The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Who on Ceres cares? My brothers (yes, a few sisters as well) in spirit (eventually ATSliens as well) run around on the intercept and similar sites for years now, excellent stuff since the get go btw. You folks are really really really late to the big corp rotting carcass party.
Meanwhile most cretins praise this orange in charge for corporate tax cuts, which fits Einsteins take on insanity again. At least with regards to the MSM. And I'm supposed to take you folks serious for one single second, seriously?



Not. Sure. But Idiocracy indeed.

a reply to: introvert
With the right of the free press comes objectionable material.

Similarly, with the right of the First Amendment comes objectionable speech.

People will inform themselves in any way they choose. The press is only one avenue and that does not mean it will be factual

They will. The press being one avenue of many is irrelevant. Constitutionally, the press, in and of itself, is a vehicle of information to the public, and a free press is, as such, more important.

originally posted by: skunkape23
I blame mainstream right-wing media for more or less ruining my relationship with my father.
He is a hard working man and has earned enough wealth to take care of himself and his family.
All he watches on his television is FOX news.
He is an intelligent man...it makes me sad that he is so duped by their nonsense.
I consider myself apolitical.
Neither lefty nor right. I watch as little mainstream media as possible.
But sometimes when at his home and the FOX is blaring at 100 decibels, I hold my silence and leave in short order.
If I point out that this all propagandistic nonsense, I get something like...
"Why don't you go watch that commie # on CNN. You ain't gone queer on me have you?"
Maybe he'll come around someday. That would be cool.

Yeah, I knew more than my mom and dad too, at your age.

In fact I knew EVERYTHING!

Until...Life hit me night in the ruts and I found out they were right all along.

I wanted to believe, as the poster says.

lol.

Trust but verify is better.

What divides us is basic IQ. Idiots will believe anything, over and over, even from other idiots.

Take white guilt for example.

Maybe you will be the one to come around someday, ever think of that?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Obligated by what? As far as I know, they are only obligated to the contracts they sign when they go to work.

By the ethical codes of their own organizations.

That doesn't mean anything of substance.

a reply to: Liquesence

With the right of the free press comes objectionable material.

Similarly, with the right of the First Amendment comes objectionable speech.

They are one in the same.

Constitutionally, the press, in and of itself, is a vehicle of information to the public, and a free press is, as such, more important.

Where does it state in the 1st Amendment that the press is a vehicle of info to the public?

The 1st Amendment grants individuals the right to believe what they want, to express those ideas or beliefs, to disseminate those ideas (free press), to assemble with like-minded individuals and to petition government for their grievances.

All of those things encompass one individual right and you cannot have one without the rest. It is not a right granted to ensure the public has a vehicle for information.

a reply to: introvert

It is not a right granted to ensure the public has a vehicle for information.

Except that it is. There never was any other vehicle for information than free speech and a free (printing) press. The church? Don't get me started on religion. The aristocats and their oh-so knightly cretins? Yeah, sure...

What are those other vehicles of information you are getting at, biased 'scientific' studies? And how is the unqualified and distracted worker supposed to discern the spin from facts? That's essentially the main problem with the MSM already.

You can't take an old document literally in order to develop new values for this new age of information. Otherwise you're just deemed to end up with no adequate concepts, like censorship of fake-news on fckbook for example.

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: introvert

It is not a right granted to ensure the public has a vehicle for information.

Except that it is. There never was any other vehicle for information than free speech and a free (printing) press. The church? Don't get me started on religion. The aristocats and their oh-so knightly cretins? Yeah, sure...

What are those other vehicles of information you are getting at, biased 'scientific' studies? And how is the unqualified and distracted worker supposed to discern the spin from facts? That's essentially the main problem with the MSM already.

You can't take an old document literally in order to develop new values for this new age of information. Otherwise you're just deemed to end up with no adequate concepts, like censorship of fake-news on fckbook for example.

You bring up some very good questions that I think need to be addressed, though I think we may be getting off topic and diverting attention away from the OP, which needs to be thoroughly scrutinized for it's lack of logic.

I'm contemplating creating a thread on this issue and if I do, I will send you a PM.

a reply to: introvert

Another honest ATSchange in my growing book of bad OT-deeds, much obliged! Feel free to use any and all quotes if ya like, I'll take 23% of the cut. lol.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert

Obligated by what? As far as I know, they are only obligated to the contracts they sign when they go to work.

By the ethical codes of their own organizations.

That doesn't mean anything of substance.

Each news organization has a written code of ethics and guidelines. If they don’t there are journalist organizations that provide them.

I understand ethics and principles are areas of difficulty for relativists, but let’s not pretend we don’t know what they are.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Each news organization has a written code of ethics and guidelines. If they don’t there are journalist organizations that provide them.

And what good has that done them? Just because they have a code of ethics and such does not mean they are obligated to follow them.

They are only obligated to do what their contracts specifically state.

I understand ethics and principles are areas of difficulty for relativists, but let’s not pretend we don’t know what they are.

What did I say that would indicate I was pretending to not know what they are?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

but let’s not pretend we don’t know what they are.

Advertisement banners and PR crap on a pike? Let's not pretent that the media isn't a vast field for psychological warfare as well, media literacy matters. Which is why I generally look forward to debate this in your threads btw.

I understand ethics and principles are areas of difficulty for relativists

Try to differentiate for a second and spare us the childish attacks, Les Revisionist?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

What divides us is basic IQ. Idiots will believe anything, over and over, even from other idiots.

You can learn a lot, from a dummy.....

Yes, true. But when someone thinks the general public isn't smart enough (Smart Monkey) they add ingredients to the water to make them smarter, right??? You know those IQ enhancing chemicals, right?? Oh boy, what sector of society would want the smart monkeys smarter???

Their are other "Traits" that reveal the "Divide". And they are dripping off this thread like the sweat off of Hillary's back!

a reply to: introvert

And what good has that done them? Just because they have a code of ethics and such does not mean they are obligated to follow them.

They are only obligated to do what their contracts specifically state.

They are, actually. For example, here is the Standards and ethics of the NYT:

The Journalism Ethics Policy posted on this site applies to all journalists at The New York Times Company, and to certain other executives, as defined in Paragraph 88, and to nonstaff contributors in connection with their Times Company work. The policy is a minimum standard: individual units of the company may adopt separate policies, in which case the more stringent provision covering any given practice will apply.

For Guild-represented employees, enforcement of this policy is subject to applicable collective bargaining agreements and local law.

At The New York Times newspaper, the Ethical Journalism handbook dated January 2004, which was the model for the company-wide policy, governs journalists’ conduct. The two documents are highly similar, except for the more detailed company-wide provisions that concern blogging and online behavior.

NYT Standards and Ethics

Journalists and editors aren't given these booklets for bathroom reading.

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Try to differentiate for a second and spare us the childish attacks, Les Revisionist?

Never.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like I said, contractually-obligated.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Trump is only the Antithesis of the Elitist-Globalist Democrat Party... the DNC has some warped idea of surpassing the clout & Zeal of the old NAZI Party itself...
the source for all political divide is the ideology of the Democrat Party Uber Alles attitude & it is indeed a big 3 ring circus tent which includes the full spectrum of clowns, misfits, narcissists, serious mental psychosis of many Party Officinados thinking themselves as gods


an example of what to avoid

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like I said, contractually-obligated.

Contract is not a replacement for morals and ethics.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The Source of the Political Divide is Not The President

No it is not!. The Communist Saul Alinsky followers are using Propaganda to divide this nation so that chaos reigns and they can come in and take over with Agenda 21. Right now the No Such Agency is fighting the FBI for control of this nations intel, and the No Such Agency will release the corrupt FBI crimes to win over them.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

both of which brought to light his good genetics

I agreed with the sentiment of much of your OP - but I have to say, the above quote is deeply worrying. Do you really subscribe to eugenics-inspired notions that a person's suitability for public office can be ascribed to 'good genes'..? Conversely, and as a natural corollary to the implied belief structure, do you believe that people with genetic abnormality or disability are thus NOT fit for office?

Surely you understand that a person is not simply the result of his/ her genetic material? Surely you realise that a world war was fought to prevent the ascendancy of such dangerous thinking? A person is fit or unfit based on a complex range of factors which include genetics, but by no means are genetics the foremost qualifier in gauging a person's suitability for any given role. Environment & the context of social upbringing/ education & the development of personal philosophy plays a far larger part in determining a person's suitability for any role.

Throwing eugenics-inspired comments around like you did there - casually, to boot - is a dangerous path to tread. I know you value free speech, but one man's freedoms cease where his words or actions impinge on the well-being &/or freedoms of another. To make public comments suggesting that a person's genetic material can be accredited as a reason for his suitability to lead, to take a political role in charge of the elite activities in a given nation state (or even an organisation of any size), is highly irresponsible, and it is my belief that you should retract your statement & issue an explanation for why you felt it was necessary to worship his genome. Apologies are not necessary, but a statement which evidences an awareness, in hindsight, of the inappropriate nature of the comment surely is.

As a deep thinker, you will surely be aware of the dangers of careless words spoken from a position of authority - even if it is mere opinion shaping in a public forum, even one which is in some ways obscure, such as ATS. Please acknowledge the error, which I can only hope was careless, and not an informed choice of belief.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

It was the whitehouse doctor who said he had good genes.