United States

Anyone who doesen't have the decency or consideration to listen to what people have to say, is annoying, Christian, Agnostic, etc. Being firmly rooted is one thing, but to be so close-minded that you are too stuck in all your ways will only keep you ignorant. It breeds selfishness.

i watched fox and friends yesterday and other shows on fox, i don't find it neccessary to distrust facts.

i watched fox and friends yesterday and other shows on fox, i don't find it neccessary to distrust facts.

Fox spin everything and lie out their ass.
Their "facts" are always questionable. They never fact check anything or admit when they're wrong. they're a joke.

December 21st, 2012

PGh...um...did you WATCH the vid in the original post? There were 27 examples listed, of skewing the news, & outright misinformation, right there...& I'm sure many more have been added since then, but I honestly haven't taken the time to look.

As far as listening to everyone's viewpoint, Zip, I simply don't have the time. I DO check out Fox occasionally, & the tone of their reporting makes me wanna kill someone. I probably shouldn't make it a habit, cuz I know I'm not wrapped real tight! LOL

Look, that's the thing that bugs me the most about BOTH the liberals AND the "conservatives," in this country. The tone of their delivery. Olberman can make me wanna hit someone as easily as Limbaugh. There isn't ANYONE out there who can deliver anything real & true without adding their own spin & emotions to whatever they're saying, & they ALL say it with such obvious slants that it makes everything seem quite questionable to me.

I doubt that John Chancellor or Walter Cronkite could even GET a job as newscasters, these days, because they presented things in such a fair-minded manner, in spite of their networks' slants.

We don't seem to WANT "news," anymore, if it doesn't say what we want to hear before it is said. Fox devotees will stay there, & swear by their bias forever, as wil the MSN or MSNBC followers. Many ppl seem to WANT to be angry, so they will listen to Limbaugh or Olberman & accept every word of vitriol they speak. I'm sick to death of being angry...but now I find myself angry at the newsCASTERS even more than the "news" they provide.

Fair-minded? Open-minded? Balanced? WHERE?!?!?!?

We don't have news. We have pundits. We have propaganda being FED to us in the guise of "news." Fox may be the worst of the bunch, imho, but they are only one of the bunch, in truth. They're ALL fulla sh*t.

When Cronkite & his ilk delivered the news, there were times set aside at the end of the show, never more than a minute in length, for someone's "Editorial." Now, the entirety of every news program is "editorial," i.e., opinions that they expect us to accept as fact. Far too many ppl do, those sheep among us, who are often the loudest among us (excluding, of course, yours truly!), & the media is controlling the attitude of the whole of our nation, & directing it into all the wrong directions. Wrong in terms of the Constitution. Wrong in terms of the intent of our forefathers, when they created a "free press." Wrong for each & every one of us. Wrong for how we treat each other on a personal basis, for why SHOULD we have any respect for anything or anyone, when our leaders & those we see glorified on TV every day have no respect, no regard for others? We all wanna be just like them, don't we? So successful & pretty & powerful?

We're emulating the vile sickos out there who would turn us against each other like the guy that shot the Congresswoman yesterday, or like I see in these very forums, to a lesser degree...for, as long as we're at each other's throats, we cannot band together against the ppl that would strip us of our Constitutional rights & enslave us economically & marshally.

PGh...um...did you WATCH the vid in the original post? There were 27 examples listed, of skewing the news, & outright misinformation, right there...& I'm sure many more have been added since then, but I honestly haven't taken the time to look.

As far as listening to everyone's viewpoint, Zip, I simply don't have the time. I DO check out Fox occasionally, & the tone of their reporting makes me wanna kill someone. I probably shouldn't make it a habit, cuz I know I'm not wrapped real tight! LOL

Look, that's the thing that bugs me the most about BOTH the liberals AND the "conservatives," in this country. The tone of their delivery. Olberman can make me wanna hit someone as easily as Limbaugh. There isn't ANYONE out there who can deliver anything real & true without adding their own spin & emotions to whatever they're saying, & they ALL say it with such obvious slants that it makes everything seem quite questionable to me.

I doubt that John Chancellor or Walter Cronkite could even GET a job as newscasters, these days, because they presented things in such a fair-minded manner, in spite of their networks' slants.

We don't seem to WANT "news," anymore, if it doesn't say what we want to hear before it is said. Fox devotees will stay there, & swear by their bias forever, as wil the MSN or MSNBC followers. Many ppl seem to WANT to be angry, so they will listen to Limbaugh or Olberman & accept every word of vitriol they speak. I'm sick to death of being angry...but now I find myself angry at the newsCASTERS even more than the "news" they provide.

Fair-minded? Open-minded? Balanced? WHERE?!?!?!?

We don't have news. We have pundits. We have propaganda being FED to us in the guise of "news." Fox may be the worst of the bunch, imho, but they are only one of the bunch, in truth. They're ALL fulla sh*t.

When Cronkite & his ilk delivered the news, there were times set aside at the end of the show, never more than a minute in length, for someone's "Editorial." Now, the entirety of every news program is "editorial," i.e., opinions that they expect us to accept as fact. Far too many ppl do, those sheep among us, who are often the loudest among us (excluding, of course, yours truly!), & the media is controlling the attitude of the whole of our nation, & directing it into all the wrong directions. Wrong in terms of the Constitution. Wrong in terms of the intent of our forefathers, when they created a "free press." Wrong for each & every one of us. Wrong for how we treat each other on a personal basis, for why SHOULD we have any respect for anything or anyone, when our leaders & those we see glorified on TV every day have no respect, no regard for others? We all wanna be just like them, don't we? So successful & pretty & powerful?

We're emulating the vile sickos out there who would turn us against each other like the guy that shot the Congresswoman yesterday, or like I see in these very forums, to a lesser degree...for, as long as we're at each other's throats, we cannot band together against the ppl that would strip us of our Constitutional rights & enslave us economically & marshally.

thank you for your opinion, not even you can deliver the truth without putting your own spin on the subject.

i'm an evolved being here, when i see bull sh*t i'll know, fox definently isn't.

Hey Scratchy, your new assistant has arrived


Philby wrote

"as long as we're at each other's throats, we cannot band together against the ppl that would strip us of our Constitutional rights & enslave us economically & marshally"

BINGO!!!

If this country was founded by like minded Christians as Godhead, there is no doubt that Christianity would have been declared the state religion. So just through logical elimination, we know they were NOT Christian fanatics.
.

Actually the founders were sick and tired of 'state' churches like in England. You had Catholic Maryland and Puritan Mass. quakers in RI and so on thus the aim of the constitution was to avoid setting up a state "denomination" rather than a religion. The only religion on the table then was in fact Christianity. I laugh when I hear it was about freedom of religion for religions other than Christianity - in those days the only non-Christian religion regarded with anything other than at best, amusement, was Judaism.

There was a time when it was required of the territories that they have enough of an education plan to teach people to read the Bible and with a little luck - Blackstone's Law as well. This was all taken for granted in those days. The consitution only mentions religion in that govt is to guarantee our right to practice same.

My own brand (Confessional Lutheran - the old timers) has a deep seated horror of mixing church and state which goes back to before there was a USA: the time of the reformation. Later on, after the Napoleonic wars the Kaiser decided two denominations was one too many. Which had the unitended consequence of bringing a lot of German Lutherans to the united states. We have excellent schools but routinely turn down Govt money since we don't like the strings attached.

The primary Christian aspect of the constitution is continually overlooked - Christians regard ALL men as sinners and wanted a government that did not provide fallen man with too much opportunity for venality. Hence limited govt to keep any men from obtaining the kind of power they almost always use to oppress others. the whole goal of that document was to prevent the sort of mess we have been bequeathed by those outlaws in DC. So in that way of looking at things - the constitution has been a failure.

The Christian Right as I understand it seem to support any and every war including the drug war - which has cost us more freedom than anything up until we started playing cowboys and terrorists. They know the govt is corrupt but somehow believe they are crooked on every issue except war. I don't get it. But I can tell you that they don't speak for nearly as many of us as you might think. The rest of us just don't have TV shows.

I used to write extensively about that stuff but ultimately, it's going to play out the way it plays out and I have no say in it. Just thought you all might want to know how a sure enough Bible believing Christian thinks - you'll be relieved to know I don't want to boss you around!

best
Talbot

If this country was founded by like minded Christians as Godhead, there is no doubt that Christianity would have been declared the state religion. So just through logical elimination, we know they were NOT Christian fanatics.
.

Actually the founders were sick and tired of 'state' churches like in England. You had Catholic Maryland and Puritan Mass. quakers in RI and so on thus the aim of the constitution was to avoid setting up a state "denomination" rather than a religion. The only religion on the table then was in fact Christianity. I laugh when I hear it was about freedom of religion for religions other than Christianity - in those days the only non-Christian religion regarded with anything other than at best, amusement, was Judaism.

There was a time when it was required of the territories that they have enough of an education plan to teach people to read the Bible and with a little luck - Blackstone's Law as well. This was all taken for granted in those days. The consitution only mentions religion in that govt is to guarantee our right to practice same.

My own brand (Confessional Lutheran - the old timers) has a deep seated horror of mixing church and state which goes back to before there was a USA: the time of the reformation. Later on, after the Napoleonic wars the Kaiser decided two denominations was one too many. Which had the unitended consequence of bringing a lot of German Lutherans to the united states. We have excellent schools but routinely turn down Govt money since we don't like the strings attached.

The primary Christian aspect of the constitution is continually overlooked - Christians regard ALL men as sinners and wanted a government that did not provide fallen man with too much opportunity for venality. Hence limited govt to keep any men from obtaining the kind of power they almost always use to oppress others. the whole goal of that document was to prevent the sort of mess we have been bequeathed by those outlaws in DC. So in that way of looking at things - the constitution has been a failure.

The Christian Right as I understand it seem to support any and every war including the drug war - which has cost us more freedom than anything up until we started playing cowboys and terrorists. They know the govt is corrupt but somehow believe they are crooked on every issue except war. I don't get it. But I can tell you that they don't speak for nearly as many of us as you might think. The rest of us just don't have TV shows.

I used to write extensively about that stuff but ultimately, it's going to play out the way it plays out and I have no say in it. Just thought you all might want to know how a sure enough Bible believing Christian thinks - you'll be relieved to know I don't want to boss you around!

best
Talbot

Weren't they mostly deists? Pretty sure they had one or two agnostics among 'em too, as well as Catholics, Quakers, etc.

It's cool that you're from a libertarian-leaning persuasion. The Christian Right has wa-y-y-y-y too many belligerent authoritarians running things.

Repent or suffer for eternity.

December 21st, 2012

Repent or suffer for eternity.

December 21st, 2012

Stop that! This isn't 1832.

“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” ~ George Washington

“I have often expressed my sentiments, that every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” ~ George Washington

“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” ~ Patrick Henry.

1rst Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Hmm I don’t see that interpretation here, perhaps it was Judaism they were thinking of then?

I need to learn to summarize but every time I see a self professed die hard Christian observe that the founding fathers were Christians, without fail the second assertion is that “Freedom of Religion” was for the purpose of Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. They sacrificed putting their religion as uncontested above all others, second to the freedom of pious individuals to practice religion as they wished. This should be more enough freedom, since those measures most certainly included Christianity. So are Christians some how an elevated degree above mere absolute freedom? It’s a ridiculous argument. Once equality has been achieved the only step past that, is privilege. And if the effort was to make the Christian religion "privileged" over all others, then certainly allowances would have to clearly written to clarify how far beyond simple equality, Christianity would be elevated.

That is entirely different then stating that our laws were based on an the assumption of God, that I can agree with. But the amount of religious influence was carefully balanced in an attempt to separate the church from the state. Efforts to change that balance with increased religious emphasis, will only amount to a backlash that further removes our laws from it’s base of common morality. As if the public display of the ten commandments are really unconstitutional? It’s a self destructive agenda and every time increased religious implications are forced upon the public, the results are to further remove government from it’s religious foundation.

It’s the opposite absurdity that will eventually have us removing crosses from church steeples and the word “God” stricken off of every dollar. Just like every other freedom afforded to us, eventually the attempt to include fairness to all the possible absurd and obscure fringes, will eventually amount to no freedom at all for everybody. Which although is universally fair, is hardly what I think they originally had in mind. Everyone’s personal agenda now takes precedence over their neighbor’s freedom, which is a recipe for disaster. Divide and conquer and we do it to ourselves. Phil said it better in another post.

The US media gave up their positions as bastions of truth to appeal to their handlers, whomever they may be. When Zsa Zsa Gabor slapped a cop, I had to watch the BBC to find out that Putin was trying to reconsolidate Russian power from its satellite states. Regardless of which slant appeals to you, I think it can be agreed that importance is no longer a decision of what is news worthy today. It’s alarming because the common truth can no longer be trusted if it comes off a US network. One entity, “the associated press” dictates just about all of our news, so it’s up to the individual networks to make something sensational out of the scarcity of their efforts. If left to the main stream media of today, Nixon would have enjoyed a full normal presidency.

"If left to the main stream media of today, Nixon would have enjoyed a full normal presidency."

Lalong, do you mean, like Reagan & George Bush, Sr? Or like Bush Jr, who wasn't even voted into office by popular vote (& whose electiral college should still be questioned as to its legality in this)? The "liberal" media has kept the questions of Obama's birthright in the public eye for 3 years, give or take, but the coup Bush Jr performed through the Supreme Court was virtually ignored, throughout his 2 terms, except by the "extreme left," who no one took seriously, from what I could tell.

Yep and yep and yeah. It’s sad. That story has been pushed so far into obscurity, that I even forgot about the Bush Jr. election. It’s simple profit through illusion. It’s all smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand. Oh and the domestic wire tapping, just a blatant abuse of the law: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... iretapping

What ever came of Cheney and Rumsfeld after their cherry picked intelligence dragged us into a law under false pretenses?

Here’s something I think is important and “news” worthy. This happened two years ago, but I think the importance was way overlooked:

My Nephew was in the army and out of curiosity he looked up his old unit. He was alarmed to see that the army were actually being deployed domestically. When he originally looked it up it’s was within the top results of his search. After a phone call and a lengthy conversation with myself, he couldn’t find a single link about it. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/sep20 ... -s25.shtml You remember right? Was it big news at the time? Note the source: NYT, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX? Nope, just some obscure radical publication and who would think they would be capable of reporting the truth?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/a ... d_090708w/

“Correction:
A non-lethal crowd control package fielded to 1st Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division, described in the original version of this story, is intended for use on deployments to the war zone, not in the U.S., as previously stated.”

The wink was my idea, I just wanted to make sure you were all in on the joke.

Certainly the actions of military deployment fall under national security concerns, but when those actions occur within our own borders? I might just be confused, it happens from time to time, but isn’t domestic military security the role of the National Guard? Agreed that perhaps their outdated armor and limited available number of helicopter gunships might not be enough force available in some cases, to “assist” the local agencies. Nothing says “Stop that looting!” like a hellfire missile.

Wow what else happened in 2008? Oh snap, that’s right the original government bailouts. So even if you were totally indignant of our government throwing cash at the banks, not to worry Uncle Sam has you covered, literally with the muzzle of a M16. Anyone here still delusional enough to think our government operates in fear towards the will of the people?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/criticals ... ailout.htm

Oct 1 2008 army deployment in standby, Oct 3, 2008 bank bailout.

Oh wait….....… wait for it…........ here it comes…....…. almost there…....… Healthcare. Tada!

So now we potentially have 20,000 troops of regular army trained and dedicated towards rapid domestic deployment. I cant find any recent news on how it all panned out. Since 2008 news of these developments seems scarce. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02217.html

“Domestic emergency deployment may be "just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority," or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project.”

Wow Anna Christensen good call.

So some news of something a little more recent since then, 2009:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/r ... satellites

Using “spy” satellites as a general rule usually implies the activity of “spying”. Why are we surprised every time we catch their hands in the cookie jar? You would think the first time someone was order to divert a spy satellite from foreign soil to our own backyard, there would be some sort of objection? The BBC special “Five Steps to Tyranny” covers that mentality quite well.

I don’t see a problem there, health care yeah that’s what we should be talking about. Even in Rome they didn’t allow their army within the city gates and history is full of reasons why. Since 9/11 just about every city in the country has a reactionary response team, full of professionals thoroughly trained in a terrorism scenario. But crap, I’d rather have a soldier helping me bleed to death, than a professional paramedic any day. Yeah that Obamacare is really troublesome.

So where’s that 20,000 person EMT rapid response team at? Don’t get me wrong training soldiers in emergency medical procedures makes great sense, so perhaps a week or two on medical training and response. Shall we forget though, that a military force is specifically designed for military applications? Wait I forgot, it’s all about terrorism. So silly of me, the government throws our tax dollars to the wind, they literally deploy the army in standby to quell any uprising in response, which receives “0” network coverage and it’s all about terrorists. I have arguments with my Wife about TV remotes, that make more sense.

So even though that trail of dots lead obviously to maligned implications, hey let’s make it a compliment sandwich instead. Yeah it’s for the defense against terrorists, yeah! Hooray for us! Take that Bin Laden! (It works best when done using the voice of a pouting five year old).

Oh wait a second, here I almost forgot: “Healthcare”. I know you wanted that and were waiting patiently for it.

Wow, yeah that healthcare has some profound implications and now the shootings in Arizona. I agree sincerely that it’s indeed very tragic, but it’s going to be what maybe two, three, months worth of diversion from more immediate and pending issues? Well I for one am relieved that the heat is off about airport security, which hardly tugs at our heart strings like real tragedy. Perhaps now Lindsay Lohan can finally pass into obscurity? Before anyone flies off the friggin handle. I’m not belittling the tragic shooting in Arizona, I’m just pointing out and I am absolutely certain that the network news will milk it for everything it’s worth. And if anyone here doesn’t think the rhetoric involving gun control wont eventually dominate the news, please raise your hand. Too soon? Give it a couple of weeks until after the tragedy part, fails to draw anymore ratings.

Don’t mind me I’m just an alarmists. Take what I say and step it down a couple of notches and within that area between the extreme opposite view, probably lies the truth.