Media anti-Republican?
Elaine Neades is right on track in referring to the bias against anything favorable toward Republicans. The News is replete with anti-Republican articles.
Likewise, she expressed exactly my feelings toward the news media in general.
On Friday, my husband encountered a News representative wanting us to change from a four-day cycle to an all-week delivery. The representative said that because subscriptions had declined the News was making a special offer. My husband declined the offer. Indeed, I expressed to my husband on Thursday that when our subscription expires that we should strongly consider not renewing it. Apparently, others have or are considering the same. Newspapers should print the news and not be propaganda machines.
This letter has not been edited.
I'm sure, however, that Ms. Gibson would renew her subscription if the RMN was a GOP propganda machine. She needs to remember one thing- bias in your favor is still bias, and still just as bad.
Posted by BO on September 10, 2007 02:09 PMyou are a sheepish moron who is controlled by you rulers in Washington.
ANYONE who labels themselves a republican or a democrat OR ANY political affiliation perpetuate this countries downfall
Posted by Fresh on September 10, 2007 02:24 PMHey bo bo,When truth is told through the media it is called conservative bias.When facts are change to lies it's called liberal bias.When facts are totally left out it's called liberal bias.
Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 02:31 PMYour point is well taken, Mrs. Gibson. The Rocky Mountain News and Denver Post are both in the Democrat camp. I hope that more people will speak up like yourself. In the meantime, try the Wall Street Journal editorials.
Posted by Brian Stuckey on September 10, 2007 02:33 PMBut remember, the truth has a liberal bias.
If Republilcs do something good or newsworthy, the paper will print it. Seems that some progress is being made with North Korea, that is a Republican effort, that was in the paper.
There are columnists supporting the administration, it has both liberal and conservative in it.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 03:22 PMAll facets of the media fear the GOP (grand old perverts). This band of brothers and sisters cut and ran, and wouldn't investigate fully, that Bush is a 40+ year AWOLee and deserter. Felon hires fellow felon. USSC Judge Alito is also a UCMJ-felon (AWOLee and deserter). Alito pimped and exploited taxpayers for 7 years of "free" ROTC college education (JD/undergrad degrees). Alito opted out of his 11 years active military duty obligation. His "guise" is his time as a federal law clerk. Federal law clerk isn't mentioned in my copies of the Uniform COde of Military Justice (UCMJ) and Manual of Court Martial. Therefore, Alito should serve 3 years in prison with his "affirmative action" home-boys.
Mitt is "W". Both got "daddy NAM" draft deferments. Cong. Bush put "W'" in racially-segregated Texas Air National Guard. Mitt's pappy was in Nixon's cabinet. When NAM broke-out, Mitt broke for his Mormon mission. Black Muslim Elijah Muhammad, sought a religious draft-deferment and he was rewarded with a 3 year federal prison sentence. His son, Wallace D. Muhammad, sought a religious draft deferment too. Wallace was also sentenced to 3 years in federal prison. Elijah was Muhammad Ali's religious advisor. Mitt owes black folks 3 years in federal prison.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 10, 2007 03:40 PMAnita Sue, you could not be more wrong. If media has a liberal bias, how come the majority of the country that wants withdrawal from Iraq is still portrayed as some sort of "liberal fringe." The "mainstream" position on all issues is still the conservative position, and no matter how many people join the "fringe" (right now it's over 60%), you always hear it referred to in those terms.
Don't confuse Republicans being sleazy with some sort of liberal bias. It's just Republicans actually being sleazy.
Posted by on September 10, 2007 04:14 PMRMN news today, page 35. Two articles on the war, one liberal one conservative.
If this isn`t what conservs want, what balance do they want? Maybe 60-40 or 70-30.....
Posted by Sharon B. on September 10, 2007 05:56 PM We Americans have all been lazy and should be ashamed that milti-national corporations have effectively taken control of our media and airwaves.
The so-called conservatives have been whimpering about the "liberal media" for years, yet when we ask that the Fairness in Broadcasting provision be reinstated, they sputter and balk and change the subject.
Why? It's simple ...they DON'T want the truth out there.
Cons have learned the lessons of the Nazi propaganda machine well; ie
1) Convince the masses we're being attacked. (fearmongering).
2) Promote nationalism. (Wrap yourself in the flag).
3) Brand all dissenters as un-patriotic. (remember the Dixie Chicks?)
We need to hear from the sanity that is the Liberal Americans who didn't fall for the BS in the first place.
Fairness in Broadcasting is only fair, and if you've got a problem with that, you probably had a yellow ribbon magnet on the ass-end of your SUV.
And you've been played for a sucker.
It's time to "kick ass" (to paraphrese W,)
Only this time we need to kick ass on the bastards who exploited 9/11 for profit and political gain.
And we all know who they are.
Bring it on.
It's time to kill ass on the bastards who are supporting Al Qaeda over our troops.These lowlife anti-american teasonist liberals need to be kick out of this country.We need to send some chick over to kick dmz's ass.
Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:02 PMIt's time to kill ass on the bastards who are supporting Al Qaeda over our troops.These lowlife anti-american teasonist liberals need to be kick out of this country.We need to send some chick over to kick dmz's ass.
Posted by Keith on September 10, 2007 08:06 PMdmz,
Take your frickkin meds again already ,
they're wearing off.
z
Posted by on September 10, 2007 08:32 PMKeithy & z,
How astute.
You've made my point . Thank you very much!
Peace and Love
dmz
How much coverage have CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Washington Post, etc ... devoted to Clinton's acceptance of nearly a million dollars from a fugitive?
Not only is the story ripe with the possibility of corruption of the likely next president, the recent arrest of Hsu is at once funny and absurd. To be sure, this is a "sexy" story that you would expect to be covered with greater zest should a republican have been involved.
Only anectodal to be sure.
The real evidence of a liberal bias in the print media are the well-documented self-identification of an overwhleming majority of "journalists" as liberal.
See: http://www.asne.org/kiosk/reports/97reports/journalists90s/journalists.html
The source, you will see, is anything but another conservative thinktank.
Of course a portion of the media lean right (Fox News, Wall Street Journal, etc...) but the studies have consistently shown an overall left-leaning tendancy.
Sharon B.
"The truth has a liberal bias" what the he-- does that mean?
AF
Posted by on September 11, 2007 06:58 AM11:30
"Romney's national finance committee co-chairman Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press article, "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice." The AP reported that Fabian "allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel." Fabian resigned from Romney's finance committee shortly after being indicted."
I've heard far more from the conservatively dominated media about Clinton and Hsu than the above tiny piece of important news about Romney and Fabian.
Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 07:26 AMThis is too funny a letter to pass up. The poor victimized Republicans not getting their fair share of slanted articles printed. Boo hoo. They are afraid to the point of hysteria that this media bias is might actually turn out to be what's known as reality. Everyone knows that reality has a lefty bias.
Both papers endorsed Bush in 2004. The mainstream media is owned by and in bed with the corporate conglomerates. The media has been a bunch of craven whores in regards to the occupation of Iraq.
What the wingnuttery really want is to either convert the rest of the news media to behave like the Republican News Network (Faux News). Probably the real direction this is going is for the nutjobs on the right to stop getting their information from any other source than Faux News so that they can be totally manipulated by the propaganda efforts of the radical right. Real news is scary stuff if you are a die hard righty. Real Americans aren't afraid of information that is different from their political perspective. Only the wussy Republicans are scared of unfiltered news.
Posted by Wes on September 11, 2007 07:38 AMHave those who think the RMN is "liberal" actually READ their editorials?
If you don't like hearing facts that offend your Right-Wing feelings,
then, please, watch Faux "News".
Wes said:
"Faux News"
Hey, that's clever. Faux means fake but also sounds like the word Fox. So, you substituted one for the other. I get it. That really is clever.
But, hold onto that cleverness lest others plagiarize it. Next thing you know, every liberal moron who can type will start using your "Faux News" phrase ad nauseum. It may even begin to substitute for actual rational thought someday. Instead of offering a rational, logical, and reasonable response, folks may just start saying "Faux News". That would be horrible, don't you think? It would reduce intelligent discussion to cheap slogans and phrases like "The truth is liberally biased".
So, keep an eye out for your clever little phrase. Make sure no one else steals it. Keep it for yourself.
That really is clever though. I can't stop chuckling at that one. Faux News. Ha! That is clever. Whew. You're a clever guy, Wes.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 07:59 AMUh oh, Wes, it looks like your cleverness is already being copied. Leroy, is using it now. I fear my prediction is turning into reality. Soon, every liberal moron who can type on a keyboard will start using your "Faux News" phrase.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 08:04 AMHey karla,I hate liberals because they support the terrorist over Americans,dumb-ass.Hang your white flag today like all the other lowlife liberals.
Posted by Keith on September 11, 2007 08:16 AMWe can always depend on Keith and others like him to drag any discussion into the gutter with their childish name calling. Those who accuse the media of liberal bias apparently forget the way the Washington Post beat the whitewater dead horse for years. Or the way the New York Times beat the drums for Bush's invasion of Iraq. Or how the media in the 2000 campaign relentlessly ridiculed Al Gore for his "sighs" while never challenging Bush's outrageous misstatements.
Posted by Romulus on September 11, 2007 09:00 AMJohn 2,
I've been reading postings on this website for months. The term "faux News" has been around for months, and more. It's shorter than " Right-Wingnut, Reactionary, Religious-Nut-Cult Republican Propaganda Machine"; but it does convey the message quite well.
Now you have really given us all a good belly laugh, when you make reference to "intelligent discussion" - supposedly with a Republican spokes-person. That's worth a spot on the old HEE-HAW!.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 09:07 AMToo many graduates of journalism schools want to change the world. They are dominated by liberal activists, many with a socialist bent. The DP is a better example locally, but still nothing compared to the NY Times or LA Times. Where did the liberal/socialist George Soros moveon.org crowd go to place their treasonous and infamous "Gen. Betray Us" ad? They didn't go to Foxnews, The Wall Street Journal or Investor's Business Daily.
Americans are on to this conspicuous liberal bias. That's one big reason why their circulation, readership, ad revenues, profits and physical size are forever shrinking. And that's whay their layoffs are booming.
Posted by Hank on September 11, 2007 09:19 AMKeith any time you feel like serving your eviction notices in person let me know and bring it on.
I used to have a list of the very few multinational corporations that control the vast majority of the "media" including internet resources in this country and I'd challenge the wingnuts to point out which of those corporations had a liberal bias. I never ever got a straight answer from any wingnut.
I take no credit for Faux News. It is used to characterize Jon Stewart's comedy show and is a common term in the blogosphere for the hilarious crap that is put out by the Republican News Network.
If the RMN was really anti-Republican it would show real pictures of coffins and the destruction in Iraq instead of sanitizing it for American consumption.
My question is why is it that Republicans always come across as infantile whiners? For pretending to be manly men they sure have a lot of paranoid insecurity fears.
Wes is right. Fox (faux?) News is a right leaning news media station. Most news media outlets are also right leaning. I can list them, watch...
Fox. Wait, already mentioned that one.
Um...
Hannity. Wait, he's part of Fox.
Um...
OReilly. Oops, same problem.
Um...
Rush. There, that's a good one.
What else...
Coulter. Wait, she's not affiliated.
Help me out here Wes... What were all those non left leaning news stations again???
Posted by KW on September 11, 2007 10:04 AMOld Grouch drooled:
"The term "faux News" has been around for months, and more."
Wes admitted:
"I take no credit for Faux News."
Get out! Wes didn't invent the phrase? I'm shocked. Because I have never heard of that phrase before. Most liberals rarely even mention Fox News. Have you guys ever posted on Daily Kos? They never mention Fox News let alone the extremely clever Faux News.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:20 AMIf any media organization doesn't pander to Moveon.org and their shepples (like wes, truth, davis, og, etc), and actually attempts to paint a true picture of a news story without the lefties pre-approval, the are branded pro-republican or right wing.
Hell, I've even seen MSNBC called a right wing puppet when it didn't agree with the clowns I mentioned above, and they're so left wing they make Moveon.org seemed middle of the road.
The lefties just like things presented in a manner that supports their own positions, irrespective of the truth. In their sanctimonious assertions of superior moral and ethical required actions they reject and attack anything in disagreement, including the truth.
Read them with amusement because all they provide is comic relief through their pontifications of moral certainties and absolutes. Consider them of the same ilk, though amateur, as wannbe Paul Campos'.They bring no constructive debate to a public forum in search of finding solutions, just self aggrandizement through, as og states, fatuous flatulence.
They are as bad coming from the left as keith, an american, etc. are coming from the right.
There are a few good debaters from the right and the left still hanging around this forum, but those who think like those above have started dominating and destroying this board.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:29 AMKW said:
"Help me out here Wes... What were all those non left leaning news stations again???"
Here ya go.
ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, just to name a few.
Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 10:38 AMDefinitely add GK to the post of 10:29..."it's" so far left it makes Moveon. org look middle of the road. "It's" to such an extreme as least balance is provided for AN American who comes from so far on the right he makes Limbaugh seem middle of the road.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:44 AMI knew it all along: there is a physical difference between libs and cons.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070909/hl_afp/scienceneuroscience;_ylt=Ahwg.Ey9H28j0YRPSR8aIAwR.3QA
Posted by Sheila on September 11, 2007 10:46 AMGK - You're joking, right?
NBC???
MSNBC???
CNN???
How many left examples do you want? I'm having a special today, 4 for $20, cash only.
Posted by KW on September 11, 2007 10:49 AMSheila, dear...you skipped some of the more relevant points.."As to the more intriguing question of which comes first, the patterns in neuron activity or the political orientation, Amodio is reluctant to hazard a guess."
Posted by on September 11, 2007 10:53 AM10:29 AM anonymous,
Odd posting. Few, if any, "liberals" here ever consider their position to be either of, or antithetical to, what you refer to as "superior moral and ethical required actions", much less "attack . . . the truth". Indeed, the liberals on this website are the ones who usually DEMAND the truth, and evidence for the insistent statements of "superior moral and ethical " positions claimed by the Republicans/"conservatives".
Just what is your idea of "consturctive debate" sir? Or is that just a way of saying you can't deal with the ideas; and must always find yourself - and the other anynomous writers - bowed down before, as being yourselves of "superior" abilities and positions?
We may use screen names, sir; but we at least are identifiable, and trackable. Which contributes far more to the basics of "constructive debate" than anything prsented anonymously, as in your letter.
Or is it just a matter of lacking the intestinal fortitude to debate in the first place; and remaining anonymous because of it?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 10:54 AMANONYMOUS: actually, I didn't skip over anything. :-) So, I'm not sure what is your point.
Anyway.... how are all you angry children today?
KW: Obviously they are so anti American they can't even see how other then Fox news there is no "fair" TV. It's too bad that patriotism isn't politically correct anymore.
Posted by Anti Lib on September 11, 2007 11:01 AMHey Sheila,
Here's another link that shows the difference between libs and cons: http://www.zombietime.com/9-11_truth_march_power_to_peaceful/
John II
I think you are reaching a little afar of the mainstream liberal thought when you use your "Zombietime" pictorial to make a point.
It's too bad that we have so much confrontation from both sides tying to demean the other when there are legitimate positions emanating from both the right and that could be discussed in a positive or constructive manner.
But, I would imagine that the respective party leaders, prefer us humble citizens to remain blind to the fact that they're both following essentially the same special interests while parroting sound bites that increases the schism between the respective party faithful.
It would be a shame to hold an elected party official's feet to the fire for ineffectiveness come election time.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 11:20 AMCorrection to 11:20 Post
"both the right and that could be" SHOULD read; ...
"...both the right an left that could be..."
Sorry, I'm sitting in a meeting and typing in short bursts to make the others think I'm taking notes, and not just bored and playing on a public forum...
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 11:25 AMmongoose,
I threw that link out there as an elbow in the liberals side. But, I'm beginning to wonder if the images I see of liberals protesting and the comments I read on this forum are not indicative of mainstream liberalism.
"But, I would imagine that the respective party leaders, prefer us humble citizens to remain blind to the fact that they're both following essentially the same special interests while parroting sound bites that increases the schism between the respective party faithful."
I'm not sure what special interests you are referring to. Yes, both sides cater to their special interests but those special interests are not the same. The differences between the two sides are so great that I don't know how much longer we can remain a united States of America.
By the way, what are you thoughts on the protesting going on in regards to the General's report? Do you think it's appropriate. Have you heard Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez's remarks to the General?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:42 AMmongoose,
Where can I find "mainstream liberal thought"? Which blogs would you recommend for that? Do you feel the liberal posters on this forum are "mainstream"?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:46 AMKW
Me Joking? Not at all. Don't need any left examples. There are far more right examples.
Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 11:51 AMJohn2, don't be naive. Both parties leaders dance to the big global business interests, international influence and power brokers. They have little sub issue differences that they point at and try to make sheeple believes their different, but they all march to the same freakin" drum -power.
og, nice sanctimonious "sound bite".
Posted by on September 11, 2007 11:55 AMLittle sub issue differences? One side despises capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution. Those aren't "sub issues".
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:01 PMJohn II
You're first question will have to wait -- people are becoming suspicious of my computer activity (ahh, it's nice to be the boss, they won't challenge - pity).
You're second question - I don't read liberal or conservative blogs so I have no reference for you. And yes, I do believe you have some fairly mainstream liberal thinkers on this blog. Old Grouch, Charles B, Sharon B, and a few others who will provide a point of reference and logical arguments supporting their positions.
You have a few on the right who present the same backing for their positions; momma y, KW, Dravor, darfor, and a few others.
You don't have to agree with any of them on either side, but appreciate the points they usually make from a non-dogmatic or emotional appeal.
Gotta run - I've been outed!
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 12:03 PMIs this "mainstream liberal thought"? http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/blog/g/87d0752b-a17e-4b7b-b3a9-ab6761f7b565
That moron accused our General of lying.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:06 PMJust as I thought, mongoose. If Old Grouch, Sharon B. and Charles B. are "mainstream liberal thought", then mainstream liberal thought is a scary thing.
Is this "mainstream liberal thought"? : http://www.bwog.net/index.php?page=post&article_id=2265
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:12 PMjohn2, "...capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution."
Most agree that capitalism, regulated is good. That's why honest (or relatively honest) business flourishes and the Enron's of the world collapse.
Christianity is a personal belief system. Some Christians want laws forcing everyone to live under their religious tenants -- not much different than the Islamic radicals want everyone to live under Sharia Law. Not much different between the two wannabe Theocracies except for their followers.
Religion, including Christianity belongs in the home, church and lifestyle of the people accepting it - not forced down everyone else's throat. And, I'm a Christian - Christ taught spread the Word and teach; not, institute laws and make them followers.
Constitution - depends on interpretation.
On all of these johnnie boy, you are not a thinking conservative, but a dogmatic "by God, that's the way it's always been, so it's good enough for me" so everyone toe my line based on my narrow minded interpretation.
Ya got a brain, man...use it for analytical thought and not just providing a framework to apply to everything around you in a selfish, bigoted manner.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 12:21 PMAnd lefties are accused of being conspiracy buffs. RMN is about as liberal biased as Rush Limbaugh. This is the newspaper that regularly prints Brian Stinkeys letters. When the RMN and the Post start printing articles on the waste and fraud involved with the Iraq occupation then I will consider the possibility that they are allowing liberal themes into their papers.
This thread reminds me a little kids who try to hold their breath to get what they want. "Daddy we don't want to hear about reality. We want to have the news slanted and filtered so we don't have to hear what utter and complete failures the Republicans have been at governing this country for the last 12 years. Make the bad papers stop printing all those horrid stories about homo-bashing gay Republicans. We want to hear good stories about how wonderful this endless war is how we're the good guys even when we torture".
No wonder Righties think reality has a liberal bias.
Posted by Wes on September 11, 2007 12:22 PMJohn II
You're baiting into getting in trouble, my friend!
I don't see any of the people I mentioned above, nor people like them getting involved in the ruckus you provided as an example -- it's almost as "non mainstream" as your "Zombietime".
To you think that this is representative of modern conservatives...
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 12:26 PMOkay, 12:21 (why do I have to refer to you as a time? pick a name),
Let's start with this:
"Most agree that capitalism, regulated is good. That's why honest (or relatively honest) business flourishes and the Enron's of the world collapse."
Show me your liberal thought process and explain that statement because my unthinking conservative brain cannot grasp it. How did regulation cause Enron to collapse?
"Some Christians want laws forcing everyone to live under their religious tenants -- not much different than the Islamic radicals want everyone to live under Sharia Law."
Can you be specific? Which religious laws are being forced on us?
"Constitution - depends on interpretation."
How about the English interpretation. Let's start with the 10th Amendment: How many liberals here support the 10th Amendment?
By the way, is this mainstream liberal thought: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5305897362296506063
I rest my case of wes, the self righteous looney left. He wouldn't know reality if he was hit over the head with it. Go back to your Moveon.org shrine, little wessy, and promise to to better the next time they allow you internet access.
If the RMN, DP - the 2 liberal rags of this town won't emphasis the minute to prove a point of Moveon.org and their sheeple (like little wessy) their part of Hillary's vast right wing conspiracy.
What a bunch of freakin' babies.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 12:33 PMi'll be rite back, i soiled meself again....worse i forgot to waer my Depends today so dis might take me a while to cleanup.An American wood you hep me?
Posted by keith on September 11, 2007 12:37 PMmongoose said:
"I don't see any of the people I mentioned above, nor people like them getting involved in the ruckus you provided as an example -- it's almost as "non mainstream" as your "Zombietime"."
I'm not so sure about that. Charles B. believes the best way to fight the spread of Islam is for the entire population of America to convert to atheism. Here's what that would actually accomplish in New York City: http://urbaninfidel.blogspot.com/2007/09/muslim-day-parade.html#links
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 12:41 PMjonnie2, you sure pick extreme reports and videos to lump all liberals into. You're a narrow minded as wessy boy but from the other side!
"Which religious laws are being forced on us"
Abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, pornography (gay or straight), for a START. These are all based on your religious bigotry and alleged superior moral codes. You want laws prohibiting them based on your religion. Religious laws of control = Theocracratical control.
"How did regulation cause Enron to collapse"
Accurate financial accounting and audits of public companies -- by regulation of numerous federal and state laws. Their financial house of cards fell.
Speaking of the Constitution, johnnie boy, where does it prohibit gay marriage, pornography...
Where doe it prohibit child labor in corporate manufacturing sweat shops...strike that, that's part of REGULATING business and capitalism.
Fed up with extremes and bigots
Posted by on September 11, 2007 12:45 PMSo what else is new? 90% of them vote Democratic and most are lying bleeding heart liberals like Dan Rather and the other 60 Minutes clan on Sundays. It shoud be called 60 lies a minute instead. Mike Wallce looks like death warmed over.
I'm sure glad they have Sharon B. is on their side. People like her are a God send for the Right and she is just one of millions.
They only show the nation what the lying left has done to the sensibilities of the average person who wishes to be willfully blind to the truth. This is a sad period in the history of our once great nation.
Posted by No Blinders on September 11, 2007 12:53 PM12:45 uttered:
"Abortions, gay marriage, homosexuality, pornography (gay or straight), for a START."
Abortion is not a religious issue. Neither is gay marriage. By the way, which major Democrat presidential candidates support gay marriage?
"Accurate financial accounting and audits of public companies -- by regulation of numerous federal and state laws. Their financial house of cards fell."
Try again. Regulation did not bring down Enron; capitalism did.
"Speaking of the Constitution, johnnie boy, where does it prohibit gay marriage, pornography..."
It doesn't. Therefore, what? Therefore, it should be left to the States to decide.
"Where doe it prohibit child labor in corporate manufacturing sweat shops...strike that, that's part of REGULATING business and capitalism."
So, do you agree that child labor laws should be left to the States?
By the way, is this mainstream liberal thought: http://www.olbermannwatch.com/archives/2007/09/keith_olbermann_61.php
John II
Grasping extreme examples doesn't substantiate your point of view to me. Just like me pointing out the Aryan Nations isn't indicative of all Conservatives, your selected videos and news stories of extremes in both the liberal side of politics and Muslims doesn't validate your apparent intense dislike of anything not agreeing with you other than your perception of the normal from these people. I happen to believe that you are picking exceptions, not the general rule.
If you're wondering where I'm coming from out of fear that I'm pushing a liberal agenda, I'm not. I can best be described as a fiscally conservative leaning libertarian who understand the need for some social intervention by the government to ensure a truly free and prospering society. I also believe that the true separation between any religion (including atheism) and the state should be rigidly observed.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 12:58 PMJohn II
Lunch is over, I've got to pay attention to the rest of the meeting since I'm announcing the decision they've been fighting over! (I cheat - my mind was made up after touring the factory and talking to the actual workers yesterday!)
Probably won't be able to get back today as my plane leaves here in a couple of hours to head home to Denver. I'll see if I have wifi on the plane - new charter company I'm not familiar with yet.
Enjoyed it! Hope to catch you again down the road.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 01:09 PMmongoose,
I posted links of war protesters, a member of Congress accusing a general of lying, an example of liberal free speech at a major university, and a major news personality accusing a conservative news organization as being worse than terrorists and the KKK. I could go on and on with this stuff. I'm not grasping. This stuff goes on everywhere.
You call Charles B., Old Grouch, and Sharon B. mainstream liberals? One is a caustic, bitter middle-aged man. Another is a crazy, bitter old man. And, the last one is just plain nutty. There can be no real debate with this type of liberal mainstream thought. The real debate is between libertarianism and conservatism.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:09 PMJohn II
While we all have to make judgments pertaining to our interaction with the world around us, it's best not to be too judgmental of people without allowing for adjustments and refinements of those opinions in the future. One of those people who profiled may throw out a gem of an idea among everything else -- it would a shame to miss it due to a prematurely closed and locked mind.
Ciao --
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 01:15 PMMy mind is far from locked.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:20 PMmongoose:--
"You have a few on the right who present the same backing for their positions; momma y, KW, Dravor, darfor, and a few others.
You don't have to agree with any of them on either side, but appreciate the points they usually make from a non-dogmatic or emotional appeal."
I see you didn't include John in this category even though he comes off from the right. Does this mean you think he comes across as being dogmatic or emotional?
And I'm hurt you forgot me! lol
Posted by CA on September 11, 2007 01:23 PMjohnnie boy2, "My mind is far from locked."
R i i g h t! Your little noggin' is more locked up than the Queen's chastity belt while the hubby King is off slaying the infidels in the name of Christianity...
Posted by on September 11, 2007 01:27 PM1:27,
Is that your answer to my questions to you about the Constitution?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:33 PMjohnnie boy2, right -- it is constitutionally mandated that you keep you little noggin' locked up and view the world in your bigoted manner. That explains a lot -- you don't want to violate the constitution!
I's got to put on my uni and report to work. You keep working at subjugating the world to Christian views of morals and whatever. You's definitely great at it and fun to laugh at. You and Wes make a good comic relief team.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 01:40 PMThe trouble with attempts to "debate" John 2, lies in the simple fact that any respopnse to him must necessarily be put in terms of agreement with the terms of HIS current moment's expression of HIS momentary beliefs and belief-system.
Since these are always as fluid as a running stream - and as the philosopher, Heraclitus, stated several millenia ago: "You never step into the same river twice." - there is never a fixed reference point, or fixed point of any kind, from which to begin discussion.
One example: Back a while ago, John 2 asked what actions taken, or positions held, against gay people were matters of "prejudice". There were answers, some of which listed a number ways in which "prejudice" was shown, applied, or present. Those postings were, of course, relying upon the fixed point of reference that comes from the dictionary definition of the word. And, they made the mistake of thinking that their replies would be received accordingly.
On the contrary, however. John 2 simply stated that none of the matters brought up were, FOR HIM, "prejudice", or "prejudicial"; since - again FOR HIM - these were merely matters that were completely in accord with HIS CURRENT belief-system as being perfectly right and proper ways to treat gay people; and those posting from the fixed point of reference - the dictionary definition of the word "rejudice" - had FOR JOHN 2 ,and IN JOHN 2's opinion - not "answered his questions at all", since they weren't in accord with HIS THEN CURRENT BELIEFS.
Additionally, he is both tiring and tiresome by way of asking continuous rhetorical questions of the same kind, always based upon what JOHN 2 wants to have agreed with, according to HIS momentary, and fluctuating belief-system. at the time of asking.
And, I need not dwell upon his ugly misogyny, and utterly insulting approach to the ladies, as these are evident from the beginning of his postings.
But, if you want to waste the time, effort, and energy to keep him satisfied: Have at it! It will add to the fun, and amusement, of the forum.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 11, 2007 01:41 PMHow am I bigoted?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:43 PMOld Grouch,
Hm, one accuses me of having a locked mind and the other says my belief system fluctuates. So, which is it? Which of my stated beliefs have "fluctuated" on this forum?
By the way, Old Grouch, not being in favor of tougher "hate crime laws" for gays does not make me "anti-gay". I've said numerous times I have no problem with gay folks. There is no conflict of positions there.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:51 PM"I posted links of war protesters, a member of Congress accusing a general of lying, an example of liberal free speech at a major university, and a major news personality accusing a conservative news organization as being worse than terrorists and the KKK. I could go on and on with this stuff. I'm not grasping. This stuff goes on everywhere."
There's far more of it coming from the right.
Posted by GK on September 11, 2007 02:18 PMOld Grouch,
I agree with you that it's frustrating trying to debate with John 2. He reminds me of an investigative reporter who's already made up his mind as to what he wants to find and report. He then couches his questions and quoting in such a manner and context to "validate" his report.
I remember him discussing gay marriage with a few people a couple of weeks ago. No matter what was said if it didn't fit his frame of reference he rejected it as not applicable.
Look at the extremes he selected in his reports of public activity to lump all liberals into a category of irresponsible and intrusive airheads. He further stated in a subsequent post that this "stuff goes on everywhere", as if proving it to be the norm, not the exception. It's the media attention getting activity that is reported -- as are marches by the KKK or Aryan Nation "conservatives" and others of the extreme right.
I'm a conservative (albeit not a Bush supporter -- had to clarify before the guns are leveled) and find myself at a quandary when conservative values and thought become so lock stepped and oft-times illogical, if not irrational, in an attempt to justify a point of philosophical reference that only exists because of dogma or tradition, rather than the application of conservative principles to our ever evolving societal environment.
By the way, Old Grouch, away from John II for the moment. Some of you have been waiting for a new post from Trinity in Iraq.
As a little background to explain what I'm about to say; Trinity, mongoose, Krait 2 and myself were all members of the same SOG Teams in Vietnam at one time or the other. We've all stayed close after the service (mongoose and Trinity even more so as mongoose married Trinity's sister -- closest he came to death when he first stated wooing her!). I coaxed Trinity into participating in the forum and he brought in mongoose. We're still trying to get more of Krait 2's involvement, but he travels extensively and lives in New York.
Anyway, back to a post from Trinity: I was talking to him by his satellite phone yesterday and he was explaining that he was preparing a post stating that he was finding it a lot more peaceful since he hadn't been shot at since returning. Just then they were attacked and he terminated the call. When he called back a few hours later he said he would have to rethink and rewrite the post and try to get online later.
So, he does intend to post occasionally, and I believe you'll find him fairly honest when he does so.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 02:21 PMJohn II
I've got wifi for now, see how long it lasts. You misunderstood me when you said "one accuses me of having a locked mind.."
My reference was not to insinuate that you have a locked mind per se; but, since you had already profiled and categorized the people you mentioned, it would be wrong not to have an open mind while debating them.
Again, you don't have to agree with anything they say, but you should evaluate what they are saying and not just reject it based on previous categorizations. In other words, a cautionary admonition to not fall into the trap of a closed or locked mind...
darfor
You're telling tales out of school. Drinks are on you tonight! I'll call when we land -- Outback? Wives and dinner?
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 02:37 PMdarfor said:
"I remember him discussing gay marriage with a few people a couple of weeks ago. No matter what was said if it didn't fit his frame of reference he rejected it as not applicable."
Give me a break, darfor. How about an example? I remember that thread. It consisted of a gay guy, thomas I believe, calling me anti-gay because I opposed same-sex couples adopting children. I also stated that marriage (same sex or not) should not be messed with by the government. The only thing that concerns the government is the contract that is signed by all those entering into the pact.
For that position, Old Grouch and thomas went on and on with long drawn out, sappy posts about love and bigotry that did not address the points I was making.
As for being a frustrating debate opponent, I'm proud of that. As for the links I posted, that was just for fun in a boring thread.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 02:41 PMmongoose,
I've been posting here for about nine months now. I've been debating the same people for most of that time. My mind is always open. But, I've read enough of the postings of Old Grouch, Charles B., Sharon B., and Truth to know their positions on most subjects now. I always debate their points. They almost always ignore mine.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 02:47 PMJohn II
"...a member of Congress accusing a general of lying..." I watched a lot of the live feed of his congressional presentation. I also saw some members of the congress praise him for being honest and candid in his testimony that didn't fit within the Bush desired "rosy scenario." And I saw Bush supporters praise him as well.
Consider the source of who called him a liar. She's a firebrand who makes waves and throws insults at anyone not agreeing with her preconceived concept of the truth. Kinda reminds you of some of our participants in this forum representing both conservative and liberal ideologies....
She has the right to speak freely. You have the right to take umbrage at the content. I'm sure that the general was expecting at least that, if not worse, before he appeared. I'm also sure that he has more substantial and concrete things to worry about than a liberal firebrand throwing an insult in his direction.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 02:53 PMI never questioned anyone's right to speak freely, mongoose.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 02:56 PMmongoose
Turn on your satellite phone if you get this message and it won't interfere with the avionics. I keep getting sent to voice mail.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 03:03 PMJohn II
You can demonstrate your honesty and openness which Old Grouched referred to as being evasive by answering a couple of questions directly from the previous discussions regarding same sex marriage. You never got around to answering them before.
If a heterosexual couple get married in a civil, not religious ceremony, do you recognize that as a MARRIAGE?
You stated you were open to same sex couples having a civil ceremony and the same rights accorded to heterosexual couples, with the exception of children. Would you recognize the results of such a civil ceremony to be a MARRIAGE?
Only two words need be given; one word, either yes or no, for the first question. And, one word, either a yes or no for the second question.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 03:03 PMJohn II
"I never questioned anyone's right to speak freely, mongoose."
The what was the point to made by specifically complaining about the Congresswoman demonstrating that she doesn't have enough decorum to at least be civil in disagreement; but, rather, demonstrated that she chose a brash attack mode when not confronted by an adversarial opponent? Again, kinda reminds you of some of our neighbors from both the right and left on this forum.
If you want to ridicule elected officials for making an horse's ass out of themselves, you'll be typing all night and covering members of both parties.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 03:14 PMYou have to clarify your question before admonishing me to give one word answers.
You seem to be hung up on the semantics of the contract. Yes, I'll call it a marriage as long as they don't adopt children into their pact.
My overall position is that marriage should be separate from government outside of any contracts that have been signed by the couples. I don't care if you call it a marriage, domestic partnership, or civil union.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 03:16 PMmongoose,
I'm glad we can both agree that Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez made a "horse's ass" out of herself. I wonder who else on this forum agrees with us.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 03:19 PMJohn II
Thank you, sir. A very direct answer. While I don't agree with your position regarding children as I'm personally aware of same sex parents raising children to be heterosexuals and "normal"; I'll assume those to be anecdotal and not proof positive.
I believe if given the choice between institutional care and a same sex couple there isn't any question as to where they'll be better off.
I do agree with many of the studies I have read that conclude that children have a better balance when you have both a female and male parent raising them. Most of those studies were done in the context of divorce and the ramification of single parents being responsible for their development. I'm not aware of any non-religious sponsored studies addressing the situation of same sex parents.
I guess we can agree to disagree to a certain extent in this area and move on.
The pilot says were about to move into some rough weather and he is shutting nonessential electronics in favor avionics. So, I'm off the forum for at least an hour or so.
Again, enjoyed the exchange - hope to catch you at a later date.
Posted by mongoose on September 11, 2007 03:30 PMJohn Impotent Idiot ejaculated "One side despises capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution." What a well-supported argument, you gutless chimp-sucking maggot. No wonder you speak for a dwindling minority of scum.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:45 PMdarfor:--
I remember Krait 2 discussing the pullout of Iraq and the resulting deaths similar to Vietnam. That's still a raging debate here can you get him back on to talk more about it? I don't know what to believe outside of we're getting a lot of American soldiers killed, 9 more in the paper today.
Posted by CA on September 11, 2007 03:47 PM"John Impotent Idiot ejaculated "One side despises capitalism, Christianity and the Constitution." What a well-supported argument, you gutless chimp-sucking maggot. No wonder you speak for a dwindling minority of scum."
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:45 PM
Ahhh, another articulate representative from the liberals showing their superior intellect and constructive arguments.
og; this must be representative of what you were referring to when you quipped; "...the liberals on this website are the ones who usually DEMAND the truth, and evidence for the insistent statements of "superior moral and ethical " positions claimed by the Republicans/"conservatives".
I can readily see your point...
Posted by on September 11, 2007 03:52 PMOld Grouch, Charles B., and Sharon B., have been declared "mainstream liberal thought".
Ask them their thoughts on capitalism.
Ask them their thoughts on Christianity.
Ask them their thoughts on the Constitution.
They hate capitalism. They bash Christianity every chance they get; and Old Grouch is a Christian! And they favor extra-constitutional programs. Sharon B. at what point suggest we "go beyond the Constitution". Old Grouch says it's an old document that needs to be reinterpreted.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 04:12 PMCa
Krait 2 is a litigator and investigator for Amnesty International. He's currently somewhere in the Sudan and not expected back for at least another month. His assignment to this region has been ongoing for a couple of years and he relishes it.
He's black and speaks the language. So he quite often dresses the part of a local and disappears for a while in order to do his thing. I seriously doubt he carries a computer or is interested in what's going on here.
So don't expect back in the near future.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 04:17 PMI think Steven Corbet (sp) said "truth has a liberal bias." Maybe it was "facts have a liberal bias"
either way, it hit the mark.
Most of us do not explain ourselves to John II, how we think about capitalism, socialism etc. We just defend one program or discuss a change in the country and he, cape flying, makes the mental leap all by himself.
If we do not like a specific Christian behavior, say passing laws to outlaw inter-racial marriage, or keeping sodomy illegal, we are against Christianity, if we question it, I guess he thinks we want to destroy it.
Not so john tutu, is your tutu pink?
God that was funny last night, you running around double posting about code pink.
On the Constitution, he thinks only we nutty lefties have any different interpretation of it. We argue what "general welfare" means, how the 2nd was written and what folks think of it today.
I pretty much know who is left or right here, but how much they lean is hard to tell.
John II does want one thing though, he wants some kind of revolution, some taking to the streets, or however he puts it.
His thinly veiled idea that our country can not survive (check his 11:42) references tells me that he is bored and needs some excitement in his life.
No revolution John II, just people trying not to fight in the streets. But if they do, I hope they pick your street, not mine.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 04:18 PMJohn II
"Give me a break, darfor. How about an example?"
You and mongoose already discussed two of the examples I was thinking of in the definition of a civil ceremony for gay couples( you skirted the issue a few times), and the situation of a gay couple adopting children.
I also seem to remember you off handily rejected laws regarding equal protection for gays in situations like renting or jobs. You stated that you didn't view those as anti-gay defeats in congress. Or, stated differently, you don't see the need to extend protection ensuring fair treatment of gays as being necessary -- being in agreement to deny equal protection under the laws is the same as being anti-gay.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 04:29 PM"John II does want one thing though, he wants some kind of revolution, some taking to the streets, or however he puts it."
He just wants to either lock up in reeducation camps all gays and "nutty old women" and anybody else who doesn't accept his christian values as being the only correct values; or, line them up and shoot them. Of course, I may be wrong at that last line em' up comment since he regularly gos to the gun range, he may prefer moving targets.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 04:49 PMI can run and dodge pretty darn fast, I can also shoot back.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 05:05 PMdarfor said:
"Or, stated differently, you don't see the need to extend protection ensuring fair treatment of gays as being necessary -- being in agreement to deny equal protection under the laws is the same as being anti-gay."
I realize that's the way many on the left prefer to characterize people: If you don't agree with my law proposal, you are a bigot, a racist, prejudiced, insensitive, homophobic, etc.
What do you mean by "extend" protection? That sounds like some are more equal than others. I oppose hate crime laws period. That doesn't make me "anti-gay". If you want to toughen crime laws, toughen them across the board for everyone, not just a few specific groups.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 05:15 PM4:49 exclaimed:
"He just wants to either lock up in reeducation camps all gays and "nutty old women" and anybody else who doesn't accept his christian values as being the only correct values; or, line them up and shoot them."
What do you base that charge on? When have I ever admonished anyone about Christian values? It would help if you provided a quote of mine so I could see what you're talking about. You may have me confused with someone else. I rarely discuss Christian values on this forum.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 05:21 PMJohn II
"What do you mean by "extend" protection?"
I'm a conservative and I understand that to mean that no one is be discriminated against because they are different than someone else. Most laws currently delineate that no one shall be discriminated against because of race, age, religion or gender (with exceptions based on specific situations - i.e., no men in a woman's health spa, etc.).
This leaves a class in our society not covered; homosexuals and/or transsexuals. I believe they are just as worthy of equal protection as anyone else to not be discriminated against because they are "different".
And, I'm totally in agreement with you that hate crime laws are nothing more than feel good legislation that doesn't deter nor better enforce laws against transgressions against individuals. Assault is assault; murder is murder -- essentially, a transgression by one is a transgression regardless of individuality. These laws are oft-times abused by prosecutors to reinforce weaker cases just because of a race or religious difference between perpetrators and victims.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 06:00 PM"Most laws currently delineate that no one shall be discriminated against because of race, age, religion or gender (with exceptions based on specific situations - i.e., no men in a woman's health spa, etc.)."
In that case, I have no problem adding "sexual orientation" to the list.
But, how far are we going to take this discrimination concept? We all discriminate on based on something. Otherwise, we're just making random, irrational decisions. Can we discriminate against dumb people? Ugly people? Fat people? Red-headed people? Skinny people? If a 300 lb. woman is denied a job as a swimsuit model, does she have a right to sue? Or will job interviews be reduced to a random draw from the hat? Uh oh, luck discrimination. Will transsexuals now demand a third bathroom for transsexuals/transgendered? It's a slippery slope. I'm inclined to allow people to choose who and who not to associate with.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 06:14 PMSharon B. mumbled:
"On the Constitution, he thinks only we nutty lefties have any different interpretation of it. We argue what "general welfare" means, how the 2nd was written and what folks think of it today."
Why do you argue what "general Welfare" means? Don't you believe the fathers of the Constitution defined what "general Welfare" meant? They didn't leave it to half-drugged nut-cases to define the term. They specifically enumerated the powers of the federal government. What do you say about the "2nd". What do you think of it?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 06:36 PMJohn II
"Will transsexuals now demand a third bathroom for transsexuals/transgendered?"
They are already getting them. Many universities and other public institutions have already installed such facilities. The Aurora police department has also installed Unisex, one stall restrooms due to their transgendered cop. It's not necessarily to be PC, but because heterosexual males and females feel uncomfortable using the same multi facilities.
Everybody has the right of free association. But, you don't have the right to deny housing or jobs (unless specific qualifications are set for obvious safety or ability reasons) just because they are different. And realistically, if you're an employer with multiple candidates you are going to select the one whom you feel will fit into the position the best in both ability and team effectiveness.
You just don't have the right to post the job opening for just, in example, white anglo saxon protestants only need apply. Nor can you fire an employee doing a good job just because find out later that he/she is a Wicca follower.
The same protections should apply to everyone; not just those that are "acceptable" due to traditions.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 06:43 PMdarfor said:
"You just don't have the right to post the job opening for just, in example, white anglo saxon protestants only need apply. Nor can you fire an employee doing a good job just because find out later that he/she is a Wicca follower."
Just to play devil's advocate...
If I own a company, why can't I hire only white anglo saxons? It would seem that I only hurt myself by limiting the available pool of job applicants. The same goes for firing Wiccans doing a good job. If a Wiccan is doing a good job and I fire her, am I not hurting my own business?
These types of arguments remind of Marge Schott, former owner of the Cincinnati Reds baseball team. She was a racist. But, she also employed and paid blacks a very high salary. Why? Because the desire for profit forced her to hire the best qualified employees. If she decided to fire a good baseball player simply because he was black, she would most likely suffer financially for such a poor decision.
There's a great story about slaves in and Irish-Americans that I need to find. It showed that slaves were often held back from dangerous work because they were worth more than the Irish.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 07:12 PMHere's the link to that slave/Irish story I mentioned. It was quoted in a book by black economist, Thomas Sowell, one of my favorite modern writers.
http://books.google.com/books?id=0AShGTKZzWgC&pg=PA51&lpg=PA51&dq=black+slaves+irish+work+sowell&source=web&ots=Kpf3g2S-4m&sig=xElFU_3Sy1Kkq1alwJlGUB7HQIg
I'd provide the actual excerpt but Google won't let me grab the text.
John II mumble mumble, when I say we argue about the Constitution, I mean the royal we.
As in all of us. We all. We all just barely mention the general welfare clause or 2nd amendment and you assume we want to destroy the Constitution entirely.
some people actually have discussions about general welfare being more then roads and bridges. I won`t tell you what I think of those issues.
As a half-drugged nut case, I just can`t remember.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 07:37 PM
John II
"Just to play devil's advocate...If I own a company, why can't I hire only white anglo saxons?"
Just for me to play devil's advocate...
Get the constitution and laws changed and nobody will say a thing to you. As it stands now the equality clause of the constitution, and further statute clarifications, stand in your way of such action. I'm sure that you could get a lot of support from various groups like the KKK, Aryan Race Org., etc...just to play devil's advocate, of course.
You move beyond the scope of freedom of association and into bigotry, racism, etc., when you deny opportunity to anyone based on how they were born genetically or chemically different than others -- now you're denying equality for all.
I must have missed part of your post regarding Sharon B...besides calling her a "nutty old woman", did you call her "half-drugged". Either way you seem to have categorized and pigeon-holed her in personal reference locker never to be modified or reconsidered.
That may be part of the reason "liberals" ignore your arguments as they see a perceived bias that can't be dealt with regardless of the underlying argument.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 08:38 PMdarfor,
Your last post to me was a bit nonsensical and way too caustic. I tried to engage you as an intellectual. You disappoint me.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:02 PMJohn II
You can play devil's advocate and postulate scenarios, but your debate opponent can't. That's more than a little disappointing -- that's insulting.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 09:11 PMHey guys, pull your big girl's panties on and grow up!
You had a good repartee going before John2 got hurt feelings when darfor tossed the same absurd arguments back at him as "a devil's advocate." Interesting back and forth sans ad hominem attacks are a rare pleasure in this forum.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:17 PMdarfor,
You never answered my questions. I was just trying to engage you intellectually. Your response did not match my challenge.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:19 PMNo, 09:17..johnnie 2boy just got backed into a corner with his own logic, or lack of, tossed back at him. He's crying foul and licking his wounds. Typical of him on the rightwingnut position as he has to keep balance with the leftwingnuts like 03:45
Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:25 PMJohn II 6:36 post, well I thought you meant me. Is there another half drugged nut case posting for the RMN.?
Better not, this is my territory.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 11, 2007 09:25 PMWhat corner did I get backed into? Am I missing something? darfor completely sidestepped my questions. I wasn't even attacking him. I just wanted to get his feedback. His response still puzzles me.
Sharon B.,
I can quote numerous times that you've admitted your bizarre posts were the result of taking "Benadryl". Shall I?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:30 PMJohn II
"If I own a company, why can't I hire only white anglo saxons? It would seem that I only hurt myself by limiting the available pool of job applicants."
Yes you would be hurting yourself. As to why you can't: answered with: "...when you deny opportunity to anyone based on how they were born genetically or chemically different than others -- now you're denying equality for all." from post at 08:38 PM in response to your direct question.
"The same goes for firing Wiccans doing a good job. If a Wiccan is doing a good job and I fire her, am I not hurting my own business?"
Yes, you would be hurting yourself. Why you can't: answered with; "...no one shall be discriminated against because of race, age, religion" -- emphasize on religion, from post at 06:00 PM.
Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:34 PMSorry for not labeling 0:934 PM. I was at another site using IE and returned to Mozilla for this forum -- must have dropped my handle in the transition.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 09:37 PMSharon - you go girl!
"Better not, this is my territory."
But I am trying to move up to your league!
Posted by on September 11, 2007 09:39 PMIt's late and I have a business to run during the day as I'm not independently wealthy. So, good nite all.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 09:42 PM9:34,
Which specific laws are you referring to? Is it in the Constitution? If so, can you cite the specific section that says an employer cannot hire whomever he/she pleases based on whatever criteria he/she feels necessary?
Aside from the legal (or lack of) grounds, if we can acknowledge that an employer only hurts himself when he discriminates based on non-job factors, why should we stop him? I offered a few examples of how capitalism reduces the incentive to discriminate based on race. Have you nothing to say about that?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 09:44 PMJohn II
You can legally hire and fire anyone "...based on whatever criteria he/she feels necessary..." so long as it can't be shown to be due to discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
My position is that sexual orientation should be included in this criteria for all federal, state and local laws which address this issue of equality.
There are exceptions as to application, but the courts have not honored all exceptions in an uniform manner; especially in the area company size. Lawsuits for discrimination have been successful for companies consisting of under ten employees. Individual circumstances and severity of action seems to bear weight in such instances.
Recommend you start here: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It can be viewed at (among other places, I personally use Nexus):
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html
darfor,
Thanks for the link to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. My problem with this is that I don't see this supported anywhere in the Constitution.
As I've asked before, aside from the legal (or lack of) grounds, why should we stop an employer from discrimination if it only serves to hurt the employer? This is not a question of whether or not racial/gender/sexual orientation discrimination is legal or morally wrong or not. It's simply a question about capitalism and the need to hire the best employees for the job. Do you agree or disagree that the profit motive reduces needless discrimination? And why should we prohibit an employer from hiring whomever he wants?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:21 PMJohn II
Sorry, meant to recommend that you also research all of the amendments, adjunct rulings and supplemental laws enacted in support of, and clarification of sections and interpretations pertaining to the act as all do bear on interpretation and enforcement.
The original argument for equality was drawn from the Declaration of Independence; ..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And, founded on the interpretation of the Preamble of the Constitution under the concept of "...in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice..."
The concept of justice implies that in a nation founded on the concept that all men are created equal, all will have the equal opportunity to succeed or fail without concern for any discriminatory actions on the part of another.
Ensuring equality is a complex endeavor as there are many people who not only disagree with it, but actively seek to circumvent both the letter and spirit of the law.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 10:26 PMJohn II
I believe that I partially answered this in my subsequent post after yours. However, we are a republic where (supposedly) the will of the people can establish laws which support the interpretation of our constitution and enforce anyof it's provisions.
While some people disagree with the interpretation of a majority, there are provisions to avoid the "tyranny of the majority" in enacting laws if they do not harm the minority in order to ensure the "general welfare" of the majority.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 10:33 PMdarfor,
I actually already searched the Constitution (and all amendments) and I can't find anything regarding the limitation of an employer's discrimination practices.
References to equality in the Declaration of Independence refer to equality in the eyes of the law, not equality in private employment.
Again, I'm trying to get your opinion outside of legal (or lack of) issues. If an employer hurts himself by limiting himself to a smaller subset of the labor pool, why do we need to stop him from hurting himself? Capitalism seems to solve this problem much better than any arbitrary laws.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:37 PMdarfor said:
"However, we are a republic where (supposedly) the will of the people can establish laws which support the interpretation of our constitution and enforce anyof it's provisions."
All I'm asking for is the actually section of the Constitution you are referring to. Yes, the Constitution says the words, "general Welfare". Is that what you are referring to? Do you believe that phrase was open-ended? Or do you agree with the Father of the Constitution that:
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James MadisonPosted by John II on September 11, 2007 10:49 PM
John II
"Capitalism seems to solve this problem..." Not everyone has your trust in raw capitalism acting in a fair an unbiased manner. Not all businesses operate in a non prejudicial. An example of such violations can be found at:
EEOC SETTLES RACIAL HIRING CASE AGAINST MILGARD WINDOWS FOR $3.37 MILLION
The lawsuit arose out of events in 1998, when Leigh Ann Ornelas was the person responsible for conducting initial interviews of job applicants at Milgard Windows' plant, then located in the Montebello area of Denver. The EEOC and Ms. Ornelas maintained that the then Plant Manager of the Montebello facility told Ms. Ornelas not to hire or refer black applicants for certain positions in the plant. Ms. Ornelas and the EEOC also have alleged that when Ms. Ornelas complained to various managers concerning these instructions, no action was taken against the Plant Manager and Ms. Ornelas was subjected to retaliatory harassment and eventually forced to resign. The EEOC also asserted that a statistical analysis of the job applications submitted to Milgard's Colorado facility since 1997 shows that Milgard hired significantly fewer African Americans and blacks than would be predicted based on the demographics of the areas where applicants lived.
Full report at: http://www.eeoc.gov/press/5-20-04a.html
When there is not a need for enforcement of equality we may be ready to operate without legal watchdogs in place. However, for now, many people operate based on their own prejudices and biases without regard to quality of employees as individuals beyond those factors.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 11:09 PMJohn II
"...do you agree with the Father of the Constitution..."
I'm only in a position to agree or not agree with the current interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court today.
If I disagree, I have to develop a case, with supporting legal arguments, to present to the Supreme Court in an attempt to establish a new interpretation. Otherwise, disagreeing would provide me no real benefit other than to have something of no relevant benefit to complain about.
"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." -- James Madison"
Is the basis of ongoing, never ending debate which if resolved, will only serve to allow one side of many viewpoints to say, "We're right!" It will serve as no legal precedent for or against the present interpretation of the Constitution and subsequent laws in place.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 11:22 PMdarfor,
Your example failed to acknowledge points we already discussed. Did you not already admit that an employer's racial discrimination hurts the employer by limiting the employer's labor pool?
All you did was post a discrimination lawsuit. But, how does that answer my questions to you? If irrational racial discrimination hurts the employer, why not just let the employer hurt itself? Why prosecute the employer?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:31 PMJohn II
Because he has caused another harm through his "irrational racial discrimination", not just himself. That's what he will be punished for -- his tort. I posted a discrimination lawsuit to demonstrate that there are still racial bigots causing emotional and financial harm to others today, and that we have watchdogs to haul their bigoted attitudes into court in order to partially right the wrongs they inflicted on others through their actions.
Posted by darfor on September 11, 2007 11:39 PMdarfor said:
"I'm only in a position to agree or not agree with the current interpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court today."
Okay. So, what is your interpretation of the Constitution. Cite the article and section that backs your position. You have not done that except for your vague utterance of "general Welfare".
I'm not attacking you or trying to make you look bad, darfor. But, I don't think I'm out of line in asking you to back up your legal claims with some kind of Constitutional evidence. If you have a position that differs from the Father of the Constitution, please state it cogently.
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:40 PMBut, darfor, there are many irrational decisions an employer can make that impacts more than just the employer. The employer could choose to discriminate against smart workers. This would also punish the company and it's employees. Shall we prosecute employers for bad business decisions?
Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 11:47 PMJohn II
I'm not making any legal claims to have to back up. You're the one who wants to reject current laws based on your interpretation of not only the Constitution, but also of the interpretation of the works of the founding fathers.
"...trying to make you look bad, darfor." You're not; but you might consider looking in a mirror in regard to your circular arguments and dancing around answers not in agreement with your preconceived ideas.
I explained to you why the equality laws are in place and what one has to do to effect a change in those laws and the current interpretation of the Constitution by those who matter -- the CURRENT and historical Supreme Court who do/have set the interpretation and subsequent laws in place.
I didn't agree or disagree with the INTERPRETATION of the Madison quote; I only commented that regardless of how interpreted it will not change the current interpretation under which we are all required to live.
I don't have to practice under the interpretations of the founding fathers -- I have to practice under the current interpretation of the Constitution and any and all laws subsequent to that interpretation. If I disagree with any laws, or interpretation of the constitution, there are legal steps that have to be followed in order to change such laws or interpretation.
Different presidential candidates view the Constitution in different ways, ranging from Edwards who believes it mandates care from cradle to grave, to Paul who takes a very literal and restrictive view of the wording and interpretation. Perhaps you can find assistance in advocating your view by working to elect a candidate who shares that view.
Personally, I find that arguing the intent of the Founding Fathers to be counterproductive to actually functioning in our modern society legalistically. I'm not into the pseudo intellectual debate of the abstract which doesn't have direct and realistic application to today's society.
"My mind is far from locked"...Posted by John II on September 11, 2007 01:20 PM
You haven't convinced of your assertion. Show how it's not locked and is open to new facts and evidence that can possibly result in changes in your belief system.
Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:07 AMOh, and since it is very late, please forgive any grammatical and/or spelling mistakes I may have made. Thank you and good night.
:-)
kisses
John II
You obviously either don't read and understand answers, or, you cherry pick the absurd out of context points to "validate" nonsense.
"This would also punish the company and it's employees. Shall we prosecute employers for bad business decisions?"
No. Because he didn't discriminate against another based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
You have abused all concepts of logical and rational argument by taking absurd positions and presenting them as serious intellectual pursuit.
Add me to the list of those who believe debating you is a worthless endeavor. You have your mind set in concrete and use the most absurd, if not juvenile tactics to defend the indefensible.
Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:16 AMjohnnie 2boy, you got spanked so many times by darfor in this thread. and you kept changing to whining about things that didn't fit. You were arguing about legally protected equal rights and you came back with
"there are many irrational decisions an employer can make that impacts more than just the employe"
Pathetic, it had nothing to do with protected equal rights
I'm just surprised he toyed with you as long as he did. I stayed up way past my bedtime watching you get spanked and it was worth it.
I just love watching narrow noogin' bigots get spanked and turned to chasing their own tails.
Posted by on September 12, 2007 12:32 AMdarfor said:
"No. Because he didn't discriminate against another based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
You have still not explained why an employer needs to be held legally accountable for discriminating on those criteria. You have not shown the Constitutional reasoning and you have not shown any other reasoning besides a racism is bad because it's bad mentality.
"Add me to the list of those who believe debating you is a worthless endeavor. You have your mind set in concrete and use the most absurd, if not juvenile tactics to defend the indefensible."
I don't blame you for being frustrated. You have no cogent argument to make against my arguments. That has got to be frustrating. So, instead you look for a dismissive retreat out of an argument you have no idea how to defend.
Think on it some more, darfor. Perhaps, your buddies will offer better arguments for you to latch onto to tomorrow morning.
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:33 AM"...self-inforcing mechanisms of capitalism in regards to irrational discrimination"
There are none. Demonstrate and prove to the contrary.
Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:34 AM12:32,
I realize you really want to believe that darfor "spanked" me. But, where did he do so? He avoided direct questions. He failed to support his legal arguments with Constitutional evidence. He failed to even defend his position on non-legal grounds. In fact, he admitted the employer hurts himself by irrational discrimination. So, what was his winning argument? He had/has nothing. How disappointing. I wasn't even trying to debate him. I just wanted to hear his thoughts on the subject. Yet, he responded with caustic and nonsensical arguments. Sure, you can say he "spanked" me. But, the reality is he just embarrassed himself on this forum. He has zero argumentative skills. I honestly was not expecting him to fold this easy. Is there anyone else out there who can carry his torch?
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:42 AMdarfor uttered:
"There are none. Demonstrate and prove to the contrary."
Didn't I already do that? Haven't we already agreed that an employers irrational hiring/firing practices hurts his own business?
Now you're arguing to the contrary of a point you acknowledged earlier today?
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:48 AMnice try johnnie 2boy to save face. You were the clown with circle arguments and fuzzy logic. darfur was just relating the laws and how their enforced and on what basis. your the noodlehead that wanted him to justify laws in place and to read the thoughts of what was intended by men dead and unable to explain what they meant. darfur wasn't arguing constitutional law fool, only the laws in place. he even said he wasn't interested in debating
"Personally, I find that arguing the intent of the Founding Fathers to be counterproductive to actually functioning in our modern society legalistically. I'm not into the pseudo intellectual debate of the abstract which doesn't have direct and realistic application to today's society."
Face it, johnnie 2boy, your just a narrow minded bigot who couldn't dance fast enough to support your bigoted views in front of someone who didn't take your bait to argue your nonsensical arguments.
PS put some ice on that red butt
Posted by on September 12, 2007 12:52 AMT here are none. Demonstrate and prove to the contrary."
Didn't I already do that? Haven't we already agreed that an employers irrational hiring/firing practices hurts his own business?
Now you're arguing to the contrary of a point you acknowledged earlier today?
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 12:48 AM
Assertion and assumption not substantiated by demonstrable fact. I conceded that it would probably hurt his business. However, there's always exceptions to what one would consider normal.
So once again, provide demonstrable facts and proof of your postulation. I'll try to check tomorrow for your grand exposition.
Posted by darfor on September 12, 2007 12:57 AMHa, okay 12:52, if you say so. I don't suppose you'd like to point out my circular arguments and fuzzy logic?
By the way, 12:52, were you the same anonymous coward that stated that Enron was brought down by regulations?
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 01:01 AM"Assertion and assumption not substantiated by demonstrable fact. I conceded that it would probably hurt his business. However, there's always exceptions to what one would consider normal."
Huh? What the hell does that mean? If a company fires a good worker strictly because the worker was a Wiccan, the company loses out on a good worker. You already agreed to that. I have no idea what you're arguing now.
Yeah, hopefully, someone else will present a better argument tomorrow morning. I'm sure Old Grouch will chime in for you with another pointless rambling about John II. Then again, you do seem to have a fan in that anonymous coward moron.
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 01:09 AMThe n.y.times is at it again,This time printing a full page ad.from the biggest anti-american hate group lying to the American people.Unfortunately there are total idiots out there who will side with them,liberals and Al Qaeda.
Posted by Keith on September 12, 2007 07:43 AM1:18 wondered:
"What's to stop a bigot from firing a black and hurting his own company?"
Nothing. The bigot has a right to make stupid business decisions.
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 07:44 AMIts just too easy to be anti-republican, just print the news of what they are doing, no need to have a bias. The Craigs, the Foleys, the Vitters, the Haggards take care of presenting the wholesome Republican image. Bush and his thugs with each corrupt act make it easier. Posters like Keith and An American are driving more and more from the Party each day. Keep up the good work!
Posted by Dwight on September 12, 2007 07:51 AMdwight,obviously you down read the news,thats why you are a dumb-ass liberal.Go to Cheeseman Park,shane,joe,mac and the others are wainting for you.Bring your butt lube.
Posted by Keith on September 12, 2007 08:05 AMKeith
You made Dwight's point perfectly. The Republican Party has become the party of Bubba's and semi-literates.
The real problem with the RMN and the DP for Republicans is that it requires a sixth grade education to read them. You can't like what you can't understand.
Posted by Wes on September 12, 2007 09:45 AMThe media is not anti-Republican.They are anti-American!! It is just that the Republicans represent what America stands for so the media will attack anyone that believes in the US.The reason they do not attack the Democrats in the same way is because the Democrats are also anti-American.It is just that simple!
Posted by An American on September 12, 2007 11:16 AM> It is just that simple
Simple is as simple does, clearly your specialty, along with displaying your impotence.
Posted by on September 12, 2007 12:17 PMJohnII:--
" "What's to stop a bigot from firing a black and hurting his own company? Nothing. The bigot has a right to make stupid business decisions"
Thankfully we have laws giving the innocent black a way to be compensated for unjust firing because the bigot fired him because he is black and not for bad job performance. Who cares if he bigot hurt his business, the concern is who the bigot hurt directly because he was a racist bigot.
Posted by CA on September 12, 2007 12:49 PMCA said:
"Who cares if he bigot hurt his business, the concern is who the bigot hurt directly because he was a racist bigot."
Firstly, there's no doubt that the "innocent black" was harmed by losing his job. The real question is: Should the employer be punished by the law? Should the government punish the employer for other bad decisions that hurts employees? Would the "innocent black" be harmed if the employer fired him simply because the employer was incompetent and didn't realize how valuable the black was? Should the government prosecute such an employer? If so, why? Should the government prosecute every unfortunate workplace incident?
Secondly, my larger point is that there is a built in disincentive to avoid making those poor race-based decisions. I gave examples last night of situations where racists valued their black employees/slaves more than their own racist views because of the desire for profit. Marge Schott employed black baseball players even though she was widely known to be a racist. Why did she do that? Because, in order to make a profit, she needed the best players she could afford regardless of race.
Thirdly, discrimination exists on many levels other than race and gender. Should we prosecute employers who refuse to hire red-headed people? What if an employer is a short guy and doesn't want any tall people in his company? Why should the government tell a private company how to manage it's employees?
In the end, market competition and the desire to make a profit forces most employers to hire and retain the best workers they can afford regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. And in situations where employers let their bigotry get in the way of rational business decisions, they only serve to reduce the competitiveness of their own company.
I realize my position is an easy one to side against. Racism is morally wrong and the temptation to appear morally superior is great. But, at least think about the arguments I have made before responding. Remember, my point is that the free market creates a disincentive for irrational business decisions.
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 01:31 PM"...the free market creates a disincentive for irrational business decisions."
In a ideal world no businessman would make a bad decision to hurt his business. But we don't live in an ideal world. Businessmen act not just on making solid business decisions but also on their own prejudices and biases. If it can be shown that en employee was fired just because of those personal prejudices and bias the employer should be punished by making restitution to the the person wrongly fired - I don't care if he goes to jail or not - only that he fixes the damage he caused to the person he wronged by firing for prejudice.
Since they are still constantly filing suits against bigoted and prejudiced bosses and companies it is obvious that your disincentive concept can't fly on its own yet.
Maybe someday it will work when all the bigots and racists who try to get away with wrongful firings or wrongful not hirings are a thing of the past. Today we need the force of the law to encourage your so called disincentive.
If you don't like the laws, work to change them or obey them even if you are as high principled personally as you think all businessmen are.
Posted by CA on September 12, 2007 01:49 PM"In a ideal world no businessman would make a bad decision to hurt his business. But we don't live in an ideal world. Businessmen act not just on making solid business decisions but also on their own prejudices and biases."
Of course. So what? But, should such faulty decisions be made criminal?
"If it can be shown that en employee was fired just because of those personal prejudices and bias the employer should be punished by making restitution to the the person wrongly fired - I don't care if he goes to jail or not - only that he fixes the damage he caused to the person he wronged by firing for prejudice."
Why? This is the question I keep asking and no one answers. Why is it criminal? It is unfortunate for both sides but why is it criminal?
"Since they are still constantly filing suits against bigoted and prejudiced bosses and companies it is obvious that your disincentive concept can't fly on its own yet."
How do you know that the system is not being abused in this hyper-sensitive, politically correct age we live in? I once worked for a company that was sued because one of it's male employees had a swimsuit calendar hanging in his cubicle.
"Maybe someday it will work when all the bigots and racists who try to get away with wrongful firings or wrongful not hirings are a thing of the past. Today we need the force of the law to encourage your so called disincentive."
Why? Why does the government feel it necessary to tell a private company how to manage it's hiring/firing practices? If a company chooses to hire based on race, why should that concern the government?
"If you don't like the laws, work to change them or obey them even if you are as high principled personally as you think all businessmen are."
I never said businessmen are "high principled". I'm merely suggesting that the free market will punish bad business decisions.
So, you have made the case that because an innocent person is harmed by a poor business decision, that person should be compensated and the employer should be punished. And you seem to be saying poor business decisions in general should not be punished; only those decisions based on race and gender should be punished. Why is a race-based decision punishable but other harmful decisions are forgivable?
What if we reverse the roles? If a racist white man wishes to buy a hotdog for lunch from a street vendor, and he see's two vendors: one a black man, the other an attractive white women. The black man charges 50% less for his hotdogs yet the white man chooses to purchase from the attractive blond woman. The black man's business suffers from this race/gender based consumer decision. Should he be compensated by the government? Should the consumer be punished for his race/gender based decision? Why or why not?
Posted by John II on September 12, 2007 02:22 PMFace it, johnnie 2boy. Your just a closed minded racist bigot who while saying your not is just advocating the will and wishes of your buddies in the KKK and ayran race organizations. first darfor then ca pointed out why its considered wrong to hurt other people just because your a racist bigot, yet you defend being able to hurt people without consequence. whine and cry to your little bigoted hearts content you racist, you have to live by the laws until you have the stones to try and change them. Your attempts at intellectual arguments is just specious blatherings to cover you own bigoted views. Thank God your kind is a dying breed.
Posted by on September 12, 2007 02:40 PMWhat makes this argument that the media is anti-Republican funny is that it is so Republican to feel persecuted. From what I have observed a persecution complex must be one of the requirements of being a Republican. That along with a "winners" complex and being a hypocrite. You never hear a Republican say that Fox News is too biased to the right and needs to move more to the left to become more balanced. They always shout about how persecuted they are as a group but then when their side commits the identical travesty they sweep it under the rug and ignore their own transgressions. Like I said being a Republican means feeling persecuted all the time, believing that you are always a "winner" and behaving in the most hypocritical fashion when your politicians or media outlets commit the same "sins" that you scream the loudest about. I am thankful everyday that I didn't grow up in a persecuted environment so I didn't have to become a Republican.
Posted by Wes on September 12, 2007 02:45 PM