Is Wikipedia politically biased? You tell me

[DudleySmith]

You get a lot more info by reading the discussions about the edits than you will just reading the articles they end up with. It's a lot easier to spot the biases that way. Click on the 'view history and note who is editing them, for one.

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

Reality is what it is ... It does not care how one perceives it ...
But I think I get your point.

We are straying away from Principles that promote "good" ... That are also capable of defining limits as to how far we are allowed to stray.
It's not that some ideologies do not have good intentions ... But whether or not they should be pursued in the interest of not doing more harm than good.

That won't be influenced properly in the home or community ... Until people start to understand that governing others, forcing opinions, mandating ideologies ...
Or simply trying to handle or manage something that is none of their damn business to start with ... Is not always the best answer.

With Freedom comes Personal Responsibility ... That's what we need to be teaching our kids.
However ... We are attempting to replace self-confidence with self-esteem ... Which is little more than passing the baton to Society as a measure.
They are creating slaves ... Who then bitch about being slaves as they tighten their own shackles.

It is in everything we see one way or another ... It will infect everything.

.​

This is just a brilliant line of relevant thinking.

But to unpack all of that is a lot of keystrokes and discussion.

And I want to. For no other reason than to see it discussed. I just don't know where to begin.

We could go deeper into the principles you mention, I suppose, to start with. Which is effectively the whole of liberty itself and the right to pursuit of happness. Certainly no end can justify any means if any Individual's rights are encroached for the benefit of the so-called greater good.

There's just a lot you could talk about with what you've said here.

That's just a really good post that can be taken a very long way.

 

[BULLDOG]

No, it was not. I quoted you the part of the constitution that assigns power over elections and it did not mention the courts.

Aaand that's why it is so pointless to argue with Dems. When they lose they fall back on childishness. Of course I don't have to like it, and I don't. Whatever I can do to stop another stolen election, I will do, thought it won't be much. I can advocate that we work toward securing the elections, securing the border and and whatever else I want to advocate. Suddenly ceasing to debate with the equivalent of "too bad, nyaah!," makes you look foolish.

My opinion counts as much as yours does, and I don't have to change it in wake of a court decision. The courts are staffed with politicians, same as congress and the White House.

Of course youur opinion counts as much as mine does. As I said, the courts have the only opinion that counts, and they happen to agree with me.
See Marbury V Madison (1803)

The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Of course youur opinion counts as much as mine does. As I said, the courts have the only opinion that counts, and they happen to agree with me.
See Marbury V Madison (1803)

The judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.

Yes, my favorite court ruling, in which he Supreme Court decided that it had the power to interpret the constitution. The founders were fools to go along with it.

You were factually incorrect to say that the Constitution gave that power to the courts.

I'm sure your opinion of the Dobbs decision is not so glowing.

 

[Nobody911]

My views: Wikipedia = part of US big brother
Yeah, they want to control the whole world!

Facts :
The US government worked hand in glove with social media platforms to censor online “misinformation” – such as the factually true Hunter Biden laptop story – The Intercept revealed on Monday, citing internal Department of Homeland Security documents obtained through leaks and public records requests. Moreover, the DHS plans to continue censoring opinions about Covid-19, “racial justice,” and US support for Ukraine going forward.

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein write in Monday’s report.

One of their major revelations is that tech companies – including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft and LinkedIn – met with the FBI and other government agencies every month, before and since the 2020 election. Facebook even set up a special portal for “takedowns” that requires a law enforcement email to access.

Source :
US government worked with Big Tech to censor social media – Intercept — RT World News – US government worked with Big Tech to censor social media – Intercept

 

[BlackSand]

There's just a lot you could talk about with what you've said here.

.

Yeah, well ... Thanks ... But ...

Nah ... You have point there and it is a difficulty we suffer as a modern society.
If you cannot cram it down into the smallest digestible pieces ... And pray someone else understands what you are saying ...
It will just get lost in the ether ... Roll off like water on a duck's back.

It's much easier for people to dig in and try to defend what they already think ... Than accept the challenge of simply assuming what they think may be wrong ...
And exploring the world of opportunities and pitfalls that exist when you examine what is "inside" what you think.

Critical Thinking is rarely taught or encouraged anymore ... Added with the absence of practical Principles ... We are all adrift in a sea of minutia.

.​

 

[BULLDOG]

Yes, my favorite court ruling, in which he Supreme Court decided that it had the power to interpret the constitution. The founders were fools to go along with it.

You were factually incorrect to say that the Constitution gave that power to the courts.

I'm sure your opinion of the Dobbs decision is not so glowing.

The court had the constitutional authority to make that decision. This is old settled law. You really want to tilt at that windmill?

 

[Seymour Flops]

The court had the constitutional authority to make that decision. This is old settled law. You really want to tilt at that windmill?

It is an old settled court decision. You want to prove that the constitution grants a power, show it to me in the constitution. Citing the courts as the self-granters of a power is the classic fallacy of appeal to authority.

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

Yeah, well ... Thanks ... But ...

Nah ... You have point there and it is a difficulty we suffer as a modern society.
If you cannot cram it down into the smallest digestible pieces ... And pray someone else understands what you are saying ...
It will just get lost in the ether ... Roll off like water on a duck's back.

It's much easier for people to dig in and try to defend what they already think ... Than accept the challenge of simply assuming what they think may be wrong ...
And exploring the world of opportunities and pitfalls that exist when you examine what is "inside" what you think.

Critical Thinking is rarely taught or encouraged anymore ... Added with the absence of practical Principles ... We are all adrift in a sea of minutia.

.​

Well I might pick up on those points and go through them in a separate thread anyway, as I'm reminded of them now. Just because that's the kind if dialogue I'm interested in myself. And, unfortunately, it's been a long time since I've seen anyone even touch on anything you mentioned there, much less in the relevant way that you did. You don't have to particpate if you don't want. It's just not something I want to do in this thread.

That's deep stuff you brought up, though. And spot on. Worthy of discussion.

 

[francoHFW]

Factually there was really small numbers of fraud (ie a small number of mostly Republican voters casting two ballots).

Nothing to change an election

not even close comma not even on the same

This is really all I gathered from that...

Yes the thickest material known to man is dupe skull. Change the channel someday and rejoin humanity...

 

[francoHFW]

My views: Wikipedia = part of US big brother
Yeah, they want to control the whole world!

Facts :
The US government worked hand in glove with social media platforms to censor online “misinformation” – such as the factually true Hunter Biden laptop story – The Intercept revealed on Monday, citing internal Department of Homeland Security documents obtained through leaks and public records requests. Moreover, the DHS plans to continue censoring opinions about Covid-19, “racial justice,” and US support for Ukraine going forward.

“Behind closed doors, and through pressure on private platforms, the US government has used its power to try to shape online discourse,” Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein write in Monday’s report.

One of their major revelations is that tech companies – including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft and LinkedIn – met with the FBI and other government agencies every month, before and since the 2020 election. Facebook even set up a special portal for “takedowns” that requires a law enforcement email to access.

Source :
US government worked with Big Tech to censor social media – Intercept — RT World News – US government worked with Big Tech to censor social media – Intercept

yes, it is hunters laptop. But there is no reason to give a damn about it except to brainwash the rubes with irrelevancies that have nothing to do with politics. All investigated and these people are not stupid enough to do anything illegal, and there's no evidence they want to. You people are just anti American dupes....

 

[BULLDOG]

It is an old settled court decision. You want to prove that the constitution grants a power, show it to me in the constitution. Citing the courts as the self-granters of a power is the classic fallacy of appeal to authority.

Sorry. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to relitigate that case at this point? Next you'll be wanting me to reprove whether we went to the moon, or if unicorns exist. You should talk to your therapist if you have this much trouble accepting reality.

 

[francoHFW]

It is an old settled court decision. You want to prove that the constitution grants a power, show it to me in the constitution. Citing the courts as the self-granters of a power is the classic fallacy of appeal to authority.

Yes yes, laws and lawyers and judges are all corrupt and irrelevant, anti American twit. The chaos you're propaganda wants is no different from Russian or Chinese or Iranian garbage....

 

[Seymour Flops]

Sorry. Wouldn't it be kind of silly to relitigate that case at this point? Next you'll be wanting me to reprove whether we went to the moon, or if unicorns exist. You should talk to your therapist if you have this much trouble accepting reality.

The constitution either grants power to determine the manner of presidential elections either to the state legislatures, to someone besides the state legislatures, or to some combination of the legislatures and others. Those are the only options other than the constitution being silent on the question of who determines the manner of choosing electors. Is it a mystery to you which one it is?

Let's look:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I'm not seeing any ambiguity there, are you? In which court case did the courts rule that someone other than legislatures can direct an election to be conducted in a manner contrary to that directed by the state legislature? Let's look:

Hm . . . none.

The courts can refuse to accept cases in which people sue because election laws were not followed They can also rule that there was not enough harm done by any particular change in the rules to invalidate an election. But that is not the same as USSC ruling that it is OK for others besides legislatures to make changes to election law. If there is a case like that, what is it.

You truly believe that when the Roe v. Wade decision came down, there was then a constitutional right to abortion, but when the Hobbs ruling came down, there then was not consititutional right to an abortion?

 

[BULLDOG]

The constitution either grants power to determine the manner of presidential elections either to the state legislatures, to someone besides the state legislatures, or to some combination of the legislatures and others. Those are the only options other than the constitution being silent on the question of who determines the manner of choosing electors. Is it a mystery to you which one it is?

Let's look:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I'm not seeing any ambiguity there, are you? In which court case did the courts rule that someone other than legislatures can direct an election to be conducted in a manner contrary to that directed by the state legislature? Let's look:

Hm . . . none.

The courts can refuse to accept cases in which people sue because election laws were not followed They can also rule that there was not enough harm done by any particular change in the rules to invalidate an election. But that is not the same as USSC ruling that it is OK for others besides legislatures to make changes to election law. If there is a case like that, what is it.

You truly believe that when the Roe v. Wade decision came down, there was then a constitutional right to abortion, but when the Hobbs ruling came down, there then was not consititutional right to an abortion?

Again, we are a country of laws, and that includes the constitution. The courts interpret those laws. Perhaps you can convince those on the court that they don't have those powers., but i doubt you will have much luck. You still don't have to like the way the forefathers determined how our country would work, You are free to find another country that better suits your desires.

 

[francoHFW]

The constitution either grants power to determine the manner of presidential elections either to the state legislatures, to someone besides the state legislatures, or to some combination of the legislatures and others. Those are the only options other than the constitution being silent on the question of who determines the manner of choosing electors. Is it a mystery to you which one it is?

Let's look:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

I'm not seeing any ambiguity there, are you? In which court case did the courts rule that someone other than legislatures can direct an election to be conducted in a manner contrary to that directed by the state legislature? Let's look:

Hm . . . none.

The courts can refuse to accept cases in which people sue because election laws were not followed They can also rule that there was not enough harm done by any particular change in the rules to invalidate an election. But that is not the same as USSC ruling that it is OK for others besides legislatures to make changes to election law. If there is a case like that, what is it.

You truly believe that when the Roe v. Wade decision came down, there was then a constitutional right to abortion, but when the Hobbs ruling came down, there then was not consititutional right to an abortion?

This trump Supreme Court is obviously a piece of s. what a disgrace period .

 

[frigidweirdo]

Here is what it says about McCarthy (biog)

After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, McCarthy supported Trump's false denial of Biden's victory and participated in efforts to overturn the results,[7][8] and while he condemned the January 6 United States Capitol attack in its immediate aftermath, blaming Trump for the riot and saying the 2020 election was legitimate,[9][10] he would later walk back these comments and reconcile with Trump.

Kevin McCarthy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bias? What bias?

Here come the liberals saying I'm crazy (like all conservatives)

Wikipedia's very essence is that people can change what is written. EVERYTHING has bias, the people writing on wikipedia might do it for their own motives, others might change things.

Everything you read, I mean EVERYTHING, you should figure out who wrote it and how reliable it is beforehand. Wikipedia isn't the reliable. You should NEVER, EVER use wikipedia as an unimpeachable source.

I will use wikipedia a lot because conversations on here are varied and can cover many things. I don't have time to figure out if EVERYTHING is true or not. However when starting a conversation you can use wikipedia, if the other person opposes what you say then you can dig deeper.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Again, we are a country of laws, and that includes the constitution. The courts interpret those laws. Perhaps you can convince those on the court that they don't have those powers., but i doubt you will have much luck. You still don't have to like the way the forefathers determined how our country would work, You are free to find another country that better suits your desires.

That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that the constitution does not grant judges the power to determine the manner of choosing electors.

 

[BULLDOG]

That's a lot of words to avoid admitting that the constitution does not grant judges the power to determine the manner of choosing electors.

Last time you worrisome little goober. That was determined more than 200 years ago. If you want to repeal Marbury V Madison, I suggest you go directly to the supreme court. Nobody on a discussion board can accomplish what you seem to be wanting. Perhaps you and Sancho Panza should be spending more time in Washington, instead of being an anonymous poster on a silly discussion board.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Last time you worrisome little goober. That was determined more than 200 years ago. If you want to repeal Marbury V Madison, I suggest you go directly to the supreme court. Nobody on a discussion board can accomplish what you seem to be wanting. Perhaps you and Sancho Panza should be spending more time in Washington, instead of being an anonymous poster on a silly discussion board.

Oh, unlike yourself?

"You're just a poster on a discussion board," has to be the dumbest argument ever made by a poster on a discussion board.