Palin and censorship

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by Frame57

Naw, you gotta lotta good gumba's livin in Joisey...

Heck yeah! And even our Republicans are liberals!

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Palin, oil, polar bears and stuff (0% porn) :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...al-920803.html

Read that on the train home today. Good read.

[Foxtrot]

Originally Posted by Wolfehunter

Please tell me you guys are going to support someone like her?

I support her because she is hawt. Think about it: McCain dies, Palin becomes ze President of ze United States. Whole world will be jealous of us.

[AVGWarhawk]

Nothing concerns me about McCain or Palin. The media is getting to be nothing but rubbish.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Nothing concerns me about McCain or Palin. The media is getting to be nothing but rubbish.

Nothing?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Thomen

According to your quote, she does not has a problem with teaching evolution either.

I have a problem with somebody who thinks creationism is of that intellectual quality that it should be taught side by side with scientific theopries in public school although the state has a constitutional obligation not to support any religion'S views and interests and to make sure the principle of secularism is obeyed - by all.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The media is getting to be nothing but rubbish.

Getting to be? It has been for as long as I can remember (which consists of mainly last week)

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I have a problem with somebody who thinks creationism is of that intellectual quality that it should be taught side by side with scientific theopries in public school although the state has a constitutional obligation not to support any religion'S views and interests and to make sure the principle of secularism is obeyed - by all.

Is state-sponsored censorship less harmful than state-sponsored endorsement?

I can't disagree with you on this, sky, because of my capitalist perspective. After all, if more people learn things like creationism, the rest have an advantage over them in many respects in a market economy. I'm also a proponent of privatized education. Apples and oranges in that respect.

But I would like you to expound on this a bit if you don't mind. I will play devil's advocate and ask you how you would determine what lessons are acceptable for public schooling, and what criterion you would use. How can you "have a problem" with them and still respect their individual sovereignty?

Once again, not an argument (although you may treat it as such if you wish), I'd just like to hear your perspective.

[Tchocky]

If this turns out to be true, she'll be dying for some censorship.

http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/09...ive-and-mean”/

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”
This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

I have my doubts, given the anonymous source. We'll see how it turns out.

[Digital_Trucker]

Congress should pass a law that states that you can't quote someone unless you give their name. I really get sick and tired of anonymous sources. For all we know the "journalists" (and I use the term very loosely) in half the articles (probably more appropriately called stories) could make up whatever they want to make up.

Not saying that's the case here, just b!tching about "journalism" in general.

Edit : I wonder where these "journalists" were when Jesse Jackson was recorded making his racist remarks against Obama?

Oh yeah, this is where they were http://www.laprogressive.com/2008/07...game/#more-582

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Congress should pass a law that states that you can't quote someone unless you give their name. I really get sick and tired of anonymous sources. For all we know the "journalists" (and I use the term very loosely) in half the articles (probably more appropriately called stories) could make up whatever they want to make up.

Not saying that's the case here, just b!tching about "journalism" in general.

Edit : I wonder where these "journalists" were when Jesse Jackson was recorded making his racist remarks against Obama?

Careful DT. Anonymous sources have been of great value in some investigations into organized crime, politics, and consumer reporting. And how would you enforce such a law anyway? People would only lie about their identities. I f you required them to present an ID and appear in person, many truthful anonymous sources wouldn't even come forward.

Journalists do need to be more responsible, but does that burden lie with the state, or the viewers?

[Digital_Trucker]

I don't want any more government control of anything than anyone else does (well, maybe some do). Just a minor rant on what used to be a noble profession now being turned into a joke by every Tom, Dick and Jane having their totally agendized websites and calling it "journalism".

[Tchocky]

Neither of these are heavily journalistic pieces, both are more like feature pieces or op-ed articles. Anyhoo, anonymous sources contribute a hell of a lot. That whole whistleblower thing, too.

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Be it on this forum or pretty much everywhere else, the right wingers complain that the press is a pile a junk licking lefties' boots, and the left wingers complain that the media are bought by the right. So I guess it's pretty well balanced overall.

About the article, wow, how dare that pseudo journalist investigate the record of the first beautiful woman picked for VP ? These people sure need to learn some manners

Yep, how dare they indeed? BTW, how many posts have you counted here where the left wingers are complaining about the right wing owning the media? Maybe I'm blind but I don't see that many folks complaining about the media not giving the left a fair shake.

Also, BTW, I guess you missed the part where I said that I wasn't accusing this "journalist" of anything, just making a generalized observation. Neither did I mention that I was griping about leftist or rightist media, but media in general. Or were you not addressing me? If not, then never mind

Edit : Tchocky, good point about them being op-ed pieces. The problem is that too many people read what is in reality an op-ed piece and assume it is fact. Maybe we should have labelling on our media like we do on everything else.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Edit : Tchocky, good point about them being op-ed pieces. The problem is that too many people read what is in reality an op-ed piece and assume it is fact. Maybe we should have labelling on our media like we do on everything else.

You can't legislate for stupidity, really. People listen to Bill O'Reilly or Al Franken and take it as legitimate. The same people read hard news and refuse to believe it.