Tyranny Doth A Tiring Tyrant Try
- Thread starterblkoralslaveboy
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I think he was a great president. We were never attacked again and this country was safe from the rag heads doing another 911 on us. People blame him for NAFTA and the housing crisis. All those bills were signed by Billy Clinton. Everyone gets a house. If you are recieving welfare, you cannot live in a $200.000 home. Do the math. But then again he fooled so many people and now it has caught up with these people who tried to live above their means. Brace yourself America. The 20th is getting near and the new President takes over. You know the rag heads are going to see if he has balls. Bush sure did and didn't let anyone push us around. I say quit all aid to foreign countries and bail ourselves out first. We have been helping other countries for so long and they are quick to cut our throats. Let the USA cut their life lines and see who comes begging....God Bless America.
agripa said:I hope and pray that Americans will wise up and treat the next president with more respect and understanding that the liberal media and belly aching bed wetting dems did the last. God Bless America and the President of the United States!
I agree, God Bless America and the President of the United States. However, do not dare treat that office like a THROWN... know that going in you not only have the power of the world but also it's judgment! Even he himself acknowledges that freedom to be allowed to speak in favor of or in judgment against your leaders is the derivative of democracy. Unfortunately his followers do not comprise the cream of the crop in terms of IQ.
I've heard how the right to bear arms is important to a good part of the right wing, as is, as you had so aptly stated above, treating the prez with "more respect and understanding". How then can they argue that the right to bear arms is essential in order to eliminate a corrupt government? Or is a corrupt government by definition one ran by any party other than theirs? No, I submit to you that criticism and judgment are far saver choices than those.
If you don't like a free democracy there's always Somalia...little government, virtually no taxes, free market economy, right wing religious people, and plenty of gun bearing citizens...i suggest you book a flight!
Gohead said:Why hasn't he stopped Israel form massacering the Palestinians. Israel just blewup all the UN food buildings. I hate him. I hope Obama does more for the palestinians. I hope he is more then just hype.
LET"S ALL PREY FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE.
Palestinians should stop this "holy war" bullshit first and then come back to the bargaining table. I agree Bush didn't do anything right with regards to the I-P issue but honestly, his party would eat him alive if he spoke out against Israel so that's a lose lose situation.
The problem, Gohead, with I-P conflict is in order to have peace there in a short amount of time it has to be ****** upon both sides if you think about it. Literally force both sides to accept peace without any say and threaten either side with repercussions if it starts ANY aggression. In the most plausible scenario, the leader of the most powerful nation in the coalition forces would obtain UN forces and permission, go into I-P, completely disarm them, police the country using foreign forces, and maintain peace. If they try to covertly band together and form an organize attack (whichever side), then counter attack with brute force until any idea of aggression leaves from their psyche. This might take decades but the lives saved would be worth it in the long run, only to be replaced by population explosion related issues.
The real problem, why this can't be done, is because whoever ends up doing this will be labeled the ANTICHRIST. So you do the math... it will never be done in religious society.
Somalia?? Are you for real?
Was that 2nd Amendment incomprehensible jab directed at my comments about your captions that suggest Bush is a tyrant? I have no issue with anyone who criticizes the government; it is what democracy is all about. I do however have issue with those who lie, mislead and say and do anything for their own political ends. Bush was no more a tyrant than Abraham Lincoln was, the man Obama is being compared to now. Oh, and before you respond to this, please do some homework on old' honest Abe first. I think you might be a little surprised. You might also read up on former American leaders while you’re at it. A high IQ does not necessarily equate to good leadership or statesmanship. Finally check out John Locks 2nd Treatise on Government or Hobbs and Rousseau's work on the Social Contract. I think you will discover the foundations of democratic rule there and what are really the bases for governmental power. Once you have done this maybe then we can talk.
Was that 2nd Amendment incomprehensible jab directed at my comments about your captions that suggest Bush is a tyrant? I have no issue with anyone who criticizes the government; it is what democracy is all about. I do however have issue with those who lie, mislead and say and do anything for their own political ends. Bush was no more a tyrant than Abraham Lincoln was, the man Obama is being compared to now. Oh, and before you respond to this, please do some homework on old' honest Abe first. I think you might be a little surprised. You might also read up on former American leaders while you’re at it. A high IQ does not necessarily equate to good leadership or statesmanship. Finally check out John Locks 2nd Treatise on Government or Hobbs and Rousseau's work on the Social Contract. I think you will discover the foundations of democratic rule there and what are really the bases for governmental power. Once you have done this maybe then we can talk.
You know exactly what I meant. Your first statement was:
"I hope and pray that Americans will wise up and treat the next president with more respect and understanding..."
The second amendment was written, among other things, to ensure the ability of "'the people' fighting governmental tyranny". It is far less damage to harshly criticize and even insult the government compared to what the second amendment allows for in the case of a corrupt or tyrannical government. Of course I absolutely condemn anyone who would try to raise arms against the president! Yet I call him a tyrant and a clever one at that!
Now you have changed your tone saying you have no issue with anyone who criticizes the government. If i call him a saint am I not criticizing him? Then allow me call him a tyrant and hold yourself accountable by what you have said and don't harass me for my criticism!
He lied, mislead, and said ANYTHING for his own political ends. He claims he was mislead with misinformation on Iraq. Yet he had always harbored resentment toward the fact that his father, during the first invasion, did not capture Saddam Hussein. Despite the fact that when asked to present solid, convincing leads, as early as the middle of 2002, as to why we should invade Iraq he never furnished any worthwhile material. Instead he took our country when it was most vulnerable (after 9-11 attacks) and ****** his intelligence people to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. He effectively ignored CIA warnings and "caveats" rewriting what had been "nuanced and subjective" rhetoric in the intelligence findings to one that was "unequivocal" - Washington Post Sept 2002, Feb 6, 2004.
Then he allowed the CIA to use torture of detainees. AFP: Bush allows torture: Carter
Then he turns around and runs a "secret spying program" on our homeland completely undermining existing laws which prohibit such an act.
His own department heads and ministers fear him showing very little autonomy and at times going against their personal convictions in an act of blind obedience.
"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." Boston Globe April 30, 2006
Thousands of middle eastern men living in the united states were also arrested (w/o Miranda rights) and detained for interrogation. Open discrimination was a secretly adopted policy of Homeland Security in the years following 9-11. It is impossible for me to believe Bush had no knowledge of these mass, illegal, racist arrests.
I'm not even discussing the fact that we had two oil men running the white house over the last eight years and their obvious self- interests in the middle east. Neither am I going to take time to combat the notion that Bush protected us over the past 8 years, when 9-11 happened on his watch to begin with!!
All I know is he stripped freedom from us more than we had ever known before and that makes him the closes thing to a tyrant that we've ever had...in my opinion!
"I hope and pray that Americans will wise up and treat the next president with more respect and understanding..."
The second amendment was written, among other things, to ensure the ability of "'the people' fighting governmental tyranny". It is far less damage to harshly criticize and even insult the government compared to what the second amendment allows for in the case of a corrupt or tyrannical government. Of course I absolutely condemn anyone who would try to raise arms against the president! Yet I call him a tyrant and a clever one at that!
Now you have changed your tone saying you have no issue with anyone who criticizes the government. If i call him a saint am I not criticizing him? Then allow me call him a tyrant and hold yourself accountable by what you have said and don't harass me for my criticism!
He lied, mislead, and said ANYTHING for his own political ends. He claims he was mislead with misinformation on Iraq. Yet he had always harbored resentment toward the fact that his father, during the first invasion, did not capture Saddam Hussein. Despite the fact that when asked to present solid, convincing leads, as early as the middle of 2002, as to why we should invade Iraq he never furnished any worthwhile material. Instead he took our country when it was most vulnerable (after 9-11 attacks) and ****** his intelligence people to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam. He effectively ignored CIA warnings and "caveats" rewriting what had been "nuanced and subjective" rhetoric in the intelligence findings to one that was "unequivocal" - Washington Post Sept 2002, Feb 6, 2004.
Then he allowed the CIA to use torture of detainees. AFP: Bush allows torture: Carter
Then he turns around and runs a "secret spying program" on our homeland completely undermining existing laws which prohibit such an act.
His own department heads and ministers fear him showing very little autonomy and at times going against their personal convictions in an act of blind obedience.
"President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution." Boston Globe April 30, 2006
Thousands of middle eastern men living in the united states were also arrested (w/o Miranda rights) and detained for interrogation. Open discrimination was a secretly adopted policy of Homeland Security in the years following 9-11. It is impossible for me to believe Bush had no knowledge of these mass, illegal, racist arrests.
I'm not even discussing the fact that we had two oil men running the white house over the last eight years and their obvious self- interests in the middle east. Neither am I going to take time to combat the notion that Bush protected us over the past 8 years, when 9-11 happened on his watch to begin with!!
All I know is he stripped freedom from us more than we had ever known before and that makes him the closes thing to a tyrant that we've ever had...in my opinion!
agripa said:Was that 2nd Amendment incomprehensible jab directed at my comments about your captions that suggest Bush is a tyrant? I have no issue with anyone who criticizes the government; it is what democracy is all about. I do however have issue with those who lie, mislead and say and do anything for their own political ends. Bush was no more a tyrant than Abraham Lincoln was, the man Obama is being compared to now. Oh, and before you respond to this, please do some homework on old' honest Abe first. I think you might be a little surprised. You might also read up on former American leaders while you’re at it. A high IQ does not necessarily equate to good leadership or statesmanship. Finally check out John Locks 2nd Treatise on Government or Hobbs and Rousseau's work on the Social Contract. I think you will discover the foundations of democratic rule there and what are really the bases for governmental power. Once you have done this maybe then we can talk.
Will & Eve said:You want to know how the Palestinians can be safe from ever having the Israelis kill them?
They can simply stop killing Israelis.
It does wonders for the prospects of peace.
The Palestinians are living in a ghetto without any country. They do not have anestethia to even give surgery to the people that has been attacked. Can you imagine having a limp cut off with out anesthesia. How can it be okay for these people to live in these types of conditions. If they attack it is because they are angry that they live on such horrific conditions. If the USA and Israel would just try to help them instead of oppress them I think all the violence would be over with. Tony Blair said yesterday a permanent cease fire could be done by giving the Palestinians a Palestinian state. I agree that would be a great start in ending the fighting. I know how powerful the Israeli lobby is and I know that is the reason why Bush won't help the Palestinians. But the USA and Israel went way to far this time. I feel something should really be done that this never happens again to the Palestinians.
I agree, goahead. The Palestinian plight is awful. Didn't help when the Egyptians occupied it back in 1948 after the Palestinians were given their own country for the first time in history. Course, Egypt wanted it for a staging ground to attack Israel, finally forcing the Israelis to take it over after the 1967 6 Day War.
Then the Israelis finally let it have autonomy in 2005 in hopes of achieving a lasting peace. So what do the people do? Elect Hamas and allow them to split their country and use Gaza as a staging ground to attack Israel. Smuggling weapons, not medicine, not food, thru the border with Egypt while, of course the Egyptians turn a blind eye to it. Then when they use these weapons to attack Israel, the Israelis should just sit there and take it because Hamas has lousy aim. And Egypt closes the border with Gaza because they don't want those dirty Palestinians in their country.
Yes, goahead, I agree. This should never happen again. The other Arab countries should actually help the Palestinians build an economy, educate their children and run a real government instead of just beating their breasts in anguish when the Israelis are ****** into action. Then perhaps this wouldn't happen again.
Then the Israelis finally let it have autonomy in 2005 in hopes of achieving a lasting peace. So what do the people do? Elect Hamas and allow them to split their country and use Gaza as a staging ground to attack Israel. Smuggling weapons, not medicine, not food, thru the border with Egypt while, of course the Egyptians turn a blind eye to it. Then when they use these weapons to attack Israel, the Israelis should just sit there and take it because Hamas has lousy aim. And Egypt closes the border with Gaza because they don't want those dirty Palestinians in their country.
Yes, goahead, I agree. This should never happen again. The other Arab countries should actually help the Palestinians build an economy, educate their children and run a real government instead of just beating their breasts in anguish when the Israelis are ****** into action. Then perhaps this wouldn't happen again.
If someone fired on the US first, do you think that our government would not retaliate. Hamas fired into Israel first. If the Palestineans had balls, which none of the rag heads have, they would do away with Hamas. When will Muslem countries get rid of these radical groups. As long as you have groups like Hamas, Fatah, Al quida, and other factions like that, it is doubtful that the mid east will ever be a peaceful place to live. Then when the muslims can come together and work out peace that would be another. But if the Shites don't like the Sunni's well there is another confrontation. Second, it was Clinton who signed NAFTA into law. Do the homework. Reagan may have introduced it but Billy Boy signed it. As President, he did not have to enact NAFTA.
Interpretation
I suppose we have a difference of interpretation, both in the amendment and in what we have both written. To what end other than slander do you hope to accomplish in using inflammatory words such as tyrant when labeling the rule of an American President? I do not in any way want to impinge your right to free speech; I only want you to realize that your choice of words could have been better. In my opinion you seem to use extreme statements to put forth your position and use the rhetoric of liberals to support your ideas. The sources you chose, Carter and the Washington Post article, are clearly biased. If we have learned anything from the last eight years of political divisiveness in this country it should at least be that this type of rhetoric accomplishes nothing and that when the media deliberately attempts to mislead the public the only ones that will be hurt in the long run will be the American people themselves. I only ask for moderation in political discussion, where both sides are willing to discuss their views, admit to the wisdom of alternative ideas and not resort to smug self righteous name calling. As for the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", once again we have a difference of interpretation. If I understand your position, you claim that this was inserted as a personal protection for individual rights and freedom against an abusive government or other citizens. As I understand it Madison and the Anti-Federalists inserted this as a means by which a republican society might protect itself from outside incursions, see the Revolutionary War. As you know our young nation did not have a real standing army but instead relied upon state militias in time of crises. Finally you still have not done your homework on Abraham Lincoln, and while you’re at it please look into FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, oh and why not John Adams. They make GW look like a choir boy. In closing "slaveboy" I do enjoy this type of discussion and I hope you do as well. Our discourse makes America stronger, but our willingness to put aside differences for the greater good far exceeds any other calling. As you might have guessed I am a Republican and do admit that I support President Bush, history will be the final judge and if previous events tell us anything his decisions will be vindicated. I digress; what I wanted to state is that while I am a Republican and did not vote for Obama, I understand that he is now the President of the United States and I fully support him. I will criticize him when I believe he makes unsound policy decisions but I will never, ever go as far as those who tried to undermine Bush. In my opinion I believe that is wrong.
I suppose we have a difference of interpretation, both in the amendment and in what we have both written. To what end other than slander do you hope to accomplish in using inflammatory words such as tyrant when labeling the rule of an American President? I do not in any way want to impinge your right to free speech; I only want you to realize that your choice of words could have been better. In my opinion you seem to use extreme statements to put forth your position and use the rhetoric of liberals to support your ideas. The sources you chose, Carter and the Washington Post article, are clearly biased. If we have learned anything from the last eight years of political divisiveness in this country it should at least be that this type of rhetoric accomplishes nothing and that when the media deliberately attempts to mislead the public the only ones that will be hurt in the long run will be the American people themselves. I only ask for moderation in political discussion, where both sides are willing to discuss their views, admit to the wisdom of alternative ideas and not resort to smug self righteous name calling. As for the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", once again we have a difference of interpretation. If I understand your position, you claim that this was inserted as a personal protection for individual rights and freedom against an abusive government or other citizens. As I understand it Madison and the Anti-Federalists inserted this as a means by which a republican society might protect itself from outside incursions, see the Revolutionary War. As you know our young nation did not have a real standing army but instead relied upon state militias in time of crises. Finally you still have not done your homework on Abraham Lincoln, and while you’re at it please look into FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, oh and why not John Adams. They make GW look like a choir boy. In closing "slaveboy" I do enjoy this type of discussion and I hope you do as well. Our discourse makes America stronger, but our willingness to put aside differences for the greater good far exceeds any other calling. As you might have guessed I am a Republican and do admit that I support President Bush, history will be the final judge and if previous events tell us anything his decisions will be vindicated. I digress; what I wanted to state is that while I am a Republican and did not vote for Obama, I understand that he is now the President of the United States and I fully support him. I will criticize him when I believe he makes unsound policy decisions but I will never, ever go as far as those who tried to undermine Bush. In my opinion I believe that is wrong.
The Palestiniam plight.
Elizabeth, First of all their is no reason to refer to people of Middle Eastern Dissent as Rag Heads, Why so offensive. Secondly Their are many reports that this attack on Israel was planned out a year ago, So that means that it really didn't matter what Hamas really did. Also their are many reports that are not reported in the US Media that Israel shot many during the cease fire. Palestinians in fact were ****** do to their dire conditions to try and fight back. Fighting back the only way they could, by shooting rockets. Palestinians are shot by Isrealli soldeirs on a daily basis and what no retaliation at all, Is that fair Elizibeth. Also I don't feel cutting off food to the Palestinians as well as supplies is acceptable at all nor placing these people in a cage or in concentration camp like surroundings is a solution. Now Elizibeth you said if someone shot rockets at the United States then we would retaliate, isn't that a very selective way of viewing this situation. What if you had land, was later ****** off of it, then sent to a ghetto, where later caged in and you just are meant to live their and not retaliate in anyway nor meant to get jusification for your losses, tell me Elizabeth what would you do then. Also do you know how much money America pays Israel every year. 4.5 billion dollars plus 2.3 + 1.5 ish to pay off Jorden and Egypt to play nice with Israel. Why should any US citizen that is not Jewish nor have any interested in supporting Israel be ****** to pay for Israel instead of using that money to assist our own needs. Such as Health care or whatever. I feel this is taking advantage of the US people to force support for Israel.
That is just some thought for discussion.
Elizabeth, First of all their is no reason to refer to people of Middle Eastern Dissent as Rag Heads, Why so offensive. Secondly Their are many reports that this attack on Israel was planned out a year ago, So that means that it really didn't matter what Hamas really did. Also their are many reports that are not reported in the US Media that Israel shot many during the cease fire. Palestinians in fact were ****** do to their dire conditions to try and fight back. Fighting back the only way they could, by shooting rockets. Palestinians are shot by Isrealli soldeirs on a daily basis and what no retaliation at all, Is that fair Elizibeth. Also I don't feel cutting off food to the Palestinians as well as supplies is acceptable at all nor placing these people in a cage or in concentration camp like surroundings is a solution. Now Elizibeth you said if someone shot rockets at the United States then we would retaliate, isn't that a very selective way of viewing this situation. What if you had land, was later ****** off of it, then sent to a ghetto, where later caged in and you just are meant to live their and not retaliate in anyway nor meant to get jusification for your losses, tell me Elizabeth what would you do then. Also do you know how much money America pays Israel every year. 4.5 billion dollars plus 2.3 + 1.5 ish to pay off Jorden and Egypt to play nice with Israel. Why should any US citizen that is not Jewish nor have any interested in supporting Israel be ****** to pay for Israel instead of using that money to assist our own needs. Such as Health care or whatever. I feel this is taking advantage of the US people to force support for Israel.
That is just some thought for discussion.
Politicians are never as good as we want them to be. Period. Makes no difference if they r conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican.
Jimmy Carter was a liberal Democrat but he refused to accept Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's first election which the anti-communist bishop Abel Muzorewa won even though Bayard Rustin, one of MLK's closet advisors and the main organizer of the 1963 march on Washington, said the election was 'remarkably free and fair'. So what did Carter do? He pressured the UK to follow his lead and ****** Zimbabwe to hold a second election so Robert Mugabe would be elected. Rustin said 'With the United States openly deferring to the wishes of ZANU, ZAPU, and their enablers among the African tyrannies we have found ourselves, until now, tacitly aligned with groups armed by Moscow, hostile to America, antagonistic to democracy, and unpopular with Rhodesia itself.'
He also said 'If the presidents of Zambia, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Angola have their way, majority rule will take a form more or less similar to what exists in their own countries; which is to say it will be a dictatorship by a small black elite over a destitute black population.'
Even the Washington Post said the Carter administration was 'ignoring fairness and impartiality in order to court those black African states, mostly petty dictatorships or paper democracies.'
Let us see if Barack Obama has the guts to do anything different or if it will be same old same old.
Jimmy Carter was a liberal Democrat but he refused to accept Rhodesia/Zimbabwe's first election which the anti-communist bishop Abel Muzorewa won even though Bayard Rustin, one of MLK's closet advisors and the main organizer of the 1963 march on Washington, said the election was 'remarkably free and fair'. So what did Carter do? He pressured the UK to follow his lead and ****** Zimbabwe to hold a second election so Robert Mugabe would be elected. Rustin said 'With the United States openly deferring to the wishes of ZANU, ZAPU, and their enablers among the African tyrannies we have found ourselves, until now, tacitly aligned with groups armed by Moscow, hostile to America, antagonistic to democracy, and unpopular with Rhodesia itself.'
He also said 'If the presidents of Zambia, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Angola have their way, majority rule will take a form more or less similar to what exists in their own countries; which is to say it will be a dictatorship by a small black elite over a destitute black population.'
Even the Washington Post said the Carter administration was 'ignoring fairness and impartiality in order to court those black African states, mostly petty dictatorships or paper democracies.'
Let us see if Barack Obama has the guts to do anything different or if it will be same old same old.
Fair enough! But do not dare give him the respect you would a king otherwise if we all started doing that we would most certainly end up with a kingdom at some point. View him as head citizen and judge him thus and that is the base skeleton of my argument. I will not criticize you for supporting him it is your right and you deserve that respect of freedom of choice as a fellow citizen. Once you yourself become a public servant then the shield of private citizenship will be lifted as you attain access to your new position of authority. Without this, then there is no free speech.
(i think we agree on that)
(i think we agree on that)
agripa said:I suppose we have a difference of interpretation, both in the amendment and in what we have both written. To what end other than slander do you hope to accomplish in using inflammatory words such as tyrant when labeling the rule of an American President? I do not in any way want to impinge your right to free speech; I only want you to realize that your choice of words could have been better. In my opinion you seem to use extreme statements to put forth your position and use the rhetoric of liberals to support your ideas. The sources you chose, Carter and the Washington Post article, are clearly biased. If we have learned anything from the last eight years of political divisiveness in this country it should at least be that this type of rhetoric accomplishes nothing and that when the media deliberately attempts to mislead the public the only ones that will be hurt in the long run will be the American people themselves. I only ask for moderation in political discussion, where both sides are willing to discuss their views, admit to the wisdom of alternative ideas and not resort to smug self righteous name calling. As for the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", once again we have a difference of interpretation. If I understand your position, you claim that this was inserted as a personal protection for individual rights and freedom against an abusive government or other citizens. As I understand it Madison and the Anti-Federalists inserted this as a means by which a republican society might protect itself from outside incursions, see the Revolutionary War. As you know our young nation did not have a real standing army but instead relied upon state militias in time of crises. Finally you still have not done your homework on Abraham Lincoln, and while you’re at it please look into FDR, Woodrow Wilson, Andrew Jackson, oh and why not John Adams. They make GW look like a choir boy. In closing "slaveboy" I do enjoy this type of discussion and I hope you do as well. Our discourse makes America stronger, but our willingness to put aside differences for the greater good far exceeds any other calling. As you might have guessed I am a Republican and do admit that I support President Bush, history will be the final judge and if previous events tell us anything his decisions will be vindicated. I digress; what I wanted to state is that while I am a Republican and did not vote for Obama, I understand that he is now the President of the United States and I fully support him. I will criticize him when I believe he makes unsound policy decisions but I will never, ever go as far as those who tried to undermine Bush. In my opinion I believe that is wrong.
Free Speech
I blame a biased and politically motivated media for misleading and flat out lying to achieve its own ends. Americans have come to rely on the unbiased reporting of news events ala Walter Cronkite, but the ethics in reporting he and his contemporaries worked so hard to establish have been thrown to the winds. I covet my free speech rights and support that right for all citizens, but think it is disgraceful what the modern news media has done with this right we all have. Where is the honor, where is the integrity, where is the truth in broadcasting? I believe it is dead. The media is driven by the single minded ideologues whose only desire is to achieve their own end goal not matter by what means. Lying, misleading, and failure to report all events are their methodology. Politicians engage in these half truths and I agree that all politicians no matter what ideology engage in this. But the media, the beacon of free speech and a check on despotism has become a sort of despot in their own right. A half truth told to sway opinion some might say is not really a lie but in fact it is a lie of omission. I charge all the major news agencies with this crime and for that they should be ashamed. Also I need to get another jab on the liberals here so in under this topic I will add this subtopic. If free speech is such a valuable commodity in our country and if the free market system is an essential element to a democratic society, why is it then that liberals are trying to rail road a measure through Congress known as the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act". The American people should be allowed to decide what news information they want to digest, and since they are turning away from the major news agencies in droves because of blatant biased and outright lies these same liberal demagogues want to limit the news media that they do not control i.e.: talk radio. I would submit to you that we the people are not the drone cattle you would like us to be and still can see through their attempts to mislead us.
I blame a biased and politically motivated media for misleading and flat out lying to achieve its own ends. Americans have come to rely on the unbiased reporting of news events ala Walter Cronkite, but the ethics in reporting he and his contemporaries worked so hard to establish have been thrown to the winds. I covet my free speech rights and support that right for all citizens, but think it is disgraceful what the modern news media has done with this right we all have. Where is the honor, where is the integrity, where is the truth in broadcasting? I believe it is dead. The media is driven by the single minded ideologues whose only desire is to achieve their own end goal not matter by what means. Lying, misleading, and failure to report all events are their methodology. Politicians engage in these half truths and I agree that all politicians no matter what ideology engage in this. But the media, the beacon of free speech and a check on despotism has become a sort of despot in their own right. A half truth told to sway opinion some might say is not really a lie but in fact it is a lie of omission. I charge all the major news agencies with this crime and for that they should be ashamed. Also I need to get another jab on the liberals here so in under this topic I will add this subtopic. If free speech is such a valuable commodity in our country and if the free market system is an essential element to a democratic society, why is it then that liberals are trying to rail road a measure through Congress known as the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act". The American people should be allowed to decide what news information they want to digest, and since they are turning away from the major news agencies in droves because of blatant biased and outright lies these same liberal demagogues want to limit the news media that they do not control i.e.: talk radio. I would submit to you that we the people are not the drone cattle you would like us to be and still can see through their attempts to mislead us.
You're very eloquent!! You obviously have an absolute distrust of the media based on your statement here. I'm wondering, where do you get your information from? Please enlighten me that I may find the absolutely unbiased source from which you get your sound information from? I truly would be grateful for such a lead!! Thank you!!!
agripa said:I blame a biased and politically motivated media for misleading and flat out lying to achieve its own ends. Americans have come to rely on the unbiased reporting of news events ala Walter Cronkite, but the ethics in reporting he and his contemporaries worked so hard to establish have been thrown to the winds. I covet my free speech rights and support that right for all citizens, but think it is disgraceful what the modern news media has done with this right we all have. Where is the honor, where is the integrity, where is the truth in broadcasting? I believe it is dead. The media is driven by the single minded ideologues whose only desire is to achieve their own end goal not matter by what means. Lying, misleading, and failure to report all events are their methodology. Politicians engage in these half truths and I agree that all politicians no matter what ideology engage in this. But the media, the beacon of free speech and a check on despotism has become a sort of despot in their own right. A half truth told to sway opinion some might say is not really a lie but in fact it is a lie of omission. I charge all the major news agencies with this crime and for that they should be ashamed. Also I need to get another jab on the liberals here so in under this topic I will add this subtopic. If free speech is such a valuable commodity in our country and if the free market system is an essential element to a democratic society, why is it then that liberals are trying to rail road a measure through Congress known as the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act". The American people should be allowed to decide what news information they want to digest, and since they are turning away from the major news agencies in droves because of blatant biased and outright lies these same liberal demagogues want to limit the news media that they do not control i.e.: talk radio. I would submit to you that we the people are not the drone cattle you would like us to be and still can see through their attempts to mislead us.
You write in flowery phrases but your information is incorrect.
No one has introduced any kind of bill in Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Hence, itr's not possible that 'liberals are trying to rail road a measure through Congress known as the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act". I wonder how this railroading is being done if no bill has been proposed ??
I've seen this kind of statement made on FOX and other extreme biased conservative media. Another example of the liberals will take away our freedoms, raise our taxes, have government take over our lives, scare tactics of political pundits with no message, agenda or meaningful philosophy of their own. Other than the peddling of fear through half truths and outright lies.
Frankly, I think the media's biggest problem are the fearmongers not accurate reporting. If you want accurate info, a little effort is all it takes, there's plenty of sources available to all americans. The divisiveness caused by the fearmongers of both the right and the left is one of the worst things that's happened to this country over the past 16-18 years. It preys on the uninformed and gullible which I'm afraid is most of the american electorate due to sheer laziness and apathy.
No one has introduced any kind of bill in Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Hence, itr's not possible that 'liberals are trying to rail road a measure through Congress known as the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act". I wonder how this railroading is being done if no bill has been proposed ??
I've seen this kind of statement made on FOX and other extreme biased conservative media. Another example of the liberals will take away our freedoms, raise our taxes, have government take over our lives, scare tactics of political pundits with no message, agenda or meaningful philosophy of their own. Other than the peddling of fear through half truths and outright lies.
Frankly, I think the media's biggest problem are the fearmongers not accurate reporting. If you want accurate info, a little effort is all it takes, there's plenty of sources available to all americans. The divisiveness caused by the fearmongers of both the right and the left is one of the worst things that's happened to this country over the past 16-18 years. It preys on the uninformed and gullible which I'm afraid is most of the american electorate due to sheer laziness and apathy.
-
About usSlutwives.com has been around in various forms since 1996, right around the birth of the adult web. We're still striving to be the best community we can be and we need YOU to make it happen. Post your hottest cuckold and interracial moments and enjoy the company of like-minded people!
- Legal information
-
