Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About grego

  • Rank
    The Gadget Play
  • Birthday 05/01/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Washington Football Team Fan Since
  • Favorite Washington Football Team Player
    d green!
  • Location
    Germantown, MD

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was at JPRU (also BCCC and Southern MD) in the mid to late 90s and there were a few NOI guys. I became friends with one who I used to tutor. I asked him once what he really thought about me (being a white guy) cuz it was obvious we liked each other. he said you cant help that you're the devil. it was kinda funny. it was also the first time I remember reading propaganda, where a publication (the final call, the NOI newspaper) just lied to their readers about a news story.(I've told this snippet here before about a black female principal being arrested. when I showed him the same
  2. I agree with the idea that peoples attitudes change over time, and had even thought of your same example of gay marriage. while I do believe that that would be a large factor in polling differences of the general population, i'm not sure how much it would change among actual native americans. I wouldn't agree that the Annenberg poll didn't capture how native americans thought about the name, but I would agree with the general finding of the Berkeley study- that the 'more' native one self identifies, the more likely they are to not like the name. this is not unlike the poll publish
  3. I'm not sure they aren't correct. The man who conducted the annenberg poll doesn't personally like the name, yet stands by the results. That's a hostile witness. So is the Washington Post. I'll take a professional, credible polling company over that Berkeley study unless there is reason to believe the Berkeley study is more accurate.
  4. a point likely lost in this exchange is, why did he feel so confident that his point was correct? it's because virtually all of the information that we consume, however we get our 'news', has been saying this. we have heard native American activists speak on the subject as if natives are of one voice and the topic and it is settled. but they are, in fact, in the vast minority when we look at objective polling data. its a warping of reality thats a result of filter bubbles and people playing loose with the facts for some ideological goal. we would be better off as people if we thought log
  5. i'm not sure that's true. this story was broken by glenn greenwald and the intercept. then katie halpern did her interview. rich mchugh and ryan grim were among the first to pursue it. it looks like republicans just jumped on board once the ball got rolling. its dems/biden vs progressives/Bernie backers and republicans on this issue.
  6. forgot to mention- I advocate going to sources you don't normally like (or even trust) because, in these politicized cases, the left is going to report more favorably in cases where their guy is being looked at, and the right is going to report more favorably in cases where their guy is under the microscope. its just the way it is. I want to know the counter arguments to my arguments. that way i'll know of I have a good argument. so the way to do that is to look at what the other side is saying. theres a great saying by john stuart mill that I love - "he who knows only his side of
  7. whats being looked at when comparing the veracity of those 2 claims is a lot more than that, though. you can isolate individual parts of a claim, compare and draw conclusions, but they are going to be flawed because they are incomplete- they are smaller parts of a bigger picture. a good chunk of my criminal justice degree (just finished a few months ago....you can't see, but this is me patting myself on the back right now ) was looking at cases and why people were convicted, and sometimes why they were later found to be innocent. these cases are maddening to me. they are often le
  8. Let me re-read up on the actual rewritten or deleted parts tomorrow. I didn't see that it was actual facts that were removed or rewritten (which, if they were wrong, absolutely should be corrected). And, as such, noted in the article that or was edited (which, allegedly it wasn't). My pet peeve is the media, how honest and factual they are, and how things are framed for effect. I shudder at the general thought that a prestigious outlet like the NYT would (allegedly) stealth edit an editor approved article in general- it should be noted somewhere in the article, if it wasn't.
  9. oh, no doubt there could be completely legitimate reasons to go back and edit an article after being published. to admit that you changed it after approving it because a presidential hopeful didn't like the way it sounded is, at the very least, a bad look. why is a political campaign telling the biggest, most respected newspaper in the world what to print? it just shouldn't be that way. it didn't used to be that way. not like this.
  10. yep. dean baquet actually admitted it. "Even though a lot of us, including me, had looked at it before the story went into the paper, I think that the campaign thought that the phrasing was awkward and made it look like there were other instances in which he had been accused of sexual misconduct, And that’s not what the sentence was intended to say." https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/13/business/media/joe-biden-tara-reade-new-york-times.html
  11. the new york times is legit as it comes. but if they are stealth editing their stories at the behest of a political campaign, you are opening yourself up to criticism.
  12. re- gillibrand supporting biden. that bothers me. she threw herself behind emma sulkowicz (aka mattress girl)- about as discredited an accusation as as youre likely to find-, but reade's story is beyond the pale? I hate politics.
  13. I noticed that too. I don't know how far back they were filming, but it seemed like quite a long time. there was also footage which looked like cell phone footage, from times like when he the dude (cant recall who it was) and realized he no longer owned his tv show. a week before the fire. I finished the show last night and I really liked it. I wonder, when it comes to these pseudo documentary type shows, if we are getting the whole story. these shows are made to elicit an emotional response to keep you engaged. when making a murderer was on, there was outrage- some of it justifie
  • Create New...