If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(mediabistro.com)   CNN openly questions why they could cover the Iraq War and South Pacific tsunami devastation, but FEMA won't let them cover ongoing NOLA rescue operations. And by "openly questions", I mean "files lawsuit".   (mediabistro.com) divider line 440
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

15961 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2005 at 6:07 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



440 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-09-11 12:51:07 AM
So liberals seem perfectly OK with the fact that the police are FORCING people to leave their homes, in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, and are seizing legally-owned firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment, but you get upset because a news service has their First Amendment rights violated? It must be nice to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you support.
 
2005-09-11 12:58:42 AM
the reason bush/rove want to keep the bodies off the air is that it's quickly becoming clear that there are more dead in Katrina than in 9/11.

Kind of poses a problem there. If it's ok to let local governments screw up, keep the federal hands clean, if 10,000 people die, then why does it matter if merely 3,000 people die?

The whole homeland defense organization becomes a sham if Bush can't say 9/11 is the greatest disaster-related loss of life in the USA. You know the speeches he likes. He repeats 9/11 20 times or more.

The procedure is to try to magically make the bodies go away, don't show them on tv, minimalize the losses, pretend not that many people died OR if they did die it's their own fault.

I just don't see how the republican spin machine is gonna wash this dirt clean.

Like Jon Stewart said, Katrina is Bush's Monica Lewinski.

Back in 1998 it took about 6 months before Democrats began asking Clinton not to come to their fund-raising efforts, because it would hurt their re-election efforts.

I figure sometime in March 2006, Republicans will be crossing the street to avoid being seen walking with the president.
 
2005-09-11 01:01:40 AM
2005-09-11 12:37:37 AM Clavis


Noam Chimpsky

You're my biatch. Pipe down and let the reasonable people talk.


I'd say that's beneath you but it's to be expected of someone who who would so hysterically defend corrupt politicians who are responsible for the death of a large city and who knows how many innocent people.
 
2005-09-11 01:01:46 AM
warriorsfan04: So liberals seem perfectly OK with the fact that the police are FORCING people to leave their homes, in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment, and are seizing legally-owned firearms, in violation of the Second Amendment, but you get upset because a news service has their First Amendment rights violated? It must be nice to pick and choose which parts of the Bill of Rights you support.


What's hilarious about this drivel is that it isn't "liberals" who are actually doing those things.
 
2005-09-11 01:05:21 AM
Noam Chimpsky
I'd say that's beneath you but it's to be expected of someone who who would so hysterically defend corrupt politicians who are responsible for the death of a large city and who knows how many innocent people.

Where did I defend anyone, you delusional troll?

If you're going to fight with the demons in your head, why torture us with the blow-by-blow?

I asked you how you could accuse the local and state authorities of "murder" but not the federal authorities. You have never even tried to answer that or any other question. You are an attention-seeking, yapping little biatch.
 
2005-09-11 01:05:49 AM
Noam Chimpsky:
Why do you feel the need to defend the Louisiana politicians who have destroyed the great city of New Orleans?

So back to your original point...

Noam Chimpsky: Good. The Governor of LA, Mayor of NO and the Landrieu family won't be swinging from their murderous necks until the people fully understand what these Democrats' corruption and ineptness has wrought.

Noam Chimpsky: if you try to say that the police are just as guilty for the shootings, you would be just as twisted as if you blamed the company that made the gun that the gunman used in the shooting.


equusdc:
So, for instance, it would then be twisted to call Frank Snellings a murderer.

I'd really like some clarification on how you reconcile that little screed of yours...
 
2005-09-11 01:17:00 AM
Knobmaker: "What's hilarious about this drivel is that it isn't "liberals" who are actually doing those things."

Really? So it wasn't Democrat Mayor Ray Nagin who ordered the forcible evacuations? The New Orleans police chief and most of their police force is black, call me crazy but I don't think they vote Republican. And the National Guard is under the control of Democratic Governor Blanco. In fact, the only people who REFUSED to violate the Constitution were the federal troops. General Honore said that if Nagin and Blanco wanted to kick people out of New Orleans, they would have to do it themselves, the Army wouldn't be seizing guns and dragging people out of their own homes.
 
2005-09-11 01:23:00 AM
I_Luv_Ladyberrys

It's not my intention to troll I'm just stating facts, I don't expect that my respect should have any value. If you don't want to say what kind of government you would I like, that's just fine with me. I'm just responding to what I saw as an attack on Libertarianism which is an ideal I believe in. To me it means individual responsibility and a recognition of Common law Rights. Of course you can keep your own beliefs to yourself, that's your right.

O.K. I will posit that you were not trolling. So,

(1) You SHOULD expect your respect, or mine, to have some value. If it does not, then nobody's respect for anything has any value.

(2) I don't want to not say what kind of government I would like -- I did, in fact, say, "a good one." I just don't want to feel I am shouting into a hurricane. (And I have had recent experience doing exactly that.)

(3) I was not specifically attacking Libertarianism: if you read all my posts on this thread, and don't get sick, you will realize that I said I dislike the approach of any and all "third party" wannabees who run presidential candidates, year after year after useless year, yet do nothing to further their agenda locally. IMHO, even if some form of flu hit America and such a candidate were magically elected, since there would be no one in Congress, no governors, no apparatus to support him/her, what could possibly be accomplished? What did Jesse Ventura accomplish (though I admire him for trying to make a difference more locally) in Minnesota?

(4) Individual responsibility and Common Law rights are not a bad start. What I have always wondered, with these as with any set of ideals, is "How do we get from here to there?" When I was in College, a long time ago, I listened with some interest to a series of arguments between a self-avowed Libertarian and a self-avowed Communist. Fascinating, but neither could, when I asked, clearly describe to me how we could get from here to there.

(5) Here is a start on my beliefs (make of it whatever you like): Aristotle characterized the foremost measure of worth of a nation (or state) as the education it gives its citizens. I have a lot of issues with Aristotle on other things, but here I think he was pretty close to bang on the money. Of course, this raises a lot of questions about WHAT constitutes a "good education," but it is at least a place to begin.

Give a man a fish, and he will not go hungry for a day.

Teach a man to fish, and he should never go hungry.

Teach a man to become a major broker in seafood, and he will create a huge conglomerate that will eventually (a) swallow up all competition or (b) reduce his grandsons to begging for fish.

/Just made that up. Thought it was rather good.
 
2005-09-11 01:23:46 AM
warriorsfan04: General Honore said that if Nagin and Blanco wanted to kick people out of New Orleans, they would have to do it themselves, the Army wouldn't be seizing guns and dragging people out of their own homes.


So you're saying that the "liberals" here, who have no power to do anything in New Orleans, are more culpable than Honore, who presumably took an oath to defend the Constitution, and yet is doing nothing to actually defend it? Your grasp of logic is intimidating indeed. Why don't you go biatch to someone who can actually do something about these violations? Oh wait, I know the answer. You're just a Bushbot desperately searching for rhetoric helpful to Fearless Leader. You don't care about the Constitution any more than he does.

And, by the way, if you believe Bush does not agree with the forcible evacuations and seizing of legal firearms, please produce some evidence supporting your belief. He sure hasn't said a word about it.
 
2005-09-11 01:25:13 AM
2005-09-11 01:05:49 AM equusdc


Noam Chimpsky:
Why do you feel the need to defend the Louisiana politicians who have destroyed the great city of New Orleans?

So back to your original point...

Noam Chimpsky: Good. The Governor of LA, Mayor of NO and the Landrieu family won't be swinging from their murderous necks until the people fully understand what these Democrats' corruption and ineptness has wrought.

Noam Chimpsky: if you try to say that the police are just as guilty for the shootings, you would be just as twisted as if you blamed the company that made the gun that the gunman used in the shooting.

equusdc:
So, for instance, it would then be twisted to call Frank Snellings a murderer.

I'd really like some clarification on how you reconcile that little screed of yours...


Your post looks acid induced.
 
2005-09-11 01:28:10 AM
Noam Chimpsky:
Your post looks acid induced.

Probably true as it was mostly your words and I suppose a bad acid trip would explain most of them.
 
2005-09-11 01:40:22 AM
I_Luv_Ladyberrys: It's still theft, I don't want to be robbed at all. People have a right to just compensation for the fruit of their labor. Rights can't (or at least shouldn't, under the law) be taxed. Thanks for the info anyway.

You might like this, I do:

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

But until we fix this stuff, you should really consider giving a portion your federal taxes to a tax-deductible charity or organization of your choice.
 
2005-09-11 01:43:10 AM
and just so you know a little about the author and his era:

When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will still be read "a hundred years from now." The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June, 1850, is already more than a hundred years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) was a French economist, statesman, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before and immediately following the Revolution of February 1848. This was the period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic. The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist-communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced against socialism by Mr. Bastiat are word for word equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.
 
2005-09-11 01:47:48 AM
Unknown_Poltroon: What is FEMA trying to hide?

A full on zombie invasion, that's what!
 
2005-09-11 01:48:49 AM
selloco:
And because its truths are eternal,

...of course the foundation of the entire argument is a tautology of the worst form "God made this, which presupposes [insert notion being justified], therefore I'm right because God told me so" -- and such a person has the gall to point of fallacies?

Oy vey.
 
2005-09-11 01:55:38 AM
Although I stated above I have no particular agenda to discredit Libertarianism, let me say here that for all those who insist that the U.S. government has a confiscatory and unfair tax policy, both for individuals and corporations, here is a list of countries with virtually no individual or corporate taxes. I am sure that if you move to any of these places, you will find a government far more satisfactory to your personal agenda:

Mozambique
Ethiopia
Republic of Tanzania
Somalia
Nepal
Guinea-Bissau
Burma
Chad
Bangladesh
Malawi
Burundi
Uganda
Zaire
Madagascar
Afghanistan
Sierra Leone
Gambia
Nigeria
Mali
Vietnam
Rwanda
Niger
Sudan
Burkina Faso
Guinea

Lotsa luck.
 
2005-09-11 01:57:39 AM
equusdc: ...of course the foundation of the entire argument is a tautology of the worst form "God made this, which presupposes [insert notion being justified], therefore I'm right because God told me so" -- and such a person has the gall to point of fallacies?

Oy vey.


If that's how you choose to interpret it.

You can either answer to yourself, your god or your government. It's your choice. I choose the first over all.
 
2005-09-11 02:01:06 AM
Well, CNN is also making a pretty penny off this coverage too, so I doubt it is all human interest.
 
2005-09-11 02:03:47 AM
oldebayer-

Why SHOULD I value anyones respect, it just puts me at the mercy of someone else's opinion.
As for "How do we get from here to there?" people get the goverment they want. If the majority want a dictatorship, then that's what they will get. If they want to be ruled by their servants, than that's what they'll get. The best I can do is vote Libertarian (which you trolled to me "you cannot make a difference, ever, by voting for some fringe weirdo for president", I made an earlier post about that) and donate money to the party.
Also, I doubt if we would agree on what is a "good education".
 
2005-09-11 02:03:51 AM
equusdc: I just realized that you didn't even read it.

Yes, I amm slow...

Just because it says the word "God" you feel the need to dismiss it?

Bastiat's god is the very least of what his writings have to offer.
 
2005-09-11 02:07:07 AM
selloco: If that's how you choose to interpret it.


Are you kidding? That's not interpretation. That's PAGE ONE. Admittedly, that's the problem with most political philosophy from roughly 1000 BC to, oh, say 1867 or so. I'm not discrediting the lot out of hand, just pointing out the absurdity of claiming logical superiority when the foundation is itself fallacious.
 
2005-09-11 02:13:10 AM
Are you kidding? That's not interpretation. That's PAGE ONE. Admittedly, that's the problem with most political philosophy from roughly 1000 BC to, oh, say 1867 or so. I'm not discrediting the lot out of hand, just pointing out the absurdity of claiming logical superiority when the foundation is itself fallacious.

Bastiat basically says that a man is in charge of his own destiny. God or no god. Your choice.

Take his ideas and base them on whatever foundation you want. He based them on what he believed in. I'm sure you base your ideas on what you believe in.

Or just ignore everything based on pretense. Your choice.
 
2005-09-11 02:14:05 AM
Typically, by definition, a liberal is one who tries to make political reforms.

I think it's hysterical that this administration calls itself "conservative", or that anyone else does. They've offered a ton of political change, such as their failed, "no child left behind" bull, their attempt to completely illegalize gay marraige on a national level, and that whisper on the wind about a reversal of Roe Vs. Wade. Let us not forget stem cell legislation, and breach after breach of the seperation of church and state, including trying to teach "creationism" in a science class.

So, if we actually have a "conservative" government, what exactly are we conserving here?

Are we conserving human life? No.

Are we conserving money? No.

Are we conserving energy? No.

Are we conserving the sanctity of education? No.

Are we conserving anything? No.

Why? We are a country with an extremely liberal government, trying to make drastic changes that coincide with every little blurb in the Bible, and every interpretation of it. The reason people are confusing it with "conservatism" is because the steps we are taking are backwords and fundamentalist.

Unfortunately, the words, "republican", "conservative", and "Christian" have been lumped together in the political arena, and it's a sad sad thing, considering that, currently, none of them have a single thing to do with one another, scewing the true meanings of each.
 
2005-09-11 02:21:51 AM
selloco:
He based them on what he believed in. I'm sure you base your ideas on what you believe in.

...and that's FINE. However, not all beliefs are logical. To say that [x] is illogical and [y] is not simply because the premises of X have been conveniently dismissed and those of Y are assumed to be universal, eternal and infallible, well, that really takes some dialectical balls.
 
2005-09-11 02:22:32 AM
mychihuahuas: <picture of a cow licking a dog>

Jeez
, that's a big tongue.
 
2005-09-11 02:24:19 AM
equusdc: ...and that's FINE. However, not all beliefs are logical. To say that [x] is illogical and [y] is not simply because the premises of X have been conveniently dismissed and those of Y are assumed to be universal, eternal and infallible, well, that really takes some dialectical balls.

Agreed.
 
2005-09-11 02:36:13 AM
Anagram of the day:

New Orleans -> No Real News

... at least, if our incompetent leaders had their way.
 
2005-09-11 02:47:39 AM
I_Luv_Ladyberrys

Why SHOULD I value anyones respect, it just puts me at the mercy of someone else's opinion.
As for "How do we get from here to there?" people get the goverment they want. If the majority want a dictatorship, then that's what they will get. If they want to be ruled by their servants, than that's what they'll get. The best I can do is vote Libertarian (which you trolled to me "you cannot make a difference, ever, by voting for some fringe weirdo for president", I made an earlier post about that) and donate money to the party.
Also, I doubt if we would agree on what is a "good education".


(1) Valuing respect does not make you beholden in any way to anyone. Unless you are shamelessly pandering to earn it.

(2) People seldom "get the government they want." They get the government they are willing to tolerate. Not the same thing.

(3) Vote anyway you like, and donate to whomever pleases you. If those involve the Libertarian Party, feel free to imagine you are making a difference. Just don't try to persuade me.

(4) As I said in my last post, a "good education" is a big sticking point. I'll bet we are both willing to agree on this much, however: no one who disagrees with us has gotten a very good one.

It is late, and I am being a bit contentious because I had a hard day. I encourage you to vote and support the Libertarians, and if one day we manage to get from here to there, my ghost will smile upon your ghost.

/Unlike most people, here and elsewhere, I actually encourage people to disagree with me. I may be right, occasionally, but it is not a common enough occurrence for me to take seriously.
 
2005-09-11 04:02:36 AM
drwiii:

 
2005-09-11 06:14:30 AM
Why does CNN hate America?
 
2005-09-11 07:08:20 AM
Partisan rhetoric and whatever new argument arises aside... let's just all agree on one thing. I don't think it's that tough...

WE ARE farkED!
 
2005-09-11 09:14:24 AM
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/09-11-2005.gif

/no HTML
//fark you farking farkers
 
2005-09-11 10:29:07 AM
Fark CNN. There's way too much news on TV anyway. And this hurricane thing was like, a week ago. Move ON, already.
 
2005-09-11 10:29:09 AM
Tatsuma: Get a Democrat President, Republican-controlled congress, a house 50/50 and it's the best possible government we can ever have

The best possible government will never involve only 2 parties. Nobody should have a majority in either house of Congress.
 
2005-09-11 02:39:21 PM
This looks like a very clear cut first amendment issue to me.
 
2005-09-11 03:23:58 PM
Ya, mein herr.
 
2005-09-11 05:10:36 PM
What's left for the Republicans to do that they accused the Democrats of wanting to do, but went ahead and did themselves?
 
2005-09-11 07:50:55 PM
MaliFinn

Electing Senator Clinton to the White House?
 
2005-09-11 10:00:32 PM
quickdraw: Maybe just maybe the sight of all those

Smallberries: mychihuahuas: But enough about my assets

Nooo, we want to see more of them....

ohhhh I see how it is.... Sheesh smallberries I'm glad I didn't accept your proposal a few hours ago.


What??

I can't even window shop?

:P
 
2005-09-11 10:38:20 PM
Clavis

This would, of course, be opposed to the reasoned, balanced sentiment of you fell for it, accompanied by Bush giving the finger to the country.
 
Displayed 40 of 440 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report