Democrats Declare 'War On Moms'

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The people would be soooooo much better off if NEWS outlets were forced to report facts. They'd be better informed instead of falling for opinionated garbage or flat out lies.

I agree.

But that might be fascism in some cases in some countries ?

I think we are "soooooo much better off" with the 1st Amendment.



requote

In other countries news outlets get called out for lying...Canada's a good example (Fox got no license there because they refused not to lie) and so is Switzerland.

The first amendment is important, but shouldn't be a license to dumb down the people

edit on 13-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

Edit to Add after your edit to Add: I agree.

Originally posted by xuenchen

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by xuenchen

 

The people would be soooooo much better off if NEWS outlets were forced to report facts. They'd be better informed instead of falling for opinionated garbage or flat out lies.

I agree.

But that might be fascism ?

I think we are "soooooo much better off" with the 1st Amendment.

How is that fascism? In other countries news outlets get called out for lying, like in Canada and Switzerland, both not fascist countries.

Allowing news outlets to lie is abusing the first amendment to dumb down the people

I mean, if you have 70% of a country believing Iraq was responsible for 911 you have to wonder. The media (paid by the very same people who pay the politicians...defence contractors, etc.) have hyped this lie so much, it cost thousands of innocent lives and cost the US government trillions. They only got away with it because of public support, FAKE support as those people weren't informed correctly.

Some of the stuff I hear on US "news" is mind blowing. Like, you sit there and go "that's not right...not even close", yet the guy on TV says it with a straight face and no one corrects him. No one dares to ask tough questions either, which is really sad and prevents an honest debate.

Nobody asks Romney HOW he wants to fix unemployment given that he made his career from FIRING PEOPLE and BREAKING UP COMPANIES. Nobody asks Ron Paul what herb he was smoking when he said he wants to fix the financial industry by making them sign a "voluntary pledge to not screw us all over". Nobody asks Newt about integrity even though his history clearly shows he's a paid crook. Nobody asks Obama why we are still paying THOUSANDS of contractors in Iraq even after pulling out.

The US population is systematically being dumbed down into citizens that only work on the basis of key slogans instead of real information and facts.

It's a FACT that the number of STDs and unwanted pregnancies is the highest in the bible belt (as is the number of people watching online porn). So if you were honest, you'd admit that being against contraception is kind of stupid if the goal is to prevent STDs and contraception. Yet politicians get to go on news shows and proclaim "teaching abstinence is the best way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies". They are CLEARLY lying, yet they are hardly ever being called out on it.

The US media is a DISGRACE!! You only have a few good news outlets, and most of them aren't on cable news but rather online channels like Youtube (TYT is a good example). And do you know why those are better? Because they allow a better interaction with the viewer. If someone uploads a video on Youtube, and he lies, he can (and will be) called out. If TYT uploads a video and misstates a fact (happens), they are instantly being called out on it.

I'm only talking about news shows of course. I don't care if the Daily Show lies because they are clearly a COMEDY show. I don't care if Beck lies because he's clearly doing an opinion show not based on facts.

But if you call yourself a "news show" (not comedy news!) on a proper NEWS channel (CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS, etc.), you should present people FACTS. People shouldn't have to do extra research after watching the news just to figure out if those idiots were lying or not.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Well they let you say what you just said without a hitch.

Now what IF somebody says your words are not the truth ?

Who gets to be the "last word" ?

Who is "qualified" to be the final decider ?

Take that dreadful SOPA bill for example. It's a GREAT example for how hard the US media fail:



PS: Notice how the host calls out ALL news outlets, not just the right or left wing news!

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well they let you say what you just said without a hitch.

Now what IF somebody says your words are not the truth ?

Who gets to be the "last word" ?

Who is "qualified" to be the final decider ?

Whoever can present the FACTS. This isn't about voicing your opinion, it's about presenting facts.

So if you want to claim "teaching abstinence is the best way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies", you should have to present data that proves that. And vice versa too of course. If you want to claim that contraception is the best way to go, you should have to present data to prove it. And that data clearly shows teaching abstinence is NOT the way to go.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Good example.

I'm with ya on SOPA.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well they let you say what you just said without a hitch.

Now what IF somebody says your words are not the truth ?

Who gets to be the "last word" ?

Who is "qualified" to be the final decider ?

Whoever can present the FACTS. This isn't about voicing your opinion, it's about presenting facts.

So if you want to claim "teaching abstinence is the best way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies", you should have to present data that proves that. And vice versa too of course. If you want to claim that contraception is the best way to go, you should have to present data to prove it. And that data clearly shows teaching abstinence is NOT the way to go.

FACTS.

Hmmm.

Do you Really think all people are capable of determining facts ?

Everybody sees things differently.


Examples:

Iraq weapons of mass destruction.

Iran nuclear weapons.

and,

Just read this whole thread !

Hilary Rosen's Quote -

His wife has never actually worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing—in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and how do—why we worry about their future

:shk: Absurd.

Mrs. Romney sucessfully raised five boys and took care of the home. During this time she battled cancer while having the incurable autoimmune disease of MS. The fact that she has been able to do these things is AMAZING. I have no doubt it was A LOT of work.

BTW ... stay at home moms are VERY aware of the economic issues in this country .. and have their concerns about how to feed their children and how to send them to school. And of course they worry about their children's futures. That's why many of them stay home ... to make sure a parent is around to help keep them on the right path and to help with homework etc etc.

Hilary Rosen stepped in a major pile of dooo-dooo.

The one good thing about all this discussion is that many people now know that Mrs. Romney has MS. It may bring attention to the autoimmune diseases and increase awareness. People may become more understanding about those who have autoimmune diseases .. understanding about how severe they are and how they are systemic and progressive, etc etc ...

I feel for Mrs. Romney. I have Sjogrens which mimics MS. It can be hard to tell the two apart .. and many times people with Sjogrens also have MS, and the other way around. There is NO WAY I could have raised five boys, fought cancer, and dealt with MS. NONE. I am amazed that she did it and did it so well. I too have had people say nasty things in regards to me having this disease - even after they were supposedly educated on how severe (and systemic) it is. Supposedly well educated people making stupid and derogatory comments ... My heart and understanding go out to Mrs. Romney.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Good example.

I'm with ya on SOPA.

The other thing they do that REALLY pisses me off is this:

1) Throw out some random claim on an opinion show on your network...something like "25% of Muslims are terrorists".

2) Have your NEWS anchor say "some sources estimate that around 25% of Muslims are terrorists" quoting your OWN OPINION SHOWS as reliable sources.

They do that ALL THE TIIME. I have nothing against opinion shows, I looooooooove the Daily Show and Colbert Report for example...but I have a serious problem when the barriers between opinion shows and real news gets watered down to the point where the real news guys quote their opinion show colleagues.

News outlets should report the NEWS, and NOT their own agenda!!

reply to post by MrXYZ


I'm with ya again !

Let it rip !

reply to post by FlyersFan


Good Post all the way ...



100%

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

Well they let you say what you just said without a hitch.

Now what IF somebody says your words are not the truth ?

Who gets to be the "last word" ?

Who is "qualified" to be the final decider ?

Whoever can present the FACTS. This isn't about voicing your opinion, it's about presenting facts.

So if you want to claim "teaching abstinence is the best way to prevent STDs and unwanted pregnancies", you should have to present data that proves that. And vice versa too of course. If you want to claim that contraception is the best way to go, you should have to present data to prove it. And that data clearly shows teaching abstinence is NOT the way to go.

I entirely agree with you.

I think the primary problem is that no one is asking the questions. There is no debate in the USA, it's all "instruction".
People are told what to believe, and depending on the news broadcaster stating it, the people believe it when it fits their political world view.

I believe things are changing though. The youth are more connected and in touch than ever before.

Something that isn't discussed much and that I think really explains a lot is the evolution of the Human being influenced by the Internet. The vast free information the next generation has access to has to affect society, and I think that's what we're seeing in all the protests and revolutions around the world.

It has finally reached a tipping point, where far too many understand what's happening and can see what's wrong. While millions of people over the age of 40 might not have a clue, probably 99% of those under 30 are on the internet and able to read about what their government is doing, how their media is lying, how a corporation is damaging society or how a bank is robbing the people... There has to come a point where too many people who are inclined to act know about it and decide to mobilize.

All of this has to have a massive influence on the social structure of any group. And that is why I think we really are at a turning point in history, where revolution is inevitable for all of us unless all of our governments start to actually listen to the demands of their people and act.

More and more people (especially young people) are abandoning the propaganda press, refusing to simply believe what a politician says, and are actually looking for information.

That's my take on it all.

reply to post by xuenchen

FACTS.

Hmmm.

Do you Really think all people are capable of determining facts ?

Everybody sees things differently.

Facts aren't opinions!!

There's 3 possible answers when assessing "is this statement factual or not?":

1) Yes
2) No
3) I don't know

In the case of STD, we have reliable statistics that clearly show contraception beats teaching abstinence by a ridiculous margin. So claiming "teaching abstinence" is the best way to go is clearly a lie...and that's a FACT. So if a politician comes on a news show and makes this statement, the news anchor should go "that's factually incorrect because..." instead of nodding and just providing that bought sock puppet with a platform to spew his lies around.

If you claim IRAN has a bomb or is about to have a nuclear bomb, you should be forced to present hard evidence. "We believe that..." isn't hard evidence, so the only correct answer is "we don't know for sure". Now, sadly you don't get that at all. You switch on Fox "News", and it sounds as if Iran is just having a quick ciggi break before hitting the button. And they don't even present any facts to back up those claims, they just present a string of opinion pundits and leave out anything that doesn't support their message. The former head of Mossad recently said attacking Iran would be a disaster and that they aren't an existential threat to Israel...the former HEAD OF MOSSAD, an Israeli war hero!! Did Fox News show that? No they didn't! Did they show a large number of Israeli members of parlament speak out against attacking Iran because of a lack of evidence? No they didn't.

If you call yourself a NEWS show, you should present all the facts, or at least admit that at this point in time they simply don't know. Making up stuff and lying leads to bad decisions, as history clearly shows.

reply to post by detachedindividual


Couldn't agree more, Internet ftw!!

reply to post by xuenchen


Oh c'mon.

That lady doesn't speak for the left. She's apologized profusely and Obama bashed what she said.

Quit telling it like you want it rather than it actually is.
Mitt had plenty of chances to refute rush for example but was too much of a wimp to stick up for women when he had the chance.

Yet Obama who you guys absolutely hate came out and addressed that ladies gaff which he had nothing to do with.

Obama would get my vote 100 times before Romney. He's not respectable or presidential at all

Originally posted by mudbeed
That lady doesn't speak for the left.
She's apologized profusely and Obama bashed what she said.

- When she was on TV she was on the show specifically because she represented a left wing view.

- Obama bashed her words either because he really didn't like them OR because it was politically expedient to do so. He has a history of throwing people under the bus ... His mentor Rev. Wright ... his 'typical white person' Grandma ... etc etc

- Her apology was strange ... Text of apology

Let’s put the faux “war against stay at home moms” to rest once and for all. As a mom I know that raising children is the hardest job there is. As a pundit, I know my words on CNN last night were poorly chosen. In response to Mitt Romney on the campaign trail referring to his wife as a better person to answer questions about women than he is, I was discussing his lack of a record on the plight of women’s financial struggles. Here is my more fulsome view of the issues. As a partner in a firm full of women who work outside of the home as well as stay at home mothers, all with plenty of children, gender equality is not a talking point for me. It is an issue I live every day. I apologize to Ann Romney and anyone else who was offended. Let’s declare peace in this phony war and go back to focus on the substance.

It's pretty passive/aggressive. While she looks like she's apologizing, she's really not taking her words back because she just says they were 'poorly chosen'. (which could mean that she really means them but should have used other words). And then at the same time of this 'apology' she accuses the right of claiming the left is 'waging a war' ... calling it a faux war ... against women.

A real apology would have pointed out what I pointed out about Ann Romney ... her successful raising of five children and managing the household all the while battling cancer and having incurable MS. Honestly ... if it was an apology .. it was really lame.

But whatever. Hilary Rosen shot her own career now. She's toxic .. and done.

Originally posted by mudbeed
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Oh c'mon.

That lady doesn't speak for the left. She's apologized profusely and Obama bashed what she said.

Quit telling it like you want it rather than it actually is.
Mitt had plenty of chances to refute rush for example but was too much of a wimp to stick up for women when he had the chance.

Yet Obama who you guys absolutely hate came out and addressed that ladies gaff which he had nothing to do with.

Obama would get my vote 100 times before Romney. He's not respectable or presidential at all

edit on 4/13/2012 by mudbeed because: (no reason given)

Liberal operative Hilary Rosen says: Lets declare peace in the - phony? - war on women

and go back to focus on the substance. ABC News

What? The David Axelrod GOP War on Women was phony???

No kidding!

Well, what else is phony over there at the David Axelrod HQ ?

She isn't every democrat and most dems came out against her instantly.

That's all I care about.

Originally posted by mudbeed
She isn't every democrat and most dems came out against her instantly.

That's all I care about.

It's too late.

The genie is out of the bottle.

Liberal operative Hilary Rosen: Lets declare peace on this - phony - war.

--------
Suddenly, David Axelrod has zero credibility.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

BTW ... stay at home moms are VERY aware of the economic issues in this country .. and have their concerns about how to feed their children and how to send them to school. And of course they worry about their children's futures. That's why many of them stay home ... to make sure a parent is around to help keep them on the right path and to help with homework etc etc.

Of course, MOST stay-at-home moms are very aware of the economic issues of how they are going to adequately feed their kids, how they are going to afford to send them to college, and what their children's futures are going to hold. But NOT Ann Romney. She has NEVER had to worry about how she is going to afford to adequately feed her kids, how she is going to afford to send them to college. She has never had to worry about their financial future. Therefore, Ann Romney is NOT the best person to listen to about the economic issues that women of this country face on a day-to-day basis. Surely, no one can disagree with this.