[Hoosier]

I think if you take a look at Bush's record with the court regarding elements of the Iraq war you will find he is not doing so well. As for waterboarding well i guess it depends who is doing the waterboarding. I can assure you if our troops,god forbid, were being waterboarded it would be torture.

No our troops getting the **** beat out of them and then beheaded is torture.

 

[22899]

Quote:

The press is comprised of news and Editorials. The constitution doesnt distinguish.


The Papers seperate NEWS articles from the EDITORIAL section of the paper. There!!,,, is the distinction involved

Some Liberal rags, Use the front NEWS section of the paper, to cleverly disguise an Editrorial piece, full of opinion and bias as a NEWS story, just to drive their guys point home!

Right now some of these Liberal rags , are on the verge of collaps with no
credibility what so ever! People see through this crap! Even some of their own flock dont like it.

There are ETHICS when it comes to news reporting.
There are OPINIONS and axe grinding, when it comes to EDITORIALISING.

Lets not EVEN get started on the 3 Major T.V. networks SLANTED NEWS Coverage!

They too are SUFFERING ratings wise!

Gooser

 

[cotts135]

Quote:

The press is comprised of news and Editorials. The constitution doesnt distinguish.


The Papers seperate NEWS articles from the EDITORIAL section of the paper. There!!,,, is the distinction involved

Some Liberal rags, Use the front NEWS section of the paper, to cleverly disguise an Editrorial piece, full of opinion and bias as a NEWS story, just to drive their guys point home!

Right now some of these Liberal rags , are on the verge of collaps with no
credibility what so ever! People see through this crap! Even some of their own flock dont like it.

There are ETHICS when it comes to news reporting.
There are OPINIONS and axe grinding, when it comes to EDITORIALISING.

Lets not EVEN get started on the 3 Major T.V. networks SLANTED NEWS Coverage!

They too are SUFFERING ratings wise!

Gooser

I hear this claim alot from the right. Examples of favoritism are abundant on both sides. I think if comprehensive study was done it might not be as bad as we think.
The problem as I see it is that these news organizations are owned by corporate conglomerates Ie: GE Disney etc. the bottom line for these companys is always money. Now imagine that you are a reporter with either the Obama or McCain campaign and you start asking really difficult questions of the candidate. What will probably happen is you are going to piss him off and the reporters hope for any exclusive interviews is shot. There goes your access and therefore any revenue for the company.
The founding fathers saw the press in an advesarial role to the government. They had the wisdom to see that a government responsible to the people is one who will maintain the values and beliefs that this country was founded on. The press has failed this miserable. A prime example is the lead up to the Iraq war.
I think a blind faith in government pronouncements is a dangerous thing.A critical look is called for. I hope that who ever is elected the press hold them to a higher standard than what has recently been the norm and that transparency returns. I am not holding my breath

 

[22899]

Quote:
I think a blind faith in government pronouncements is a dangerous thing.A critical look is called for. I hope that who ever is elected the press hold them to a higher standard than what has recently been the norm and that transparency returns. I am not holding my breath


So NOW I'm confused with what your point is!
In your original post you were criticle of Mrs Palins understanding of the first ammendment.

You have an obvious mis uderstanding of this amendment as explained by others previously.

Now you state, that blind faith in government pronouncements a dangerouse thing, and a critical eye is what you think we need.

THAT, sir ,is exactly what Mrs Palin was doing in her comments about Mr Obama's past associations, and the Liberal medial thinks THAT is negative campaining! She is in KEEPING with YOUR own critical eye!

You cant have it both ways, or only when it benifits YOUR guy!!
Mrs Palin is demanding the truth from a candidate with a very Questionable past!

The Main street Liberal press doesnt want the question answered, or their candidate put on the spot,, SO,, NOW, MRS Palin is Negative in her Campain!-- Give me a break!

Ask Joe the Plumber what its like to put Obama on the spot!
The Liberal media went after him like stink on potato sausage!

I kinda like the questions,, and would LOVE to hear a resposible answer!

I would like to ask him, Why he has voted aginst my RIGHT to defend myself!! ---- I wonder just what the press would dig up on me??

I bet that Silly picture a me would surface agin!--Not to mention the fact, I cant spell!-- LOWLY DOOFUS that I am!

Criticle eye regards

Gooser

 

[Steve]

I can assure you if our troops,god forbid, were being waterboarded it would be torture.

Many of our troops have been waterboarded as part of training.

Guess you lost credibility on any future assurances.

 

[22899]

To all that are really well versed in the politicle arena!!

When you read Cotts and myself go at it,,
Does a vision of two court jesters wigglin their Jester hats and bells at each other come to mind??

Gooser

 

[gsc]

I think if you take a look at Bush's record with the court regarding elements of the Iraq war you will find he is not doing so well. As for waterboarding well i guess it depends who is doing the waterboarding. I can assure you if our troops,god forbid, were being waterboarded it would be torture.

I see Bush moving forward.

Terrorists don't use waterboarding, no blood, no dead bodies, no visual for reporting and shock. You must think name calling is real bad too!

 

[cotts135]

Quote:
I think a blind faith in government pronouncements is a dangerous thing.A critical look is called for. I hope that who ever is elected the press hold them to a higher standard than what has recently been the norm and that transparency returns. I am not holding my breath


So NOW I'm confused with what your point is!
In your original post you were criticle of Mrs Palins understanding of the first ammendment.

You have an obvious mis uderstanding of this amendment as explained by others previously.

Now you state, that blind faith in government pronouncements a dangerouse thing, and a critical eye is what you think we need.

THAT, sir ,is exactly what Mrs Palin was doing in her comments about Mr Obama's past associations, and the Liberal medial thinks THAT is negative campaining! She is in KEEPING with YOUR own critical eye!

You cant have it both ways, or only when it benifits YOUR guy!!
Mrs Palin is demanding the truth from a candidate with a very Questionable past!

The Main street Liberal press doesnt want the question answered, or their candidate put on the spot,, SO,, NOW, MRS Palin is Negative in her Campain!-- Give me a break!

Ask Joe the Plumber what its like to put Obama on the spot!
The Liberal media went after him like stink on potato sausage!

I kinda like the questions,, and would LOVE to hear a resposible answer!

I would like to ask him, Why he has voted aginst my RIGHT to defend myself!! ---- I wonder just what the press would dig up on me??

I bet that Silly picture a me would surface agin!--Not to mention the fact, I cant spell!-- LOWLY DOOFUS that I am!

Criticle eye regards

Gooser

Hey Moose
Again you misunderstand my point. First Gov Palin is the government. Being governor and running for Vice president kinda puts you in that category. Second with what she said on Friday she is calling out the press's right to question her with what she says.
When I speak of not having Blind faith in government pronouncements I am speaking as a citizen questioning the government. So it is not actually having it both ways. What Gov. Palin is doing is questioning the press's right to question her or be critical of her. That is a right guaranteed in the Constitution.
Thanks Moose for keeping an eye on me.............

 

[cotts135]

Many of our troops have been waterboarded as part of training.

Steve
I would love to know how you know that to be fact.

 

[22899]

Cotts!
Mrs Palin is a REPRESENTATIVE of the people. (a mere Govenor)

A majority has elected her. They want her to ask the questions they would most like see answered!

Mrs Palin isnt THE government. She is just one small entity that represents a group of people.

SHE wants the press to take her questions that are put to her opponent, have them printed or recored in some way, in a NON BIASED, Factual manner.

SHE wants to see her opponent ANSWER those questions, and the response be documented the same way.--FACTUALLY

What she is criticle about now, is that the Mainstreet media, refuses to print the facts, but instead fills its NEWS collums and reports with Opinions of her being "Negative" with her campain,(attacking her) because of questions put to her opponent that I for one would like to see answered resposibly and honestly. I dont need the press to decide to tell me She is negative in her campain,, I'll decide that, when the FACTS are printed.

To the Press, from Mr Gooser!
Keep your OPINIONS to your self! I've got a pair, and I'll create my own opinions based on fact! Thank you very much! You know that you have dragged Mrs Palin through the sewer, I think Shes handled it pretty well.
Now SHE asks some legitimate questions about her actual opponent and now SHE"S negative??? OH PLEASE!


Oh and Cotts! I dont think Mrs Palin is being criticl at all about the Press's "RIGHT" to question her with what she said, She critcle of them attacking HER and calling her negative. In fact out of two parties we hve a choice to elect, I'd say Mrs Palin's party has a better understanding of the Constitution (than YOU DO, re-read your original post), and keeping Government, and its PRONOUNCEMENTS, small and under a watchfull, criticle eye!
In fact, If I understand her corectly,, its the basis of the McCain/Palin platform!

Gooser

 

[cotts135]

Oh and Cotts! I dont think Mrs Palin is being criticl at all about the Press's "RIGHT" to question her with what she said, She critcle of them attacking HER and calling her negative.


Gooser

Your right about that she is being critical on what she believes are negative attacks But here is her quote:"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

It's the latter part of this quote that I have issues with:"then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." The media has the right to question her anyway they like no matter what you might think. It doesn't matter whether it is negative or not . The way I read it is that she should be able to say what she want's without question because if she can't the first amendment is in jeopardy. The issue of this being negative is irrelevant here. Moose do you think she should be able to say anything without question? If you do would you think the other side should also have that right?

 

[Bruce MacPherson]

Your right about that she is being critical on what she believes are negative attacks But here is her quote:"If [the media] convince enough voters that that is negative campaigning, for me to call Barack Obama out on his associations," Palin told host Chris Plante, "then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media."

It's the latter part of this quote that I have issues with:"then I don't know what the future of our country would be in terms of First Amendment rights and our ability to ask questions without fear of attacks by the mainstream media." The media has the right to question her anyway they like no matter what you might think. It doesn't matter whether it is negative or not . The way I read it is that she should be able to say what she want's without question because if she can't the first amendment is in jeopardy. The issue of this being negative is irrelevant here. Moose do you think she should be able to say anything without question? If you do would you think the other side should also have that right?

I heard her comments and what I thought she was referring to was the presses apparent attempt to stifle opposition to what they feel they have a vested interest in. Now obviously they can't actually stop her right to free speech but what is the first thing leaders of countries that are not Democracies or have leaders that are trying to keep control of a population do, they have absolute control of the press. The danger, it seems to me, is that a political party and a sympathetic press can in effect certainly severely limit or suppress dissenting view points.
If you don't think this is the case I would suggest that you pay attention to what I think will be one of the first items of business in an Obama and Democrat controlled House and Senate and that would be the re instituting of the Fairness Doctrine. While it sounds innocuous enough it will in reality do a great deal to silence the conservative voices that are not represented in the main stream media. While perhaps not violating the First Amendment from a technical standpoint I would suggest that it would have the same effect.

 

[Patrick Johndrow]

There is a big difference from reporting news,, and EDITORIALISING.

News SHOULD be Fact, no bias, or opinion.

Editorial,, is just the opposite.

Seems to me We have much more editorials disguised as NEWS!

Gooser

I agree 100% and that is why we as citizens have the obligation to seek the truth. Each political party has its supporters in today media proving up an agenda instead of reporting the news. I personally find the CNNs and Fox news of the world insulting. Until we as citizens/owners of this country demand honesty we will never get it.

 

[Uncle Bill]

This election will be the largest divider of our citizens we have ever seen. There will be no winners. When the Democrats get in, they will continue to blame Bush for their ineptness at leading the nation. All their sheeple will concur, finding no wrong in the abilities of Reid and Palosi.

This is the easiest "I told you so" ever invented by an election.

And while there will be no winners, there will be a loser. THE SYCOPHANTIC MAIN STREAM PRESS! Even the most staunch Democrats I know are conceding the press, along with the 3 major TV organizations, along with all the cable news networks except Fox, are in the tank for the left. I wouldn't believe an A.P. story again, if it were enacted out in front of my eyes. And with what the colleges and universitys in this country are putting out, don't expect any changes in presenting the truth for another generation. Hellsbells, they can't even find out why BHO hasn't produced a legal birth certificate yet. Go figure.

UB

 

[kjrice]

I agree 100% and that is why we as citizens have the obligation to seek the truth. Each political party has its supporters in today media proving up an agenda instead of reporting the news. I personally find the CNNs and Fox news of the world insulting. Until we as citizens/owners of this country demand honesty we will never get it.

Well said.

 

[JDogger]

they can't even find out why BHO hasn't produced a legal birth certificate yet. Go figure.UB

 

[cotts135]

I heard her comments and what I thought she was referring to was the presses apparent attempt to stifle opposition to what they feel they have a vested interest in. Now obviously they can't actually stop her right to free speech but what is the first thing leaders of countries that are not Democracies or have leaders that are trying to keep control of a population do, they have absolute control of the press. The danger, it seems to me, is that a political party and a sympathetic press can in effect certainly severely limit or suppress dissenting view points.

Well stated and couldn't agree more. A pliant manipulative press is just as dangerous as one that is suppressed, maybe more so.

 

[gsc]

Well stated and couldn't agree more. A pliant manipulative press is just as dangerous as one that is suppressed, maybe more so.

So we all agree, the mainstream press has suppressed and continues to refuse to report or reveal the truth. That is what Palin was commenting on. The press is abusing the first ammendment in denying that freedom to information independent of the government. They are becoming the fourth arm of the government, so who will protect us from them? When they collude with a faction of the government, where do we turn? That is Sarah's question and mine.

 

[paul young]

UB,

you mean the way the GOP blames everything on the Clinton administration?

8 years of Bush/Cheney and they are responsible for.......nothing?-Paul

 

[Uncle Bill]

UB,

you mean the way the GOP blames everything on the Clinton administration?

8 years of Bush/Cheney and they are responsible for.......nothing?-Paul

I'm certain you know what I'm talking about, Paul. The "Obama Ubber Alles" crowd is sure he is the Second Coming, and will wave his magic wand to fix everything. But we know he won't succeed that easily, so when he doesn't, his 'reason' will be to blame Bush...for any of his failures.

BTW, Paul, I never realized you had been so deprived of the good life these past 8 years. I hope the next 8 will make you well again.

UB