[condensed into one message to avoid frantic cut-ins before I'm finished]
MESSAGE 58
AZPaul3 writes:
Bullshit.
I was at Iowa protesting, overturning cars, burning flags just like thousands of others from sea to shining sea.
I believe it, I believe it.
It was not the media. It was the fucking war.
(but the war was not in Iowa)
Pull your head out of your ass.
Two dirty words and seven green dots. An evolutionist forum exclusive!
_______________________
MESSAGE 59
Dr Adequate writes:
marc9000 writes:
I don’t completely agree with it, but other networks all do similar things to prominent Republicans, Quayle and Gingrich come to mind.
Examples?
Ah yes, examples are good things!
quote:
Democrats, taking the wither on the vine comment out of context, started an editorial and advocacy campaign alleging that it was Medicare itself--not the federal bureaucracy behind it--that Gingrich was saying should be allowed to die a slow and neglectful death.
and
quote:
The ad, Jackson wrote, was just dishonest. What Gingrich really said was that the Republicans believed the Medicare bureaucracy would wither on the vine---not Medicare benefits.
http://www.usnews.com/...t-gingrichs-medicare-comments-again
"An editorial campaign" with the help of a willing and able news media. Enough of the public was mislead to the extent that Gingrich never really had a chance at public office again.
Now for Quayle;
quote:
On June 15, 1992, then Vice President Dan Quayle was visiting Munoz Rivera School in Trenton, New Jersey. In front of a classroom full of kids, Quayle spelled ‘potato’ with an ‘e’ at the end. William Figueroa informed the VP that he had spelled it wrong and wrote the correct spelling on the blackboard.
The media was relentless in their ridicule and criticism. Many labeled him one of the dumbest politicians in American history. According to Quayle’s 1994 memoir, that incident had a huge negative impact on his political career and is something he has never been able to live down.
On May 9, 2008, Senator Barack Obama was on the presidential campaign trail in Beaverton, Oregon. While speaking to the crowd, Obama said that in the past 15 months, he had visited 57 states, had 1 more to go and that his staff would not let him go to Alaska or Hawaii.
and
quote:
Will the media now crucify Obama for misspelling the name of a key swing state? It doesn’t seem so as I only saw this when I was searching for things to write about and never heard nothing about it on any of the national media centers. It’s sad when you realize that political careers can be made and destroyed by how the media likes them, regardless of how good or bad of a politician they are.
Dan Quayle’s political career was destroyed because the media didn’t like him and purposely sought to destroy him.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/...im-like-media-did-dan-quayle
But it's not valid.
If Fox News have a duty to boost Birthers, then they would also have had a duty to boost 9/11 Truthers. They had their suspicions, and no-one else in the media was taking it seriously ... so why didn't Fox News step up?
The Constitution directly states its requirement that the president be a natural born citizen. If there’s any question at all that he's not, (in Obama’s case, there are several) a thorough non-partisan investigation should be expected by anyone with any respect of the constitution. If 90% of the news media, and 100% of it’s liberal followers scoff at that investigation in a certain case, it could be an indication that there is a serious problem with news media free reign.
________________________
MESSAGE 62
NoNukes writes:
I read the Ventura article and I have watched Fox News. I haven't commented on Fox News without having watched it. On the other hand, commenting without listening is exactly what you did regarding NPR.
NPR is part of the news media. That's all I needed to know - that it's not a source where restrictions to the news media could be discussed without the news media present, and influential. It's not going to show discussions against itself while excluding itself from those discussions.
marc9000 writes:
So my earlier point that that discussion isn't properly taking place still stands.
No your comment does not stand.
You would have to re-read, (or read for the first time) a certain part of my message 31, you'd find that it does. Here it is again;
quote:
Those discussions are never about pleas to gun owners and the NRA to police themselves, or to take some kind of voluntary action to try to curb gun violence, oh no, those discussions are about what the government WILL DO TO gun owners and the NRA. For NPR discussions of news media sensationalism to be comparable, they would have to discuss propositions of what could be done TO news organizations by the government to achieve a satisfactory goal (as determined by the government) Like gun owners who are nothing more than silent viewers when watching discussions of just how, when and what kind of new gun control ‘should be’ passed, a comparable NPR discussion would make the highest level press members nothing but silent viewers, as they watched/listened to proposals of new taxations and restrictions on just how news would be presented in the future. If you claim that’s happening on NPR, I can’t automatically accept your claim without some evidence, because I don't believe it is. Prove me wrong and I'll admit it...
and your response in message 41 was;
quote:
I'm not going to bother with this. You don't listen to NPR, yet you've already made up your mind about what is covered there without having done so.
I've made up my mind that a news organization isn't going to allow those who may be hostile to it to have discussions about restrictions to it without having at least some input of the discussion. And you can't prove me wrong.
It's simply uninformed. The discussion is out there. You choose not to hear it.
The discussion about how to improve news media responsibility, without the news media having an active role in the discussion, isn't out there, at least not in anything you or anyone else in this thread has shown.
____________________________
MESSAGE 63
AZPaul3 writes:
I was one of the baby killers. I was the embodiment of evil walking through LAX in uniform. I saw the body parts, the blood, the drugs, the vacant stares, the walking dead. I went to too many funerals; carried too many coffins, all before I was 21.
I admire and respect your service to our country, but the soldiers in the war between the states, WW1, and WW2, and other wars also had a tough time.
Then I heard the lies on body counts, the cove up of atrocities, the "We are winning" montra from Westmoreland.
All wars have those.
Then there was Tet ... then there was Cambodia. When Nixon expanded the war it was too much. He ripped the heart out of the nation. There was nothing left to do but take to the streets.
There was something left to do, to understand that the President may have had intelligence reports and a thorough understanding of history and warfare that were far more detailed than the Democrat loving press was telling college students.
quote:
By that time [when Nixon decided to invade] Cambodia had already been invaded by the North Vietnamese army and over 1/3 of the country was under North Vietnamese occupation- who provided military cover for the actions of Pol Pot and his friends.
That "alliance" blackmailed the Cambodian government into keeping quiet and claiming "neutrality"- which kind of resembles the Lebanese government who protests every time the Israelis even look in their direction but sees nothing wrong with rockets being fired from its territory into Israel
The North Vietnamese built thousands of miles of roads across Cambodia and used them to ship whole army divisions of north vietnamese conscripts across "neutral" territory and into South Vietnam (where they would pretend to be "insurgents"- a blatant lie which however satisfied the "free" press). They also established a very strong anti aircraft defense (complete with long range missles and radar sites supplied by the USSR and manned by their "volunteers")
Nixons decision was overdue because all that build up could have been prevented if he had acted earlier. When he did act the only reasonable solution was a land war (since the planes could nolonger bomb effectively). The main error was the lack of sufficient troops and support (tanks, artillery) assigned to the task
Yes, there was suffering. However it was brought there in the first place by the North Vietnamese dictators who played at war from the comlete safety of their luxurious bunkers.
And the part which the US can (and should) be blamed for is that the Democrat controlled Congress abandoned the Cambodians and the Vietnamese to the (non existent) mercy of the North Vietnamese and Pol Pot regimes after the pullout. And THAT caused over 4 milion deaths in the region
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=2009022815565...
This wasn't some media hyped charade of liberal politics.
It really was, the news media hated Nixon, and loved the Democrats in congress, who were more interested in losing the war than anything else. The Nixon administration taking the loss helped them ease the pain of the inept former Democrat president Johnson to accomplish
anything concerning Vietnam. The news media’s top priority wasn’t to make sure college students had access to good, unbiased news reporting.
It was disgust. That my country, my government, my president could so deceive and bleed the people for so long.
Second only to today's 16 trillion dollar debt. Wonder why college students aren't rioting today, it's going to take them a lot longer than the Vietnam war to deal with the Obama administrations debt alone. Maybe the news media isn't making it clear enough?
I still have my purple ribbon from Vietnam Vets Against the War.
I earned the right to bitch.
After all these decades it still hurts. I cry.
And I respect that. But do you think you had it harder than... the U.S soldiers at the South Pacific island of Guadalcanal in 1942? I'm thankful that they, and their relatives and friends back home had something better to do than take it to the streets.
____________________________
MESSAGE 64
NoNukes writes:
Are you kidding me? Have you heard of "fighting words doctrine", "clear and present danger", Supreme Court decisions on obscenity, campaign finance, time, manner and place restrictions on speech, ""imminent lawless action", The Pentagon Papers. The Sedition Act of 1918. Are you seriously questioning this issue or just seeing what sticks?
What I haven't heard of is any case at all where the news media was found guilty of any of these things, and paid any penalty (monetary or otherwise) for violating them. So now I'll ask you for an example, just ONE. From a small town newspaper to the big national networks, one example of a violation, along with the amount/description of the penalty. A legitimate website that documents what the violation was, and what the penalty to the news organization was. I honestly hope you can, I'd like to check to see if this law is always applied evenly throughout the time of its inception to today. I'd also admit that I learned something, something that you liberals never seem to do when I supply you with an example that you asked for.
__________________________
MESSAGE 65
NoNukes writes:
marc9000 writes:
Not content, but an unpredictable, quick profit.
A profit that would be considered unpredictable based on content.
No, based on an unusual
event, an event that earlier sensationalism could have contributed to causing.
In fact none of the bill of rights applied to state legislatures prior to the late 19th century
Not even the first amendment?
_________________
MESSAGE 66
NoNukes writes:
How old are you?
I'm 58, in October of 70 I turned 16. So at the time of the Kent State shootings I was 15, but I already had my first vehicle bought, paid for with my own money, and fixed up with my own hands and ready to drive. So while I was fixing them up, one of my many opponents here — can't remember who - was overturning them and burning flags. I registered for the draft in 72 at age 18, and ended up not having to go, but I would have, if called. I wouldn’t have liked it, but I wasn’t the type of person to claim to know more than the U.S. president who was a generation older than me. I'm thankful that many Vietnam vets, and most all WW2 soldiers thinking was similar to mine.
™ Version 4.2
(1)