[zigzag]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
So you are saying that we need to take the Constitution with a grain of salt. Like we need to read it, and then interpret what it means.

I honestly don?t think the founding fathers meant us to take their words and mangle them. They would have written something in the constitution that said specifically what they intended, rather than leaving it ambiguous. I highly doubt they sat around and said? ?Well let?s just say this and that and let people 200 years from now determine what that means.? People who are passionate about their beliefs tend to not leave things up in the air for interpretation. They say what they meant and signed their name next to something they believed should be lived by.

You're spouting platitudes rather than addressing the specific questions that boots and I raised. What is the significance of the words "A well-regulated militia . . . "? What constitutes a "reasonable" search and seizure? How do we reconcile unabridged freedom of speech with libel laws and copyright protections? These are just a few of the many cases in which the framers left things fuzzy. Both conservative and liberal scholars agree that interpretation is often required, they just disagree on the results.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I honestly don�t think the founding fathers meant us to take their words and mangle them. They would have written something in the constitution that said specifically what they intended, rather than leaving it ambiguous. I highly doubt they sat around and said� �Well let�s just say this and that and let people 200 years from now determine what that means.� People who are passionate about their beliefs tend to not leave things up in the air for interpretation. They say what they meant and signed their name next to something they believed should be lived by.

They mangled it themselves. The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not come to the table with an all-encompassing idea on what the Constitution should look like. They had many very different ideas and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights became works of compromise and vague terms that could be interpreted in many different ways.

[boots]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
So you are saying that we need to take the Constitution with a grain of salt. Like we need to read it, and then interpret what it means.

I honestly don?t think the founding fathers meant us to take their words and mangle them. They would have written something in the constitution that said specifically what they intended, rather than leaving it ambiguous. I highly doubt they sat around and said? ?Well let?s just say this and that and let people 200 years from now determine what that means.? People who are passionate about their beliefs tend to not leave things up in the air for interpretation. They say what they meant and signed their name next to something they believed should be lived by.

I agree with your statement about passionate people. So, I'll ask again: Why put the clause about the "well regulated militia" into the ammendment if it is irrelevant.

Do you think that reasonable people can't see two (or more) different ways to read that? I can see at least three. So the challenge for me becomes: which is appropriate given the context in question?

Does that mean I'm taking the constitution with a grain of salt? No. I'm seeing conflicting interpretations and trying to make sense of them.

This may sound stupid, but it is the only "off the top of my head" example of this to offer right now:

"There was a farmer who had a dog, and bingo was his name."

Who was named bingo? Is it a twisting of the language to read that the farmer was named Bingo? Sometimes, language isn't clear..even when it is meant to be clear. So we have to interpret. Does that make any sense?

I see where you are coming from...I'm just asking trying to see if you understand where I'm coming from. If we can get over that communication barrier, we can move on with a mutual understanding, if not agreement.

[boots]

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
They mangled it themselves. The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not come to the table with an all-encompassing idea on what the Constitution should look like. They had many very different ideas and the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights became works of compromise and vague terms that could be interpreted in many different ways.

Absolutely. That's one of the reasons we have an entire branch of the government devoted to interpreting the laws. Otherwise, it wouldn't be necessary.

In fact, thats the reason we have the bill of rights in the first place...it could have been (and some wanted it to be) incorporated into the constitution. Not ammendments after the fact.

[mo]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
So you are saying that we need to take the Constitution with a grain of salt. Like we need to read it, and then interpret what it means.

I honestly don?t think the founding fathers meant us to take their words and mangle them. They would have written something in the constitution that said specifically what they intended, rather than leaving it ambiguous. I highly doubt they sat around and said? ?Well let?s just say this and that and let people 200 years from now determine what that means.? People who are passionate about their beliefs tend to not leave things up in the air for interpretation. They say what they meant and signed their name next to something they believed should be lived by.

If true, this would mean, for example, that the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional, and thus invalid, and that I am sitting in France right now.

Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson was a little more flexible than you. (He also was a better speller.)

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by zigzag:
You're spouting platitudes rather than addressing the specific questions that boots and I raised. What is the significance of the words "A well-regulated militia . . . "? What constitutes a "reasonable" search and seizure? How do we reconcile unabridged freedom of speech with libel laws and copyright protections? These are just a few of the many cases in which the framers left things fuzzy. Both conservative and liberal scholars agree that interpretation is often required, they just disagree on the results.

Often required, yes I can agree on that for some things. But �To what degree� is what I am saying.. I don�t think it should be over exaggerated. I think it should be loosely interpretation. To me, i read that document and I understand it. I can see.."yes, terrorists flew planes into buildings, therefore we should be going into neighborhoods where these people live, probably illegally most of the, and search the heck out of their domiciles. Why? In interest to national security, that�s why.

The Liberals, which my site is about and the original discussion was about, make laws that say you can�t use things like racial profiling to prevent terrorism. I go to an airport and still get searched and my neatly packed bags get tossed around. Why, No white men flew planes in the heart on NYC and killed 2000 people. Why are you wasting time looking for people of a certain race, when you know who the terrorists are, where they come from, and where they live.

[fxbezak]

Ok im leaving work in 1 hour.

Thanks for the good convo everyone. I will post more tomorrow

[BasketofPuppies]

Actually, it was white men who flew planes in the heart on NYC and killed 2000 people. (Dark skinned white people, but white people nonetheless.) That's why young, single white men are the most likely to be searched at an airport.

[boots]

Originally posted by fxbezak:

The Liberals, which my site is about and the original discussion was about, make laws that say you can?t use things like racial profiling to prevent terrorism. I go to an airport and still get searched and my neatly packed bags get tossed around. Why, No white men flew planes in the heart on NYC and killed 2000 people. Why are you wasting time looking for people of a certain race, when you know who the terrorists are, where they come from, and where they live.

That is a little short sighted if the real goal is security. Tim McViegh was as white-bred cornfed as the come. He just chose not to use an airplane as a weapon.

But we forget that there are some home-grown terrorist. Certainly the Uni-bomber would not have been caught if we used your reasoning.

Should we be using race to profile? No, because it ignores the fact that anyone could be a terrorist. If you are going to institute policies in the name of security, at least these policies should be consistent and reflect the historical need for such policies.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
As far as I know, none of those people are posting their websites that do that here on this forum in an attempt to spam and drive up web traffic. this guy did, so I commented. Once you bring it up for discussion....

LOL you didn't single out just the people in this forum Lerk. Backpeddling? You said

actually, there's a difference between criticisizing Bush policies and declaring war on liberals and setting up a website to do so...

can't see the difference? thanks for playing...

So how does all of a sudden being a forum member, and posting it to get hits fall into your situation? Making up new things to argue about in a middle of a discussion to detract?

but regardless, I feel the same way about the websites you mention. whenever someone is THAT fixated then, sure, they feel threatened or insecure. On either side. I never said otherwise.

You were somehow trying to claim some sort of difference. That the right was doing,was somehow worse than what the left was.

but again, you've missed the basic point....criticism of a particular administration is different than declaring war on roughly half of your own population.

No you aren't only attacking the Pres, but also attacking the people who think he is right. I've seen all the "War-Mongers" protest signs Lerk. You aren't fooling anyone with that little spin.

Nice try though.

Oh and I got the basic point Lerk, I just didn't agree with it. You do that alot.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
The Liberals, which my site is about and the original discussion was about, make laws that say you can�t use things like racial profiling to prevent terrorism. I go to an airport and still get searched and my neatly packed bags get tossed around. Why, No white men flew planes in the heart on NYC and killed 2000 people. Why are you wasting time looking for people of a certain race, when you know who the terrorists are, where they come from, and where they live.

yeah, I really hate it when you're not allowed to legalize institutional racism.....tsk, tsk.

the fact is, Terrorists can come in any race or size or shape. Better to reexamine and correct security issues in the first place so that no matter who or what wants to become a terrorist they'll be thwarted.

besides, your suggestion overlooks that if you institute such a racist policy, terrorist groups will simply circumvent racial profiling by recruiting timothy mcveigh types, or anglicizing themselves to the point of being inconspicuous.

also, racial profiling is a deadly policy because it artificially lulls security into a false sense of security on those who AREN"T profiled, and generally makes the job "easier" but less efficient.

If one man is told to check every egg that comes off a conveyor for cracks, and another man told to check for cracks, but that brownish eggs tend to be cracked more on average....the second man will catch less cracked eggs.

[chris v]

fxbezak-- a question: In what way do you intend to fight this war against liberals? Do you intend to go after them with guns and shoot them?

Please elucidate, as I didn't know there was a civil war on.

CV

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
yeah, I really hate it when you're not allowed to legalize institutional racism.....tsk, tsk.

the fact is, Terrorists can come in any race or size or shape. Better to reexamine and correct security issues in the first place so that no matter who or what wants to become a terrorist they'll be thwarted.

besides, your suggestion overlooks that if you institute such a racist policy, terrorist groups will simply circumvent racial profiling by recruiting timothy mcveigh types, or anglicizing themselves to the point of being inconspicuous.

also, racial profiling is a deadly policy because it artificially lulls security into a false sense of security on those who AREN"T profiled, and generally makes the job "easier" but less efficient.

If one man is told to check every egg that comes off a conveyor for cracks, and another man told to check for cracks, but that brownish eggs tend to be cracked more on average....the second man will catch less cracked eggs.

Ok I was gonna leave but...
Who said Anything about racism?

I said racial profiling. Racial profiling: arab terrorists flew planes into buildings, look specifically for suspicious arab guys.

Why is that racism. You know they are arab, you know where they are from, so why focus on EVERYONE when you only need to be looking at a small portion of the population.

What? race doesnt exist? jsut because they are from arab decent, that cant be a factor in looking for other possible terrorists?? Why? because it offends arabs??

Thats what im talkign about protecting people from. This Liberal garbage. Who cares about offending people? In the matter of national security, do it.

[boots]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Ok I was gonna leave but...

You picked the most charged response to reply to. Read my response for another view on why this is wrong. It is short sighted because race is not an absolute indicator of terrorism. There are other examples, we just don't remember them as terrorism. For some reason "Terrorism" only applies to the acts of foreigners.

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by boots:
You picked the most charged response to reply to. Read my response for another view on why this is wrong. It is short sighted because race is not an absolute indicator of terrorism. There are other examples, we just don't remember them as terrorism. For some reason "Terrorism" only applies to the acts of foreigners.

I know, i totally agree. I am using 9/11 as an example. We KNEW where these people were from. We KNEW they were arabs.

[boots]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I know, i totally agree. I am using 9/11 as an example. We KNEW where these people were from. We KNEW they were arabs.

My point is that we are ignoring the fact that other acts of terrorism occur. If you are only profiling arabs who may fly a plane into a building, you will miss those who will blow up buildings with fertilizer and diesel-fuel. Or, probably more relevant...those who will blow up building using airplanes but are not Arab.

Profiling is short sighted...racism doesn't even have to be an argument (though it can be depending on why the policy is decided upon).

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I know, i totally agree. I am using 9/11 as an example. We KNEW where these people were from. We KNEW they were arabs.

ok, what is your list of dangerous races?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I know, i totally agree. I am using 9/11 as an example. We KNEW where these people were from. We KNEW they were arabs.

Just because they terrorists where from Saudi, doesn't mean Saudi had anything to do with it. Just because they were Arabs, doesn't mean a Arabic government was behind it. Heck, some US militia could have payed the guys to do it, as a setup. Highly unlikely, esp with having a conservative government, but still possible non-the-less.

Every country has their nutball extremist.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
I know, i totally agree. I am using 9/11 as an example. We KNEW where these people were from. We KNEW they were arabs.

Oh well gee that must mean that every act of terrorism now is going to be caused by Arabs, I guess they should have to wear an armband or something to we know they are all evil.

[fxbezak]

Originally posted by boots:
My point is that we are ignoring the fact that other acts of terrorism occur. If you are only profiling arabs who may fly a plane into a building, you will miss those who will blow up buildings with fertilizer and diesel-fuel.

Profiling is short sighted...racism doesn't even have to be an argument (though it can be depending on why the policy is decided upon).

You are absolutly right. But in THIS instance we knew they were arabs.

[Nicko]

Racial profiling is institutionalized racisim.
Anyone who says any different is a racist.

Simple as that.

[boots]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
You are absolutly right. But in THIS instance we knew they were arabs.

You are arguing as though we knew it was going to happen so we should have been looking for Arabs on 9/10.

What you are talking about is prevention of terrorist attacks. In the one case you are using as an example, we know they were Saudi Nationals, but when we talk about prevention of future attacks, it makes little sense to use one example to build policy upon. We certainly have other example that we can use to shape policy. Like I said. All that a profiling policy will do is stop arabs from blowing up building with planes...it won't stop an African, a Skin-Head, a disgruntled white-boy, etc.

If you want to prevent terrorism, picking one example to prevent against is plain stupid. Inconvenience ALL of us in the airport or it won't work.

[boots]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Racial profiling is institutionalized racisim.
Anyone who says any different is a racist.

Simple as that.

It really doesn't matter. What matters (in this case) is that it is an ineffective policy (as all intitutionalize racism is). Racism is bad because race is a convenient overlay for more complex problems. Only considering race, then, ignores the complexities and leads to ineffective decisions.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
You are arguing as though we knew it was going to happen so we should have been looking for Arabs on 9/10.

What you are talking about is prevention of terrorist attacks. In the one case you are using as an example, we know they were Saudi Nationals, but when we talk about prevention of future attacks, it makes little sense to use one example to build policy upon. We certainly have other example that we can use to shape policy. Like I said. All that a profiling policy will do is stop arabs from blowing up building with planes...it won't stop an African, a Skin-Head, a disgruntled white-boy, etc.

If you want to prevent terrorism, picking one example to prevent against is plain stupid. Inconvenience ALL of us in the airport or it won't work.

yes, that's what I was saying.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Racial profiling is institutionalized racisim.

I guess then, by your reasoning saying more black people die of sickle cell anemia than white, that would also be racism.

Anyone who says any different is a racist.

Simple as that.

Nonsense.

[boots]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I guess then, by your reasoning saying more black people die of sickle cell anemia than white, that would also be racism.

Yes. I would say it is. But if we had a policy to only screen black's, it would be a policy failure because it only hits one group, many (though not the majority) will slip through.

That there are different races is a scientific classification. That's it. I think there are really (according to the science papers) only 3 races. These are defined by skeletal structure (primarily) and not on skin color.

Classifying by itself is not a bad thing. It's when policies are written based on race that things get sticky. Personally, I think it is a misuse of science.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Often required, yes I can agree on that for some things. But ?To what degree? is what I am saying.. I don?t think it should be over exaggerated. I think it should be loosely interpretation. To me, i read that document and I understand it. I can see.."yes, terrorists flew planes into buildings, therefore we should be going into neighborhoods where these people live, probably illegally most of the, and search the heck out of their domiciles. Why? In interest to national security, that?s why.

The Liberals, which my site is about and the original discussion was about, make laws that say you can?t use things like racial profiling to prevent terrorism. I go to an airport and still get searched and my neatly packed bags get tossed around. Why, No white men flew planes in the heart on NYC and killed 2000 people. Why are you wasting time looking for people of a certain race, when you know who the terrorists are, where they come from, and where they live.

Actually, I'm sympathetic to this argument, as is Alan Dershowitz, a notorious "liberal" civil liberties advocate. Every case is different.

Which is the larger point that I'm trying to get across to you. There are many conservatives who are just as concerned with civil liberties as liberals. Everyone, conservative and liberal, tends to define "reasonable" search and seizure according to how it suits them, just as they tend to rely on "strict construction" of the Constitution when it suits them. The practice is not limited to liberals.

My even larger point being: it's fine to be passionate about conservative (or liberal, as the case may be) values, but don't wear your blinders too tightly.

[boots]

Originally posted by zigzag:
My even larger point being: it's fine to be passionate about conservative (or liberal, as the case may be) values, but don't wear your blinders too tightly.

Besides, it's always good to know what/how the opposition thinks and know what the heart of the arguments are...that way you can taylor your arguments to be more effective. Gotta keep an eye on that other guy, you know.

[Demonhood]

anyone else still waiting for an answer on that second amendment question?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
anyone else still waiting for an answer on that second amendment question?

I'm still waiting for a definition of "Liberalism" so I can understand the need for declaring war on it.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm still waiting for a definition of "Liberalism" so I can understand the need for declaring war on it.

We're trying to get there. We gotta nail down what he thinks before we can see who doesn't agree and why. (As a defacto definition, I guess he said "Those who twist the language of the constitution." I know it really isn't that simple, but I'm trying to figure out what he thinks it says before we can see how it is being twisted. And he seems passionate about the guns, so I'm willing to use that as an example.)


I am still waiting for the 2nd ammendment answer. It has been dodged a couple of times now.....

[raskol]

Originally posted by fxbezak:
Ok good point. The context is "it means what it says". Like how I posted the Amendment above...

That Amendment says nothing about limiting my rights to carry. Where does it say that govt can make laws that prevent be from bearing arms.

So it means what it says like The Bible means what it says. So you have to take everything at face value without really thinking critically about any of the statements.

Please post some stories dealing with the invasion of our privacy which is guaranteed. Or is the only thing of any import the fact that you like to carry guns and smoke ciggarettes?

So it is impossible for a white man to hijack a plane? We KNOW they were arab after the fact. Nobody KNEW they were arab.

This is the problem with young people spouting opinions. You are simply too young to understand what you are talking about and make a cohesive argument. Instead of having a website bashing a whole group of people you should go to the library. At the very least take a course in logic so that you can argue your awesomely slanted right-wing opinions.

[raskol]

Originally posted by boots:
We're trying to get there. We gotta nail down what he thinks before we can see who doesn't agree and why. (As a defacto definition, I guess he said "Those who twist the language of the constitution." I know it really isn't that simple, but I'm trying to figure out what he thinks it says before we can see how it is being twisted. And he seems passionate about the guns, so I'm willing to use that as an example.)


I am still waiting for the 2nd ammendment answer. It has been dodged a couple of times now.....

I know I sound harsh but since he has the pro-liberal-war website...

If you simply examine the words he uses it is obvious at first read that he is simply regurgitating "received opinion." He has no answer to the questions you ask. He has listened to the media for years and decided he knows more than liberals because he has received so much opinion from conservative pundits and comedians, from what I gather. He has not researched what he is attacking. He does not know what Liberalism is and he would be totally confused by any real Leftist thought. All he knows is that he is Right and therefore right.

You know, you right-wingers, the only reason the Left has not risen up to destroy you is because we rely on information and knowledge to guide our thinking not violence and guns. Corporations do not throw money at us to defend their laws. Politicians and pundits do not pander to our fears and insecurities. We are not paid by the establishment to package our ideas for mass consumption by beer swilling bigots.

All he knows about liberalism is what the right-wing media has told him. There are no answers here just more hate vomit.

Oh and Zimphire... you're still a raging idiot although you have become a bit better at it.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Demonhood:
anyone else still waiting for an answer on that second amendment question?

yo

[zigzag]

Originally posted by raskol:
You know, you right-wingers, the only reason the Left has not risen up to destroy you is because we rely on information and knowledge to guide our thinking not violence and guns. Corporations do not throw money at us to defend their laws. Politicians and pundits do not pander to our fears and insecurities. We are not paid by the establishment to package our ideas for mass consumption by beer swilling bigots.

I think you were doing well up to this point. To reiterate something I said to fxbezak: "It's fine to be passionate about conservative (or liberal, as the case may be) values, but don't wear your blinders too tightly."

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think you were doing well up to this point. To reiterate something I said to fxbezak: "It's fine to be passionate about conservative (or liberal, as the case may be) values, but don't wear your blinders too tightly."

I have to agree. I can think of plenty of examples of leaders who are supposed to be "Left", using fear tactics, misinformation, and throwing lots of money around to get their way. Usually they just malign the right instead of working to fix real problems in which they are often complicit.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Racial profiling is institutionalized racisim.
Anyone who says any different is a racist.

Simple as that.

Scenario: Police are alerted to the fact that a Jamaican gang (all black) is running guns up I-95 (the eastern US coast) in vans with Florida plates. Profiling? Yes. Institutionalized racism? Absolutely not.

Get a grip.

[raskol]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I have to agree. I can think of plenty of examples of leaders who are supposed to be "Left", using fear tactics, misinformation, and throwing lots of money around to get their way. Usually they just malign the right instead of working to fix real problems in which they are often complicit.

Agreed somewhat (zigzag too). When I refer to liberals I am not referring to Democrats or even what seems to be called liberal politicians. I tend to dislike all politician or anyone who profits from controlling me. I tend to get a little heated and do generalize and exaggerate but I don't think it is a false statement.

If you look at the way pundits liberal and conservative pander to their constituents it is sickening. As long as we are critical of what both sides say and do our own research it is ok; it can be entertaining.

But I am afraid that many folks seem to take all this liberal/conservative stuff on radio and tv as truth.

What you see on TV is not the truth people. The truth does not come in neat little news blurbs and 2 minute human interest stories. The truth is written by the people close to the stories. The truth is complicated and confusing. It is not always entertaining and it doesn't sell toothpaste.

Case in point: The Pentagon Papers
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel...gon/pent1.html

The Pentagon Papers are all over the internet as are references to them. Just do a google search.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by raskol:
The truth is written by the people close to the stories.

Like the Fox News embedded reporters who show live video as the events are unfolding ?

I'll take live broadcast video and reporting over editorialized writings for my truth fix.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Like the Fox News embedded reporters who show live video as the events are unfolding ?

I'll take live broadcast video and reporting over editorialized writings for my truth fix.

Are you saying TV news is better than newspaper or periodicals?

[raskol]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Like the Fox News embedded reporters who show live video as the events are unfolding ?

I'll take live broadcast video and reporting over editorialized writings for my truth fix.

That is entertaining yes.

Yes I guess that is truth. But you see you miss the fundamental problem with our media and our culture.

An analogy is the best way to put it: You watching a live newsfeed of the war is like me watching a car come off the assembly line.

All you are seeing is the end product. The fact that the war is going well has no bearing on the fact that the war is all of our making in the first place.

Also as soon as this war is over I will bet that you will find the next entertaining thing to fill your time.

You are either too young or too set in your beliefs.

[raskol]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Scenario: Police are alerted to the fact that a Jamaican gang (all black) is running guns up I-95 (the eastern US coast) in vans with Florida plates. Profiling? Yes. Institutionalized racism? Absolutely not.

Get a grip.

You need to get a grip. And grow up a bit before you run around saying silly things.

The hypothetic gang would be a statement of alleged fact based on a single currently evolving incident.

You would be looking for a certain color van with Florida plates moving at some speed perhaps erratically and filled with black dudes with dreadlocks pullin' bongs.

Profilling would mean that you indiscriminantly pull over all vans with black people in them no matter what color van or what license plates they had. Thereby wasting a bunch of time and resources harassing innocent people. And possibly never apprehending the real perpetrators because you can't do you freaking job right and should be fired.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I'm still waiting for a definition of "Liberalism" so I can understand the need for declaring war on it.

Liberalism - The belief that people, when left unsupervised, will consistently do the WRONG thing.




PS, the preamble to the Constitution was created to give a general overview of the entire manuscript. Read it, then you'll know that the government isn't supposed to be involved in 98% of the crap they're involved in.

Provide for the common defense

Promote (not guarantee) the general welfare

Secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity

Yup. That pretty much sums it up.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Liberalism - The belief that people, when left unsupervised, will consistently do the WRONG thing.

spliffy, are you trying to tell us you're a liberal? just trying to make sense of your "definition."

my advice to you is don't wallow in self-hate, m'man, it's unbecoming...

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Timo:
spliffy, are you trying to tell us you're a liberal? just trying to make sense of your "definition."

my advice to you is don't wallow in self-hate, m'man, it's unbecoming...

I think people are basically good and will do the right thing when left unsupervised.

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by raskol:
But you see you miss the fundamental problem with our media and our culture.

An analogy is the best way to put it: You watching a live newsfeed of the war is like me watching a car come off the assembly line.

All you are seeing is the end product.

Your initial posting (prior to your media/culture diversion) was: "The truth is written by the people close to the stories". My reply was that I prefer live video of an actual event over that of a story written the next day about the same event. As simple as an individual's preference.

As for the potential problems of our media-fed culture, I see them fine and clear. Thank you.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Are you saying TV news is better than newspaper or periodicals?

Nope - just that I liked the embeds' live reporting, especially from Saddam's Baghdad palace as the Arab press pumped out stories of coalition forces being nowhere near Bagdhad, and that US/UK forces were being slaughtered.

[raskol]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I think people are basically good and will do the right thing when left unsupervised.

...preamble... Read it, then you'll know that the government isn't supposed to be involved in 98% of the crap they're involved in.

Yes like all the kind, benevolent, generous multinational corporations that make all the pretty things we buy.

Exactly so why do we have troops dotting the world? Why do we have to fight wars to insure US corporate interests are served? Does the constitution reserve the right to invade a sovereign nation?

I can go on Spliff but you really should investigate things before you make casual statements like that.

[raskol]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Your initial posting (prior to your media/culture diversion) was: "The truth is written by the people close to the stories". My reply was that I prefer live video of an actual event over that of a story written the next day about the same event. As simple as an individual's preference.

As for the potential problems of our media-fed culture, I see them fine and clear. Thank you.

That is fine to prefer that but it is an impossiblity in anything but a few circumstances. So my point is that you have to watch more than the evening news. You have to read more than Newsweek. The truth also comes out after careful inspection and examination of the evidence.

No, it is not as simple as your preference. In a democracy you must be active in your education of the issues. To be active does not simply mean to take one point of view and cling to it in the face of all evidence of the contrary. If your information all comes from what you find in popular media then I would argue that you are imposing an ill-educated opinion on the rest of society simply because you have the right to.

Which is ok on an internet forum but don't expect not to get slapped around for it.

[raskol]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Nope - just that I liked the embeds' live reporting, especially from Saddam's Baghdad palace as the Arab press pumped out stories of coalition forces being nowhere near Bagdhad, and that US/UK forces were being slaughtered.

See now what can you learn from that? Not even an educated muslim believed the Arab press. Why do educated Americans blindly and automatically believe our press?

Where is the healthy skepticism that maybe our media is biased in it's reporting. I know, you think the media is biased. But you only seem to think it is biased when it disagrees with your beliefs. So what is the answer? Is it or is it not biased and if it is why isn't it always biased one way or the other?