Where and how do you get your news?

[mickj]

I don't know why all the discussion here is going on...

It depends on what the definition of 'is' is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0

[Automatika]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyM Magazines: Guitar Player, Vintage Guitar Magazine, Rolling Stone (although Rolling Stone doesn't really have much useful Guitar related news) , oh & Autoweek. DW is looking over my shoulder, and she sells sea shells by the sea shore, er, I mean she says Internet, Radio (a bit), and a smidgen of TV. My answer was pretty accurate though.

+1

The Enquirer, the Star, and the first employed musician I talk to each morning

[clifp]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus And I'll say it again and again only a court can say you committed a crime only a court can say you committed a crime only a court can say you committed a crime Neither the executive nor the legislature is competent to call a person a criminal. Only the Judiciary and only after due process Courts can say a person "committed" a crime without a criminal conviction if that is a relevant issue e.g. an insanity defense etc. But a declaration that a person committed a crime is a juridical function.

So how would you describe the head of mob family, who had never been convicted of anything, as what a nice guy?

OJ is a murderer, or at least that is what a civil court found, but he was not a convicted criminal until the episode in Vegas. It seems reasonable to me to call both the person who didn't pay their taxes and some one who is in the country illegally, a criminal. Sure if we want to be precise we should use an adjective either alleged or convicted to the word criminal, but among us non lawyers, I think it a good enough to simply call them criminals.

[Emeritus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by clifp So how would you describe the head of mob family, who had never been convicted of anything, as what a nice guy? OJ is a murderer, or at least that is what a civil court found, but he was not a convicted criminal until the episode in Vegas. It seems reasonable to me to call both the person who didn't pay their taxes and some one who is in the country illegally, a criminal. Sure if we want to be precise we should use an adjective either alleged or convicted to the word criminal, but among us non lawyers, I think it a good enough to simply call them criminals.

As Lincoln said "you can call a tail a leg but it doesn't make it one".

The relationship between real things & abstract concepts and the names we use for them are very important. Words such as "terrorists" "weapons of mass destruction" "child abusers" "zero tolerance" etc are thrown around in the sloppiest way and lead to very bad public policies.

Calling a person a criminal without the slightest due process subverts the principles this country stand for.

[lets-retire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emeritus Calling a person a criminal without the slightest due process subverts the principles this country stand for.

Using the arguments you are using subverts the common sense of this country. You are using lawyer arguments, that while valid, are academic in a discussion not in a court. I find them about as irritating as talking with people who insist on using professional jargon in a discussion with people not in the profession in an attempt to impress.

I don't think anybody here is really is disagreement with you. You are correct a court is the only entity that can legally declare a person a criminal. However criminals who haven't been caught are everywhere and they are still criminals.

[Gumby]

I think it's time to retire this particular dispute.

[harley]

No! Why would you do that? It's so much fun to slowly watch the list of people not using the ignore function slowly dwindle...

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by harley No! Why would you do that? It's so much fun to slowly watch the list of people not using the ignore function slowly dwindle...

The problem we're dealing with here is called "intellectual trolling", which is both oxymoronic and annoying... even with an "Ignore Poster" list.

"Don't be a jerk." I'm pretty sure it's in the Community Rules somewhere.

[Gumby]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords "Don't be a jerk." I'm pretty sure it's in the Community Rules somewhere.

That pretty much IS the Community Rule. But the jerks have proven to be such a whiny, contentious lot that we needed to elaborate.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby That pretty much IS the Community Rule. But the jerks have proven to be such a whiny, contentious lot that we needed to elaborate.

...and occasionally call in the hogs.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby That pretty much IS the Community Rule. But the jerks have proven to be such a whiny, contentious lot that we needed to elaborate.

At the same time, one has to admire the ability some have to redirect any thread to a subject completely unrelated to the original posting (or anything else on earth) and then argue it to the point of mindless absurdity. Reminds me of staff meetings and why I don’t miss them.

[kcowan]

Apprenticed Investor: Lose the News | The Big Picture

Good article in Ritholtz The Big Picture blog about how unreliable news sources are for investing.

[jackontrack]

I try to stay away from cable news altogether. Not too crazy about the scare tactics used in local network news either. Overall I find television news to be a huge cycle of "who shot john" and celebrity worship.

I get most of my news via online radio and the internet. I listen to mostly non-profit community-supported sources. Progressive Radio Network, WBAI, KPFK, etc. I also read the NY Times and Reuters for some mainstream "balance".

Then there are the news/comedy shows, which I admit I enjoy. Bill Maher, Daily Show, Colbert Report.