undermine the Iran nuclear deal was more to deprive President Obama of a major international success in his last year as President. 

 

IMHO, the Republican opposition to the Iran nuclear deal will eventually backfire on the party, especially if Iran complies with the deal which it appears the nation is doing. In the end, as the editorial board stated, this Iran nuclear deal represents a triumph of ddiplomacy over conflict. It goes along with President Obama's first inaugural address where he said "we (the United States) will reach out our hand if you (hostile foreign nations) will unclench your fist". 

 

Should this Iran nuclear deal work, then it will prove that President Obama did earn his Nobel Peace Prize. 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
562
Views
Trusted Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
499
Views

Re: The Iran nuclear deal is working

499 Views
Message 10 of 29

cat, you are 100% correct with your post. Here is a recent NY Times editorial about the Iran deal and President Obama's role in negotiating the deal:

 

A Safer World, Thanks to the Iran Deal

 

This is a moment many thought would never come: Iran has delivered on its commitment under a 2015 agreement with the United States and other major powers to curb or eliminate the most dangerous elements of its nuclear program. The world is now safer for this.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency verified on Saturday that Iran has shipped over 8.5 tons of enriched uranium to Russia so Iran can’t use that in bomb-making, disabled more than 12,000 centrifuges and poured concrete into the core of a reactor at Arak designed to produce plutonium.

 

On Sunday, President Obama hailed these steps as having “cut off every single path Iran could have used to build a bomb” and noted that engagement with Iran has created a “window to try to resolve important issues.”

 

Most important of all, he said, “We’ve achieved this historic progress through diplomacy, without resorting to another war in the Middle East.”

 

The deal is a testament to patient diplomacy and President Obama’s visionary determination to pursue a negotiated solution to the nuclear threat, despite relentless attempts by his political opponents to sabotage the initiative. After more than 30 years of hostility between the two countries, President Hassan Rouhani of Iran and his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, who took office in 2013, pursued the nuclear deal and its implementation with a pragmatic and constructive attitude.

 

This is also a moment to celebrate the release of the Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian and three other Americans of Iranian descent who were detained by Iran, in some cases for years. Mr. Rezaian and the others should never have been held in the first place. Their freedom came in exchange for seven Iranians arrested by the United States on charges of violating sanctions on Iran. Separately, another American who was recently detained was also freed. Resolving disputes often requires compromise, and these developments make it more likely, although far from certain, that the United States and Iran could cooperate in the future.

 

The value of increased American-Iranian engagement was obvious last week when Iran quickly released 10 American sailors after their two patrolboats mistakenly drifted into Iranian waters in the Persian Gulf. Iran’s hard-line military boarded the ships and released photos of the sailors in custody, a possible violation of the Geneva Conventions. Ordinarily, this would cause a crisis — and American hard-liners tried to make it so by denouncing Mr. Obama and denouncing Iran. But after a series of phone calls between Secretary of State John Kerry and Mr. Zarif, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, backed Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Zarif, who moved quickly to defuse the incident. Both sides knew a prolonged standoff could put the nuclear deal at risk.

 

Of course, neither compliance with the nuclear agreement nor the release of the Americans means that Iran should not be subject to criticism or new sanctions for violation of other United Nations resolutions or American laws. Once the detained Americans left Iran,

Mr. Obama moved quickly to impose new, limited sanctions on 11 Iranian companies and individuals for their involvement in two recent ballistic missile tests.

 

Iran’s critics are incensed that in return for complying with the nuclear deal, the country will get access to $100 billion of its money that has been frozen in overseas banks and that lifting sanctions will enable it to integrate into the international economy. The critics fear Iran will use the money to destabilize the region further, but Mr. Rouhani’s greater imperative is to spend the funds on the many social and economic needs of Iranians. His promises to improve their lives will be tested during next month’s parliamentary elections.

 

Leaders don’t give up their nuclear weapons for nothing. A bargain with Iran was necessary. It might even serve as an example for dealing with North Korea, which may have enough fuel for 16 weapons and is producing many more.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/18/opinion/a-safer-world-thanks-to-the-iran-deal.html?&utm_medium=ema...

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
499
Views