Printable View
Alright, I was listening to Bill O'Reilly on my way to work, and he was discussing about the media and how it's out of control.
He mentioned how the checks and balances work.
The President is checked by both the Supreme Court and Congress.
The Congress is checked by the Supreme Court.
The People are checked by the Law of the Land.
About practically everything is checked by the Media.
But there's nothing that checks on the Media.
What gives?
You check the media.
If they do crap you don't like, you can stop watching, then they'll lose ratings and money, which might make them rethink what they're doing.
Ironically, state-run media is the best solution for that, provided there is a true, multi-party democracy in action. The BBC is by far the best and most balanced news organisation I've come across.
Actually, what I'd do is hire a mix of libs and conservs and send one of each on every story. Between the liberal and the conservative, I would think that the bias could be dealt with. I'd try to have the stories go much farther in depth, as in give the team 2-3 weeks to dig around and get all the relevant facts. The reason being is that anyone who wants to can find out almost immediately what's going on on the web. Hell you can't even fart without it being out up in a blog somewhere on the web, so by going in depth on the story, you can make people come to you for info, as a suppliment to what is actually on the web. The big scoops are all taken. Go for depth.
Kane, you are awesome and I love you. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
In my opinion, The Daily Show checks the media more than anything else out there. They've gotten much more edgy toward the media lately, which is a good thing.
Take care all.
The media isn't part of the government. Technically the checks and balances was deisgned by the American founding fathers so that each of the three branches is checked and balanced by the other two in many ways like the following:
presidents vetoing a bill passed by Congress
Senate confirming executive appointments
the judiciary declaring the constitutionality of laws (which I don't think is actually specifically spelled out in the Constitution, really the Constitution just allows for the judiciary to interpret the laws, and Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted that to mean the judiciary could nullify laws it felt went against the Constitution.)
President appoints judges/justices, and the Senate must approve.
etc.
Elections have nothing to do with checks and balances. That's just part of democracy, and so is a free and independent media.
Yeah, but let's not forget that the People are checked by the Laws that are enforced upon them. The People are not free to do everything they want, because there's the law. However, I'm not saying that the Media should say whatever they want, but there's not that's keeping it in Balance, except the Media itself.
Is there a Media police that censors what some of the Media is going to say? There is the FCC, but that has no real power over the entire Media industry.
well, I get checked by the fact that I don't have enough money to buy everything I might want to buy, but that doesn't have much to do with the governmental principle of checks and balances either.
there are slander and libel laws that protect against malicious falsehoods being spread about someone through broadcast or print.
No it doesn't, and I'm not talking about the government. I mostly want to talk about the Media, and why there isn't anything that's keeping it under control. Kane said that we keep it under control. If we don't watch or listen to them, they would stop. But who's going to force everyone to follow this? It's impossible to stop the Media using Kane's method.
First of all, I very much disagree that a state-run media is the best option. By its very definition, such a media is under the control of the government, and not only is the government not always (or even almost always) our buddy, but its goals are often in opposition to those of the people--for that government to control the news is a bad, bad thing.
On the contrary, it may well be impossible for a media organization to remain unbiased--people feel strongly about what they believe in; and if you're a reporter, observing the goings-on in the world as a matter of career, it's likely that you will feel even more strongly about what you believe and what you see. And indeed, the New York Times or NBC has the right to be as left-leaning as they want. The problem is when they're dishonest about this bias, and falsely advertise to the public that they are non-biased, strictly objectionist reporters of events.
If you want to know what's actually going on in the world, you check a variety of sources--if what someone says doesn't make sense, look it up and see whether or not they have the straight of it.
Marbury vs. Madison--1812, if I remember right. However, this may be a problem, because the checks and balances were arranged with the idea that the judiciary would be a branch of little importance--and after Marbury vs. Madison, the judiciary has more power to make or anull law than either of the other two branches (and while I realize that a court cannot pass a law, they can make a decision and demand that a law be passed to support it, such as when the Surpreme Court of Massechussettes legalized homosexual marriage and gave the legislature six months to pass a law complying with their ruling); which is why fights over nominees can be so bitter. I'm not sure what would be necessary to fix that, but my leaning is to make judges popularly elected like our other law-making officials--which, in turn, would require an amendment to the Constitution, and seeing as few people see it the way I do (as of yet, at least), that's not going to happen any time soon.Quote:
the judiciary declaring the constitutionality of laws (which I don't think is actually specifically spelled out in the Constitution, really the Constitution just allows for the judiciary to interpret the laws, and Chief Justice John Marshall interpreted that to mean the judiciary could nullify laws it felt went against the Constitution.)
but your dealing with a group of people.You realise that a gorup of people and a individual is completely different.es individuals watch it and tune on.But you have too many poeple that watch only a certain news station .SO many of them that.Really.No media company will lose money if the smart ones stop watching.Quote:
Originally Posted by MecaKane
Yes, Marbury v Madison established that the judiciary could deem a law unconstitutional. It is true the founding fathers made the judiciary rather weak (whether by intent or just by happenstance I don't know. maybe they just didn't have much practice at the whole government-making game and failed to adequately outline the powers of the judiciary.) Anyway, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and he quit basically because he thought the job was pointless and had no real power. John Marshall succeeded him and set out to make the judiciary have more defined powers. I think in general his judicial reivew and establishment of the rule of law was a very good thing for the US, although it certainly can and has been abused with suspect rulings and some judicial oversteps. Then again, the judicial branch certainly is not without peer in this sense considering the myriad executive and legislative oversteps through the years.
Anyway, the media is checked by both laws supposedly preventing mendacious reporting and by the general sense of believability. When a media source loses credibility it loses everything. I think our media is currently headed down that path and we shall see what the result is.
Proto--
The media is not a government agency, and therefore the government has no power to provide 'checks and balances' on them.
Market forces will not take away every viewer of NBC or CBS, but they do have an effect, and in fact many of the big news organizations are feeling the pressure--this is why FOX News is blowing them out of the water, and I believe it will continue to do so unless some of them change their ways.
The best option, I believe, for halting the excesses of the media is to change libel law so that a media organization is as liable for action because of libel or slander as any other company--currently, if a newspaper says something untrue that causes great harm, it's very, very difficult to sue them for it. This won't stop (and like I said, I believe nothing can, and quite possibly nothing should stop) general bias, but it will stop many of the most egregrious abuses.
Rather than the media being granted special dispensation under the First Amendment, I believe it should be realized and made policy that the rights of free speech and free press are the right of every citizen of the United States equally, and no organization or person should have greater or lesser access to these rights.
Something we can agree on!
What i dont understand is, Why would you want the media to have checks and balances? Why would you want the media to be censored? That just doesnt make any sense to me. The media is an extention of our first amemndment rights. There can be NO checks against it! Doing so would put our right to free speach at risk.
the problem is the media often acts irresponsibly and can even shape reality just by broadcasting imagined reality. Granted, it is up to the individual to absorb and judge all information provided by the media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eestlinc
But, that still 100 times better than having the government strictly control the media. I'd rather have the media sometimes act irresponisbly than to have the government use it as a tool to sprout its propaganda down my throat (Blatantly that is).
i agree to that as well. however the real problem isn't the government controlling the media as much as the same people or groups controlling both the government and the media.
I am extremely amused that Bill O'Reilly, a member OF the media, is bashing the media.
In any event, the media is checked by the following:
The need to make money.
The media exists at the mercy of the people. If people don't buy what the media says, the media doesn't make money, and the media ceases to exist. Unfortunately that leads to the need for sensationalism, but so long as people are willing to give the media that power, the media is going to use it.
Instead of saying "someone needs to check the media" why not say "darn it, I don't like what the media is doing and I'm going to DO something about it."
I mean really. I've said this before and I shall say it again. We ARE taught ethics. It's not like the entire institution of the media is a soulless business that exists to slander anybody it disagrees with. We're taught to act with professionalism and we're taught how to report in as unbiased a manner as possible. Doesn't always turn out that way, of course, but it is how we're supposed to act. If you don't think that's true, then do something about it. In the age of the internet, it isn't as hard to rally people and take action as it was long ago. And remember, centuries ago people were able to rally whole ARMIES to change what they thought needed to be changed. I'm sure if you think it that bad you can do SOMETHING about it.
The BBC are sickeningly pro-Labour, especially since the Hutton Report, when they've not dared say a word against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skogs
Actually it's not really quite so simple. Most (all?) media is regulated by Ofcom, which puts strict regulations on how politics is portrayed. For instance, if you wish to interview a member of a political party, you have to give notice to the other parties so they can give a response.
And if you watched the election coverage, Paxman was bashing Labour as badly as he was the Tories and the Lib Dems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/presente...tos/paxman.jpg
<3
Of course it's possible, they don't cancel TV shows when their ratings are exactly 0. If a significant ammount of people stop watching or listening, the media outlets will do what they can to get them back. As I heard on an episode of Boston Public; the media is a business free to sell whatever product they want, and the people are free to buy or not buy it. And if they want to buy crap, that's their problem. Just like it's their problem if they elect a crooked congress and president (And Supreme Court? Well some crooked dick they elected could appoint them to serve his interests if it's not directly set by the people). And the parties will nominate a crooked guy for president if they think he can win.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent Proto
Paxman, with the exception of the now retiring John Humphreys, is the only unbiased BBC interviewer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skogs
But during the elections, I was finding it interesting what stories the BBC covered. For example, they made a story out of how some Tory MPs said Michael Howard was too extreme, whereas I don't recall them having the story that Labour made anti-semitic posters about Howard and Letwin (Putting their heads onto pigs), which differs from other channels.
psy is right there is an obvious liberal bias in the BBC ranks it's not an intentional thing its just the only people who seem to want to work for the bbc come from liberal bents and hence they favour the left.
besides i dont' watch bbc news i watch sky news, give me a news station that is run on capitilism any day.
Granted, through such acts as Executive Priviledge (first invoked by Eisenhower), each branch of the government--and the government as a whole--has far overstepped the bounds it was created within. However, the Judiciary branch is a law unto itself. Once a federal judge is appointed, they have the power to abolish, create, or change any law they want, and there is nothing that anyone can do about it.Quote:
Then again, the judicial branch certainly is not without peer in this sense considering the myriad executive and legislative oversteps through the years.
Due mainly to Republican spinelessness, a very sizable majority of judges are liberal, and it's no surprise that the majority of liberal policies inflicted upon our nation were brought to power not at the ballot but through the judiciary--even Planned Parenthood admits that abortion, for example, would be banned in the majority of states either immediately after or within a year of any Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade.
"Due mainly to Republican spinelessness, a very sizable majority of judges are liberal, and it's no surprise that the majority of liberal policies inflicted upon our nation were brought to power not at the ballot but through the judiciary--even Planned Parenthood admits that abortion, for example, would be banned in the majority of states either immediately after or within a year of any Supreme Court decision overturning Roe vs. Wade."
I don't see how policies can be "inflicted" upon a nation as that gives it the message that some great harm is being placed upon the country. Judges, regardless of anything else, intepret the law, they don't "inflict" policies one way or the other. Whether we like it or not, opinion has little say in how law is intepreted. Judges, whether they tend to shift to the right or left have to intepret the law as they see fit and if they do blatantly shift to one side or the other they shouldn't be on the bench.
Also, keep in mind that the Supreme Court is the court of the entire country, so it must intepret the law for the good of the entire country, not just for selected states, in either direction.
Take care all.
:D That's exactly the message I intended to give.Quote:
don't see how policies can be "inflicted" upon a nation as that gives it the message that some great harm is being placed upon the country.
And herein is the problem. They are supposed to simply interpret the law, but we end up with judges who tell a mother she can't teach any of Christianity to her daughter unless someone's reviewed it, or overturn jury verdicts because the jury was sequestered in a hotel room where they had access to Bibles, or just about anything done by the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.Quote:
Judges, regardless of anything else, intepret the law, they don't "inflict" policies one way or the other. Whether we like it or not, opinion has little say in how law is intepreted. Judges, whether they tend to shift to the right or left have to intepret the law as they see fit and if they do blatantly shift to one side or the other they shouldn't be on the bench.
That's only half the issue though, the reverse is also true, as you have judges basing law directly out of the Bible which is also not what should be done.
Take care all.
Which judge is basing law directly out of the Bible?Quote:
That's only half the issue though, the reverse is also true, as you have judges basing law directly out of the Bible which is also not what should be done.
At least 4 of the Supreme Court justices have been quoted as saying that the Bible is just as good of a place to look for law as the Constitution. In addition, on several instances, the "Culture Of Life" phrase has been thrown around, a phrase which is born directly out of the Christian Conservative right.
Take care all.
And is thus not acceptable, just as citing the Koran or the Torah or the Book of Mormon is unacceptable.Quote:
At least 4 of the Supreme Court justices have been quoted as saying that the Bible is just as good of a place to look for law as the Constitution. In addition, on several instances, the "Culture Of Life" phrase has been thrown around, a phrase which is born directly out of the Christian Conservative right.
Which justices said this? When, and where can I find it?Quote:
At least 4 of the Supreme Court justices have been quoted as saying that the Bible is just as good of a place to look for law as the Constitution.
You're accusing them of saying something also said by Christians?Quote:
In addition, on several instances, the "Culture Of Life" phrase has been thrown around, a phrase which is born directly out of the Christian Conservative right.
"Which justices said this? When, and where can I find it?"
Scalia, Stevens, Bryer and Ginsburg have all been quoted as saying this when they were interviewed by various news organizations, specifically the AP and Reuters. Watch C-Span when they get interviewed, as it almost inevitably comes up for some reason.
"You're accusing them of saying something also said by Christians?"
Not accusing, as they did say it, specifically Scalia when asked about his thoughts on abortion. Considering that this phrase was something that has become a stable of the Christian Right (originally coined by John Paul II but tweaked by Reagan and Karl Rove not to include war or the death penalty) it is in my opinion that judges, who are supposed to be unbiased; though if you ask Tom DeLay or the other senator from Texas whose name escapes me they'd say otherwise; should not be making reference to it. In the same way a judge should not quote phrases from the Left as Rehnquist has from time to time.
Take care all.
I'm sorry, but this idea seems, to me, at least, to be be rather... different... No offense intended, but I'd really like to see for myself where they said such a thing before I believe it--especially since if it's the case, than it would be an issue that crosses political lines, seeing as Scalia and Ginsburg are at basically opposite ends of the political spectrum.Quote:
Scalia, Stevens, Bryer and Ginsburg have all been quoted as saying this when they were interviewed by various news organizations, specifically the AP and Reuters. Watch C-Span when they get interviewed, as it almost inevitably comes up for some reason.
Moreover, even if they believe that about the Bible, it doesn't mean they've been basing law out of the Bible--there are many issues where judges or other officials may believe strongly one way and act anther way because it's the oath they took when they took the job.
I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use ( :D To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.) is therefore going to make biased judgements from the bench is a bit of a stretch.Quote:
Considering that this phrase was something that has become a stable of the Christian Right (originally coined by John Paul II but tweaked by Reagan and Karl Rove not to include war or the death penalty) it is in my opinion that judges, who are supposed to be unbiased; though if you ask Tom DeLay or the other senator from Texas whose name escapes me they'd say otherwise; should not be making reference to it. In the same way a judge should not quote phrases from the Left as Rehnquist has from time to time.
...Proto, you listen to Bill-smurfing-O'Reilly?
Nothing checks the media because there's this little thing called the First Amendment. The media is an outlet of the people - it is not part of the government, nor does it work for the government. There is nothing to check and balance with it. Everything is checking by the media, because the media is controlled by the people - the people provide the ultimate check for everything in the government.
When have the judges committed such liberal atrocities?Quote:
I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use ( :D To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.) is therefore going to make biased judgements from the bench is a bit of a stretch.
"I'm sorry, but this idea seems, to me, at least, to be be rather... different... No offense intended, but I'd really like to see for myself where they said such a thing before I believe it--especially since if it's the case, than it would be an issue that crosses political lines, seeing as Scalia and Ginsburg are at basically opposite ends of the political spectrum."
I was as surprised as you when Ginsberg agreed with Scalia on this, but don't fall into the trap that our society has and assume that that when you're a liberal you must be anti-religion. Apparently, Ginsberg is a highly religious woman herself.
"I think if you're looking for judges to be unbiased, you've lost the battle already (and in the state of Colorado, you've lost it to a sickening degree). Theoretically, however--in their off-time, it shouldn't matter if they're sacrificing goats to Rush Limbaugh; it's the decisions they make on the bench that are important, and, after all, what they've been hired for. If, for example, a conservative judge were basing a judgement out of the Bible in opposition to the Constitution, then there would--and should!--be a huge public outcry. But so far the virtual atrocities committed by judges on the legal system have been on the left side of the aisle. (and with no such outcry, but I've already made my feelings on the media obvious...) But to assume that a judge who uses a phrase conservatives use ( :D To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.) is therefore going to make biased judgements from the bench is a bit of a stretch."
My point is that overturning Woe V Wade would be a political message morseo than something based on law because, as I see it, when a judge on the Supreme Court starts sounding like a politican in Washington, as in, saying that the "culture of life must be protected" instead of saying, "The Constitution must be upheld", that's where the problem is. It's too much of a coincidence for a Justice to be repeating catchphrases out of Washington for it to not go unchecked, and that goes either way. If another Justice started saying that they were going to rule against a Republican idea and then gave their reason for it as some Democratic catchphrase, I'd expect and express equal outrage.
Yet, the Justices have thus far done a good job in remaining out of the political spectrum in recent memory as they rightly declined to rule in the Schiavo case and have not backed the Republican outcry about stopping the Democrat's filibusters. We shall see what happens here.
Take care all.
The implication here that only conservatives respect life is so asinine it's laughable.Quote:
( :D To me, the fact that respecting life marks them as a conservative is more telling, anyway.)
I'm glad you asked...Quote:
When have the judges committed such liberal atrocities?
In Colorado, Rhonda Malone, a cocktail waitress, was driving home one night in a blizzard when her car broke down. A man by the name of Ron Harlan stopped and raped her. After two hours of hell that I refuse to even attempt to imagine, she managed to escape, and was picked up by Jackie Creazza. Harlan chased after her car shooting--the chase ended when Jackie was hit by a bullet in the spine, paralyzing her for life, and Rhonda's body was found under a bridge a week later.
Harlan was caught and arrested, and after the evidence was reviewed, a jury sentenced him to death. The judge overturned the verdict, on the basis that the jury had access to Bibles in the hotel room where they were sequestered, and this may have influenced their opinion. (The judgement was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
Cheryl Clark was a lesbian, living with Elsey McLeod, when she became a Christian. Recognizing Christianity's teachings regarding homosexuality, she broke up with her girlfriend. During the time they were together, Cheryl had adopted a child, and her lesbian partner sued for custody.
McLeod had not taken part in the adoption and had no right to custody, but the judge granted her not just visitation but joint custody on the basis that she was a "psychological parent", and furthermore ordered her to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." (emphasis mine). She's appealing the decision, but in the meantime she can't take her child to church with her for fear the preacher might mention sexual purity. Meanwhile, McCleod is not restricted in any way from bashing her former partner's religion.
Tell that to 45 million dead babies.Quote:
The implication here that only conservatives respect life is so asinine it's laughable.
Or the millions of Arabs killed in our little wars to provide ourselves with a staging ground for which to invade Iran.Quote:
Tell that to 45 million dead babies.
And a little thing here. Being against abortion doesn't suddenly make one conservative, it's ONE issue. Just because conservatives tend to champion it doesn't suddenly make them the paragon of virtue and goodness in the world.
Exactly, it was overturned.Quote:
Harlan was caught and arrested, and after the evidence was reviewed, a jury sentenced him to death. The judge overturned the verdict, on the basis that the jury had access to Bibles in the hotel room where they were sequestered, and this may have influenced their opinion. (The judgement was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
I agree - that's not right.Quote:
McLeod had not taken part in the adoption and had no right to custody, but the judge granted her not just visitation but joint custody on the basis that she was a "psychological parent", and furthermore ordered her to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." (emphasis mine). She's appealing the decision, but in the meantime she can't take her child to church with her for fear the preacher might mention sexual purity. Meanwhile, McCleod is not restricted in any way from bashing her former partner's religion.
Do you have any Supreme Court examples? There's so many judges in the district courts, I could find a dozen nutjob conservative or nutjob liberal rulings with a google search.
I won't get into the abortion thing here, but suffice to say that there's no factual, logical reason that life begins at conception. And don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that the vast majority of anti-abortion activists are male, while females tend to be pro-abortion?Quote:
Tell that to 45 million dead babies.
Also, where medical ethics are concerned, quality of life vs. life, conservatives tend to lean towards the "quality of life" side. Just a different way "pro-life" can be interpreted, which is all the more reason to abolish this "pro-life" and "pro-choice" nonsense.
First, the "millions" number is exponentially incorrect. Second, are you really trying to claim that we invaded the nation with the fourth largest army in the world so that we could have a 'staging ground' to invade a nation that we already have a border to via Afghanistan?Quote:
Or the millions of Arabs killed in our little wars to provide ourselves with a staging ground for which to invade Iran.
Actually, there's plenty--but if the benefit of the doubt is good enough for convicted murderers, then isn't it good enough for infants?Quote:
I won't get into the abortion thing here, but suffice to say that there's no factual, logical reason that life begins at conception.
Moreover, in most states, if you murder a woman who is pregnant and the child dies, you're charged with two murders--the woman, and the child. Yet if the woman herself has the child killed, it's perfectly legal. Does it bother you none at all that whether the child is a human being and deserving of all confluent rights or a mass of tissue not even worthy of the right to life is decided by whether or not someone else wants that child to live?
Actually, according to Planned Parenthood's own numbers, women tend to oppose abortion more than men. The highest support for abortion comes from men aged 18-34... the men most likely to get a woman pregnant and (if she doesn't have an abortion) end up paying child support.Quote:
And don't you find it the least bit disconcerting that the vast majority of anti-abortion activists are male, while females tend to be pro-abortion?
Great! Let's see one.Quote:
There's so many judges in the district courts, I could find a dozen nutjob conservative... rulings with a google search.
And thank god somebody is doing the right thing!Quote:
Harlan was caught and arrested, and after the evidence was reviewed, a jury sentenced him to death. The judge overturned the verdict, on the basis that the jury had access to Bibles in the hotel room where they were sequestered, and this may have influenced their opinion. (The judgement was later overturned by the Colorado Supreme Court.)
But then again, I am an evil, mindless liberal. After all, I am opposed to murder.
I'm not trying to claim it, I AM claiming it. I've friends in the military who've confirmed this. It's quite strategic really. We're closing our bases in Germany, and we're constructing many, many more bases in Iraq (which is where a good deal of the money is going. Well, that and restitutions for the stuff in Iraq we accidentally blew up). We have Iran cornered, and we have the perfect staging ground for a military operation. Furthermore, you'll note that every once in awhile the media will mention something negative about Iran. This is a tried-and-true tactic, it's "softening" the American people up for the idea of war.Quote:
First, the "millions" number is exponentially incorrect. Second, are you really trying to claim that we invaded the nation with the fourth largest army in the world so that we could have a 'staging ground' to invade a nation that we already have a border to via Afghanistan?
I told you guys all about this when I mentioned the project for the new american century a while back. Of course, that is all just a conspiracy theory. Uh huh...Quote:
I'm not trying to claim it, I AM claiming it. I've friends in the military who've confirmed this. It's quite strategic really. We're closing our bases in Germany, and we're constructing many, many more bases in Iraq
(I would like to add, once more, that those who take part in the project for a new american century all support Bush, they are all conservatives, and they are all proponents of the Iraq war, and they will all be proponents of the war with Iran when it happens. These guys in no way have any "liberal bias".)
"Actually, there's plenty"
Do you have information for that? To the best of my knowledge, there is no technology in existence which can prove or disprove when life begins.
Take care all.
While it is indeed not proven either way, there is indeed evidence that life begins, if not at the point of conception, than soon after. And certainly, doesn't an infant deserve the benefit of the doubt if anyone does?Quote:
Do you have information for that? To the best of my knowledge, there is no technology in existence which can prove or disprove when life begins.
It still is. :D You just have company....Quote:
I told you guys all about this when I mentioned the project for the new american century a while back. Of course, that is all just a conspiracy theory. Uh huh...
I also support Bush. I'm conservative, I'm a proponent of the Iraq war, and if war with Iran ever happens I'll be (quite correctly) saying "Hell, I said we shoulda done this years ago!". I also think that the US ought to invade North Korea, Myanmar, and Sudan, for starters, and cut off all trade with China until they drop their one-child forced-abortion policy, quit using slave labor, and otherwise generally acknowledge that their citizens are human beings. That doesn't mean that Bush is planning to do any or all these things. I'd like to note, once more, that suggestions from a supporter do not a conspiracy make.Quote:
(I would like to add, once more, that those who take part in the project for a new american century all support Bush, they are all conservatives, and they are all proponents of the Iraq war, and they will all be proponents of the war with Iran when it happens. These guys in no way have any "liberal bias".)
I'd feel more comforable believing your source if there was a credible medical backing as a part of it. From the looks of it, it was a report filed by someone with no actual medical degree or background, which to me, makes it just another opinion, and not hard evidence.
I'm not doubting your beliefs, but my beliefs are strengthened by the fact that no actual scientific evidence from the medical community has proven conclusively one way or the other.
Take care all.
Seeing as it's a cited report from a university, I thought it sufficient, but here's one from a rather well-renowned geneticist.Quote:
'd feel more comforable believing your source if there was a credible medical backing as a part of it.
And may or may not ever be--especially since there will always be a few scientists or doctors out there to which "conclusively" means "enough to convince OJ's jury". But again, shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?Quote:
I'm not doubting your beliefs, but my beliefs are strengthened by the fact that no actual scientific evidence from the medical community has proven conclusively one way or the other.
More than the judge was, I hope.Quote:
And thank god somebody is doing the right thing!
But then again, I am an evil, mindless liberal. After all, I am opposed to murder.
But even assuming you figure the overturning of the death sentence was a good thing on general principle, can you agree that "the jury may have read the Bible" is a bad method for coming to that decision?
:pQuote:
Originally Posted by The Redneck
If you were to have read just page one you would realize that I am right. But I can understand why you don't. It really sucks when you realize you are wrong. :D
Maybe I just don't follow you... I don't understand your argument here.Quote:
And may or may not ever be--especially since there will always be a few scientists or doctors out there to which "conclusively" means "enough to convince OJ's jury". But again, shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?
Oh yeah, and last I checked, OJ was not a convicted murderer.
"shouldn't an infant have at least as much benefit of the doubt as convicted murderers?"
That depends on what you define as an "infant". I don't believe an egg and sperm to be an infant. Yet, I think there should be a law that makes abortions after the first 3 months, which is when science CAN prove that life exists, illegal, so we can agree there at least.
That new page you cited had a very obvious agenda, unfortunately. It's getting harder and harder to find any evidence that is without an agenda these days, but again, I can't really completely credit a source that is linked to a page with an obvious opinion and not a scientific one.
Take care all.
Why not just a simple test -- If it has EEG waves and a heartbeat, it's a baby, and therefore should be protected.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Captain
And as requested an unbiased source. I love Biology.
http://www.visembryo.com/baby/index.html
Actually, I read several pages of it, and I say again--because somebody says Bush ought to do it doesn't mean Bush has some ultra-top-secret conspiracy to do it. If he does, then I hope he gets around to banning rap music soon, because I want him to do that, and since I support Bush, that must mean that's somewhere in his conspiracy plans.Quote:
If you were to have read just page one you would realize that I am right. But I can understand why you don't. It really sucks when you realize you are wrong.
That if you can't be sure whether an unborn child is a living human being or a simple mass of tissue, or the rights/lack of them he/she is entitled to, then I believe the benefit of the doubt should to go not killing a child.Quote:
Maybe I just don't follow you... I don't understand your argument here.
And last ~I~ checked, he was still obviously a murderer, no matter how well the race-card worked. (and let's face it, OJ walked because Fuhrman used the n-word ten years before.)Quote:
Oh yeah, and last I checked, OJ was not a convicted murderer.
"And last ~I~ checked, he was still obviously a murderer, no matter how well the race-card worked. (and let's face it, OJ walked because Fuhrman used the n-word ten years before.)"
While you're certainly entitled to your opinion and many people share it, we must all at the end of the day listen to what the law says with regard to issues such as these, otherwise the system collapses.
Just to point out, OJ WAS found guilty in a civil law suit and had to pay millions of dollars with regard to these deaths, but as the system works, he is NOT a murderer.
Take care all.
Herein, I disagree. OJ is not a convicted murderer, but our justice system was set up, and deliberately so, so that it sometimes lets the guilty go free. It sucks, but it's a trade-off--better to sometimes let the guilty go free than to punish the innocent, and while we can argue about whether or not we let the guilty go free too often or for flimsy reasons, there are many, many cases in which someone was obviously guilty yet wasn't punished. The murder of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman (I think that was the guy's name...) is just one of those.Quote:
ust to point out, OJ WAS found guilty in a civil law suit and had to pay millions of dollars with regard to these deaths, but as the system works, he is NOT a murderer.
Your point is well taken. All I'm saying is that at the end of the day, in order for the system to work, we have to have some faith in it that it does work, whether we agree with the outcome or not. OJ was a landmark case, but there have been many others where seemingly insurmountable evidence ended up not being enough for a conviction or the evidence turned out to be false.
Take care all.
You could say I have friends in the military too. Most of them, especially those who've been in Iraq, realize what's really happening, and that it's not that we're just going to find more and more places to invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
And yes, nik0tine, we've all heard your "America is trying to take over and/or control the world" argument.
First of all, we're establishing permanent basis in Iraq, and drawing out of our permanent basis in Germany, because we no longer need to be in Germany and we do need to be in Iraq. Is it really that hard to understand? I highly doubt we'll have a massive force in Iraq for a long time--we're already starting to pull troops out--but we will have an established presence there for a while, until they get a stable government set up and longer. This doesn't mean it's to stage to invade somebody else ('cause you know, those damn Republicans aren't happy unless they're at war with somebody, right?), this doesn't mean that any of the ridiculous and completely false "blood-for-oil" arguments are anywhere near true, it means that Iraq needs to be stabilized and they need a military presence there until that happens.
Second of all, if and when we do invade Iran, we could go though Afghanistan, as The Redneck pointed out. Or, we could stage a bombardment in Kuwait, then march a bit through Iraq on the way there. Or, depending on the support we have from other countries surrounding Iran, we could find another country to launch attacks out of. Iraq is not an extremely strategic location, unless we're planning to invade and take over the entire Middle East--which, though such a ridiculous notion is believed by some, isn't practical or logical in the least bit. In short, whatever we need to do, we can do without Iraq.
Last, but certainly not least... We did not "accidentally" blow things up. When you have missiles that can find and go through windows, it's hard to miss. There's certain infrastructure that needs to be taken out of commission for a short time, but is then rebuilt, and at this point more people in Iraq have simple things like electricity, running water, sewers, and phones than any point in the last thirty years.
Iraq's a big place, it can be used as a good staging ground for a lot of troops, especially if they want to pincer Iran. I stand by my comment.Quote:
Second of all, if and when we do invade Iran, we could go though Afghanistan, as The Redneck pointed out. Or, we could stage a bombardment in Kuwait, then march a bit through Iraq on the way there. Or, depending on the support we have from other countries surrounding Iran, we could find another country to launch attacks out of. Iraq is not an extremely strategic location, unless we're planning to invade and take over the entire Middle East--which, though such a ridiculous notion is believed by some, isn't practical or logical in the least bit. In short, whatever we need to do, we can do without Iraq.
No, I've a firsthand source (which makes me secondhand I guess) that was giving out reparations. We HAVE blown up stuff accidentally, cars, buildings, what have you. We ARE paying that back. Also, my sources tell me that they are not by any means a third world country, they have had electricity, running water, sewer, phones, and the internet long before we came there. Again, I stand by my comment.Quote:
Last, but certainly not least... We did not "accidentally" blow things up. When you have missiles that can find and go through windows, it's hard to miss. There's certain infrastructure that needs to be taken out of commission for a short time, but is then rebuilt, and at this point more people in Iraq have simple things like electricity, running water, sewers, and phones than any point in the last thirty years.
'Cuz we need four square miles per soldier when we muster troops--we use real loose formations in the Army....Quote:
Iraq's a big place, it can be used as a good staging ground for a lot of troops, especially if they want to pincer Iran. I stand by my comment.
Can we see some of these sources? Because I'm sorry, but if you're trying to tell me that the Iraqi people are worse off for Sodom's removal, the only proper reply is a loud, derisive laugh.Quote:
Also, my sources tell me that they are not by any means a third world country, they have had electricity, running water, sewer, phones, and the internet long before we came there. Again, I stand by my comment.
And sorry, Sasquatch, but some of the missiles do miss--especially with the GPS-jamming devices that Sodom purchased from the Russians... which also explains why they didn't want us in there looking around. Our cruise missiles and smart bombs certainly aren't anything like the SCUD (Which I still believe Sam Kinison described best: "You see, the SCUD is kinda like the smart bomb. You launch it from the trunk of your car--fssssst!--and then you go home and turn on CNN to see where it landed!" Seriously, these things actually missed Saudi Arabia once. That's not exactly a small target.), but occasionally they do miss.
Bases to house troops and supply them, however, take a bit more space. And again, a pincer attack is what I suspect will happen, it's not exactly a new military tactic to crush an opponent between two hostile forces.Quote:
'Cuz we need four square miles per soldier when we muster troops--we use real loose formations in the Army....
I can quote my friends, but I will not post their name on a website. If such is needed, I will post their ranks in the military.Quote:
Can we see some of these sources? Because I'm sorry, but if you're trying to tell me that the Iraqi people are worse off for Sodom's removal, the only proper reply is a loud, derisive laugh.
And thank you for putting words in my mouth, I never said that they were better off with Sadam in power (and I find it interesting that you've spelled his name like the city of Sodom, from whence the word "Sodomy" originates), I am merely making the point that they are hardly a third world country. They've had technology in their lives before we got there, and they are one of if not the most liberal Muslim nations, having adapted quite well to American culture. As I understand it most of the Iraqis love us, it's the Jordanians, Iranians, and others who are coming across the border that are trying to kill us. The point I am trying to make is that on occassion we've destroyed Iraqi property, and we ARE paying for it.
Not nearly enough that we need a country the size of California to hold 'em. I've spent three years living in Army barracks, and they don't exactly give you an acre apiece.Quote:
Also, my sources tell me that they are not by any means a third world country, they have had electricity, running water, sewer, phones, and the internet long before we came there. Again, I stand by my comment.
That's why I said "if you're trying to tell me..."Quote:
And thank you for putting words in my mouth, I never said that they were better off with Sadam in power
Thank you for putting words in my mouth.
Welcome to the wonderful world of sarcasm.Quote:
and I find it interesting that you've spelled his name like the city of Sodom, from whence the word "Sodomy" originates
Why would we need to attack Iran from two fronts? We bomb the hell out of them, then march in. Just like we did in Iraq. How is that difficult to implement without two fronts? As I said, even if we wanted another front--and didn't get cooperation from any of the other surrounding countries--we could just take a short trip through Iraq from Kuwait. It's not like Kuwait is only a couple acres, we've got more than enough room to hold a couple hundred thousand troops until an invasion took place. What do you think we did for the last two wars with Iraq?
As for "handing out reparations", I've never heard of any soldier or Marine doing anything of the sort. We help rebuild the things we intentionally destroy and disrupt, and for collateral damage--which, mind you, there is a big difference in collateral damage and "accidents". We're also building things simply for the betterment of the community--schools, hospitals, etc.
As for Iraq not being a third-world country...it's pretty close. There is a HUGE gap between their upper and lower classes, and the majority of the population lives in poverty. During Saddam's reign, very few people had those utilities--running water, sewers, electricity, phones, etc. More people in Iraq have access to the basic "luxuries" of daily civilized life than ever in the past three decades. More and more people are getting jobs (the wonders of a Capitalist society, again), and the standard of living and life expectancy rates are already starting to go up.
And sorry, I highly doubt that posting the ranks of soldiers you've talked to will make any difference.
There's also the issue of containment, where an American presence on both fronts can prevent Iran from doing whatever it is we don't like. I can't predict the future and neither can you, I don't know what is going to happen but I'm not going to be surprised if something like that does happen.Quote:
Why would we need to attack Iran from two fronts? We bomb the hell out of them, then march in. Just like we did in Iraq. How is that difficult to implement without two fronts? As I said, even if we wanted another front--and didn't get cooperation from any of the other surrounding countries--we could just take a short trip through Iraq from Kuwait. It's not like Kuwait is only a couple acres, we've got more than enough room to hold a couple hundred thousand troops until an invasion took place. What do you think we did for the last two wars with Iraq?
My friend is one of the ones who was handling this in Iraq. As I understand it, if the soldiers accidentally destroyed, say, a car, they would try to find the owner and give him some sort of claim check so that he could come in and they could reimburse them for the damage done.Quote:
As for "handing out reparations", I've never heard of any soldier or Marine doing anything of the sort. We help rebuild the things we intentionally destroy and disrupt, and for collateral damage--which, mind you, there is a big difference in collateral damage and "accidents". We're also building things simply for the betterment of the community--schools, hospitals, etc.
And what I'm trying to say is that they AREN'T a third world country, as most people seem to think. I'm not saying they are utterly wealthy, I'm just saying they have access to technology, which is something many people don't know and something I can't fathom why you're disagreeing with me on it, unless its out of principle.Quote:
As for Iraq not being a third-world country...it's pretty close. There is a HUGE gap between their upper and lower classes, and the majority of the population lives in poverty. During Saddam's reign, very few people had those utilities--running water, sewers, electricity, phones, etc. More people in Iraq have access to the basic "luxuries" of daily civilized life than ever in the past three decades. More and more people are getting jobs (the wonders of a Capitalist society, again), and the standard of living and life expectancy rates are already starting to go up.
Your friend the poge handled claims for collateral damage and reimbursement and such, not "accidents". There have been plenty of instances were cars, etc. just seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot up, commandeered, etc. Most of the time--whenever practical immediately or possible upon return--a receipt is given for the vehicle, and they go to people like your friend to ask about it, get it back, get paid for it, etc. And they are paid much more than the car's actual value.Quote:
Originally Posted by Behold the Void
And you're only somewhat correct--that's what I'm arguing. No, they aren't a third-world country, but like I said, they're close. SOME have access to technology--SOME have access to electricity and running water, most don't (or didn't, anyway)--but I'd say a good half of the population lives in close to third-world standards.Quote:
And what I'm trying to say is that they AREN'T a third world country, as most people seem to think. I'm not saying they are utterly wealthy, I'm just saying they have access to technology, which is something many people don't know and something I can't fathom why you're disagreeing with me on it, unless its out of principle.
He cited accidents as some of the causes of this damage, which is the point I'm trying to make.Quote:
Your friend the poge handled claims for collateral damage and reimbursement and such, not "accidents". There have been plenty of instances were cars, etc. just seem to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and got shot up, commandeered, etc. Most of the time--whenever practical immediately or possible upon return--a receipt is given for the vehicle, and they go to people like your friend to ask about it, get it back, get paid for it, etc. And they are paid much more than the car's actual value.
Understandable, and I'm not denying that. My whole thing was that they aren't living in the dark ages.Quote:
And you're only somewhat correct--that's what I'm arguing. No, they aren't a third-world country, but like I said, they're close. SOME have access to technology--SOME have access to electricity and running water, most don't (or didn't, anyway)--but I'd say a good half of the population lives in close to third-world standards.