Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by diamond geezer, Apr 28, 2004.
check out the articles
link to stupidity
ahhhhhhh... freedom of speech is a grand thing...
you can thank the moonies for such fine journalism -- it's owned by the same company that owns the washington times. as i mentioned a couple days ago, insight mag is reducing its staff by 17. what i don't know is how big the staff is, but i suspect 17 is a lot.
I see nothing stupid about this web site or some of their news stories like this one.
Now you want to see pure blown stupidity sign on to the democratic underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/
They define stupidity.
Oh and if you which to be banned from that site say anything that is against the liberal agenda and they will oblige.
dg: That someone else's conclusions differ from yours is an indication of "BS"? Those who disagree with you are "stupid"?
There's not just freedom of speech; there's freedom of opinion, as well.
Do you agree that
"Playing directly into the terrorists' hands is Bush's increasingly shrill challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.)."
"Good propagandists will turn their enemies' words against them, and the best will sow suspicion and division among them. This is happening now in the United States, where the terrorist enemy and its allies are using the rhetoric of the current presidential campaign in their jihad against the nation. Previous cautions against rash campaign words that provide aid and comfort to the enemy were thrown out the window long ago. Kerry steadily has become more and more shrill in his denunciations of the president as a leader, a man and a politician. Straying from legitimate policy differences with Bush or a healthy national debate about how best to fight the terrorist enemy, the Democratic nominee in waiting has yanked off the safety and fired full auto at the president."
More suggesting that a vote for kerry is a vote for Bin Laden.
One good thing about that site is, judging by the activity in the forums, no one visits.
Didn't prominent Republicans already debunk this one?
Sorta like an American version of Pravda.
No worse than Alternet, NewsMax or any of the other trash "news" sites out there. The internet is a powerful tool for propoganda.
I think a news site that reports stuff like
is a very news worthy source.
....sounds like some fuzzy math to me.....
lets see....Bush can afford to spend $20,000,000 a WEEK on TV ads alone, and you actually buy into the insinuation that its the Dems who are getting the larger donations from the super-rich??
What does the Republicans being able to raise allot of money following the rules have to do with the Democrats not following the rules that they themselves insisted upon?
There is nothing here about Democrats getting contributions from the Rich and if they were so what. This is about them going around the rules and using third parties to advertise for them. Like moveon.org. Which normally would be allright and I would normally see nothing wrong with it except that it was the Democrats who forced thru the legistlation which restricted such activities like free speach via that so called campaign reform act which forbid such activities.
This wasn't about who was getting the most money but who was violating the rules that the Democrats forced down everyones throats. Which should've been called a violation of free speech by the Supreme court.
I am not familiar with the "campaign reform act," but I am assuming you are referring to the Hardy-Weinstein act, which provided our political system with a much needed first step towards meaningful campaign finance reform. THis law, which was heavily supported by war hero and republican senator John McCain, was met with heavy protest by president Rov......errr...Chen.....I mean....Bush. Bush is famous for his fund-raising efforts, which reward the highest bidders with special titles such as "Pioneer," as well as special access to high-ranking policy-making members of the Bush administration (see: Cheney's meetings with corporate energy executives, including representitives from Enron....the same meaning that has had Cheney locked in a legal battle against the people of the United States for the past 3 years. He has so far lost every appeal, and it is now in the hands of the supreme court). Not only do they get to influence our nation's policy, but these contributers get to sleep in the White House, at the expense of the American tax payer.
Lets see.....527s were created in 1974, by a Republican Administration....funny ain't it....(it was in the post-Goldwater era that the Rublican Party was beginning to get hijacked by the reactionary elements of the country, so perhaps they had schemed to one day use them in a way similar to how the moderates and liberals are)....So there you have it, this is merely a case of jealousy on the part of reactionaries, who have been unable to get the kind of grassroots support that moderates and liberals have.
However, as I know this argument will do nothing to passify some, I will also mention the fact that it was President William Clinton who signed a law requiring 527s to disclose their political activities. "Under Public Law 106-230, Section 527 groups are required to notify the IRS of their existence within 24 hours of organizing and to file periodic reports disclosing their contributions and expenditures."
So, the only caps on the activities of 527s were put there by the only Democratic administration that has existed since 1981. Nothing was done by Reagan, Bush, or Bush, so obviously they do not consider it a problem. Also, seeing as how all three branches of our goverment have been Republican controlled for the last 3 years, if there was true widespread opposition to thier existance and activities, something would have been done to curtail thier activities by now.
Finally, if you are opposed to organizations such as Move On, then may I ask how you feel about "The Club for Growth," "Americans for a Better Country," "Focus on the Family," the "Legislative Education Action Drive," and other reactionary and conservative organizations.
I am not oppose to free speech. I'm opposed to that campaign reform bill which limits free speech and I'm against democrats finding ways around it especially since they are the ones that promoted it.
Money is NOT speech.
Tell that to the people who have to pay for on air space.
Do they HAVE to pay? Or are they free not to?
There are left-wing and right-wing "news" sites meant purely for propaganda. I tend to look more harshly on the right-wing sites because of personal bias.
I think it is misleading for this site to claim itself to be a news site, because it very clearly offers one-sided opinions. It's fine if that's its role (the role is a legitimate one), but it is not fine to seek a guise of objectivity in the word "news."
A quick look at the letters to the editor also shows the definite bias. Any legitimate news source would publish letters to the editor that offered a representative spread of viewpoints. However, this site only published letters to the editor that supported its point of view. I find it doubtful that every reader of the site agreed. Even if the majority did agree, a good news site would print dissenting opinions to promote diversity.
This is defintely not a news site. That is a fact. It may not be "the most BS site on the internet," though it is one whose opinions I find distasteful. That, however, is an opinion, itself.
Yeah, but money talks.
The major problem with these "news sites" is that they are donating money to the election. According the the finance reform, you can't donate money to a party if you're affiliated with them. Hence the "independant" critisisms of Bush on moveon. However, some GOP'ers have noted that stories about the Kerry campaign and it's stances on issues have been reported by such sites days before the Kerry campaign reports them.
....so....that means that you are opposed to the activities of "The Club for Growth," "Americans for a Better Country," "Focus on the Family," the "Legislative Education Action Drive," and other reactionary and conservative 527 organizations, right???
I repeat --- no, I'm against the campaign reform bill and hypocritical democrats who go out of their way to get around the very law they themselves inacted. I think private clubs and institutions should promote who they are for. However as one pointed out up above moveon.org tends to report on speaches Kerry hasn't made yet proving collusion which would be a violation of the campaign reform act which I would call the anti free speech bill.
So you're only against Democratic hipocrosy and not Republican hipocrasy? Nice. Sound like you are 'Fair and Balanced' too!
Seems to me that if a news service starts asking relevant searching questions of politicians regarding "why no WOMD were found" after being assured that they were there, or "why are we spending all that money and risking lives/killing Arabs?" they get labeled "liberal".
While if they never ask the hard questions and blindly follow the Govt line on issues, they are considered fair and unbiased.
Why does Slyhunter fear media with teeth. All the politicians have to do is answer the questions.
They can also ask why we havn't found Osama Bin Laden?
We can pull out the tapes from 1991 where Saddam Showed the world the WMD's so that question where are the WMD's should be asked of Saddam. He had them now what did he do with them? The fact that we havn't found them should worry you allot because who has them now?