What Makes People Vote Republican?

Page 11 of 29 [ 455 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 29 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

26 Nov 2010, 9:50 pm

Culturally superior? You mean like that bankster who hired a dwarf for a bachelor party?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

26 Nov 2010, 10:35 pm

xenon13 wrote:

Culturally superior? You mean like that bankster who hired a dwarf for a bachelor party?

What the fribble?

LKL
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 50
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

27 Nov 2010, 3:37 am

Dox47 wrote:

Just for fun...:

“There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future.”

– Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

that quote looks like there's a missing, " ...but..." on the end.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,245
Location: the island of defective toy santas

27 Nov 2010, 4:48 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Democrats make people vote republican.

and republicans make democrats [and other lefties] vote democratic.

auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 115,245
Location: the island of defective toy santas

27 Nov 2010, 4:51 am

NeantHumain wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

The lefties have a more insidious form of censorship. That is because it is not exactly censorship but it does put a chill on expression. It is good old left wing political correctness. I counteract that by being as blatantly insensitive in both word and deed as I can get a way. I actually call crippled people cripples and I call mentally ret*d people ret*ds and imbeciles, which is what they are. Better to call something what it is than what is acceptable.

So I guess what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You wouldn't be offended if you were called a grumpy old man or a teabagger?

he already indicated in his reply to me, that it is perfectly fine for him to disrespect other people, but if somebody should return him the favor he would get "a relative" to "take care" of that person. hypocrisy stinks like a big bag full of ripe bungholes.

Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

27 Nov 2010, 6:14 am

LKL wrote:

that quote looks like there's a missing, " ...but..." on the end.

You're welcome to Google away looking any excluded parts of the quote, I posted it exactly as I found it without any editing.

_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

27 Nov 2010, 9:33 am

ruveyn wrote:

Dox47 wrote:

To think that creatures like this purport to guard our liberties.

ruveyn

I think there's a bit of misinterpretation and misunderstanding here. I believe the point of the senator was that our "news" has become far removed from reality and far removed from the original purpose of news which is to simply inform the public. The corporate-owned networks are ratings whores and essentially exploiting the public by serving them crap on a fancy platter. The public eats it right up because conflict and controversy are fun. Everyone loves a good fight. How else could we explain the popularity of UFC and the garbage coming out of Jersey?

The news is supposed to hold government accountable, but who's holding our news accountable?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 9:38 am

number5 wrote:

The news is supposed to hold government accountable, but who's holding our news accountable?

The consuming public which either buys the news or does not. That is the ultimate authority, not Congress or the Courts. In the last instance, it is the People who ordain the government. There have been several revolutions in the past that make that point.

In the mean time as long as the First Amendment is the law of the land, you will just have to put up with what you consider bad news presentation. I have a recommendation: do not listen and do not watch. Problem solved......

ruveyn

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

27 Nov 2010, 10:05 am

ruveyn wrote:

number5 wrote:

The news is supposed to hold government accountable, but who's holding our news accountable?

The consuming public are not generally very intelligent. They've made Paris Hilton a star and Lindsay Lohan a top story way too many times. The general public can't even name the 3 branches of government. If the goal of the newsmakers is profit above all else, we all suffer.

I'm not advocating a shut-down of any media, and I don't believe the senator really does either. But what's going on today is a manipulation of the news. It's gone from being objective to subjective and the public is at a disservice (they're just not smart enough to realize it). People have great difficulty distinguishing an editorial from a news piece and it's a good idea to resharpen the line. There must be a way to somehow force integrity back into journalism because it's just too important to leave it solely to the consumer. We're not exactly talking about a toy or a sweater here, but rather the source by which most make their voting decisions by. Why not make a law about what can and what cannot be called "news?"

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Nov 2010, 11:06 am

number5 wrote:

So what? Being intelligent is not a legal requirement. It is not even a test requirement for having the civic right to vote.

ruveyn

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 11:33 am

number5 wrote:

The news is supposed to hold government accountable, but who's holding our news accountable?

So, somehow, news agencies are supposed to hold the government accountable, but if they say anything out of line they ought to be censored?

Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

27 Nov 2010, 12:31 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

number5 wrote:

The news is supposed to hold government accountable, but who's holding our news accountable?

So, somehow, news agencies are supposed to hold the government accountable, but if they say anything out of line they ought to be censored?

In other words they want to censor anyone that doesn't agree with them just like a dictatorship.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 12:48 pm

Inuyasha wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

number5 wrote:

The news is supposed to hold government accountable, but who's holding our news accountable?

So, somehow, news agencies are supposed to hold the government accountable, but if they say anything out of line they ought to be censored?

In other words they want to censor anyone that doesn't agree with them just like a dictatorship.

I don't know if that's what number5 meant, but when people start going on about how subsets of people ought to be silenced there will always be some politician ready to use it as a pretext. In this case, silencing news websites and stations which don't meet with approval from the Dem-wit party. However, the internet itself is a layman's press - for which it also should be allowed the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Censorship then can take on a Nazi-McCarthian flavor.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

27 Nov 2010, 12:58 pm

Settle down. No one, myself included, said anything about silencing or censoring anyone. That is nothing but a paranoid hyperbole. What I am suggesting is that we bring news back to its original purpose of objectively informing the public. There is a place for editorials, but they should be much more clearly labeled and marketed as such. News is supposed to put information over entertainment. Glen Beck shouldn't be silenced, but maybe he should be on Comedy Central.

There are accepted rules and laws about false claims that purposefully mislead the public such as false advertising laws, slander and libel laws, etc. Should we really be holding commercials to higher standards than news programs?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

27 Nov 2010, 1:09 pm

number5 wrote:

When, where, and by who was this "original purpose" of the news established? How do any measures you would suggest not override the first amendment of the bill of rights? How would anyone seek to get objectivity in politics? Even in the reporting of pure data it's still a matter as to which data is allowed to be presented and which is allowed to be hidden as to what conclusions are able to be drawn off from the set of data available.

number5
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

27 Nov 2010, 1:39 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

number5 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_ethics_and_standards

Also, the Canons of Journalism established in 1922:

ASNE's Statement of Principles was originally adopted in 1922 as the "Canons of Journalism." The document was revised and renamed "Statement of Principles" in 1975.

PREAMBLE. The First Amendment, protecting freedom of expression from abridgment by any law, guarantees to the people through their press a constitutional right, and thereby places on newspaper people a particular responsibility. Thus journalism demands of its practitioners not only industry and knowledge but also the pursuit of a standard of integrity proportionate to the journalist's singular obligation. To this end the American Society of Newspaper Editors sets forth this Statement of Principles as a standard encouraging the highest ethical and professional performance.

ARTICLE I - Responsibility. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newspapermen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.

ARTICLE II - Freedom of the Press. Freedom of the press belongs to the people. It must be defended against encroachment or assault from any quarter, public or private. Journalists must be constantly alert to see that the public's business is conducted in public. They must be vigilant against all who would exploit the press for selfish purposes.

ARTICLE III - Independence. Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity.

ARTICLE IV - Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.

ARTICLE V - Impartiality. To be impartial does not require the press to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression. Sound practice, however, demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion. Articles that contain opinion or personal interpretation should be clearly identified.

ARTICLE VI - Fair Play. Journalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond. Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly. Unless there is clear and pressing need to maintain confidences, sources of information should be identified.

These principles are intended to preserve, protect and strengthen the bond of trust and respect between American journalists and the American people, a bond that is essential to sustain the grant of freedom entrusted to both by the nation's founders.

http://asne.org/kiosk/archive/principl.htm

We have strayed way too far from these standards.

Page 11 of 29 [ 455 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 29 Next

Jump to:

What Makes People Vote Republican? Post Reply New Topic

What Makes People Vote Republican?