USA owes Iraq $400 trillion dollars

Statements like this are giving me a better picture of just who you really are. In your way of thinking, it's all right to kill cops, but killing any Iranians, not in military uniform is off limits. Or at least this is what I remember you saying.

 

So with your logic then it is ok for a government to fund newspaper reporters by paying them to write articles that favor their agendas.
So with your logic any elected official could take government money and start a radio show that favors the re-election of him.

Free speech is not free if the government is paying for it. Then it becomes proganda.

I thought you were a political science major?

 

Andy the Bush admin DID just that. They produced (with gov $) tv snippits to promote their twisted agenda. They released these as news and the right leaning dupes ran them WITH NO DISCLAIMER.

 

I stated that myself in earlier posts in this thread Danr. I thought that was anti-democratic just like I feel NPR is as well. They both the same except NPR is a much larger nonreported scandal. Both fit my quote of "Free speech is not free if the government is paying for it. Then it becomes proganda".
As for Air America, I have no problem or issue with them for that is a private broadcast as is Rush, Shawn, Bill, etc...Now if Rush had a national TV show paid for by the government and broadcast 24/7 wouldn't that be wrong. Same thing with PBS.

 

Sorry Andy I missed your reference to the incident.

 

Yeah, it is. It's the choice of the reporters whether or not to write the articles. It's the choice of the editors of the papers whether or not to print those articles, and finally, it's the choice of the public whether or not to read those articles. We already have newspaper articles, radio broadcasts, and television telecasts that are broadcast to us every day, millions of times per day - they're called advertisements, where any person, entity, corporation, criminal, etc. can purchase air time/print space to run whatever they want. Again, the same people as mentioned above have to then make the choice to write it/run it/read it.

That's why it's free. It's available to all.

 

No problem Danr, we seem to both agree that the government paying reporters to print stories is not what democracy is about.

ajm229,Corporations paying for advertisements are what the free market is about. Government monies paying for a political agenda to be published or broadcast is called proganda. I do not know why you do not see how the line was crossed by the Bush Administration and is being crossed by the government funded but leftwing controlled NPR. By the way government workers are not suppose to push for any political party while on the job. That includes military as well as civilians. This is to protect democracy. If you are a political science major, I wish you look at this topic with fresh eyes tommorrow and think about the points made.

 

Isn't a political agenda the same as an advertisement? Someone is paying money for airtime/print time so that they can sell something to a target group of people. In a corporation's case, the something is a product or ideology, and the target group is consumers. In the case of the government, the something is a political agenda, which may or may not be comprised of things you like to hear, and the target group is Americans who watch/read the news.

Why does what the Bush administration has or has not done an issue here? I'm talking about the broader, bigger picture that ideologically, I believe that free press should be extended to the government in the same way it is to everyone else. In my opinion, a political agenda is no different at all than the agenda set forth by any corporation or sales group - they're trying to get people to buy into some product. And exactly how does whether or not people are pushing for a political party have to do with anything while they're on the job? It doesn't.

I am a political science major, and I have looked at the as objectively as I can with my own personal biases, just as you have. I wish that you would concede on some of my points, because I feel that my argument has merit, but I cannot and will not force you to do so. And once again, I ask you to quit with the little comments about my education. That has no bearing here.

~AJ

 

So why don't you do something about it, Speedy? Call all your friends and picket the radio station. Call them over and over and complain about it. Write your congressman, and your senator. Go to your church and have the pastor tell everyone about it.

Regards,
CraigG

Answer: 1.
Question: How many psychics does it take to change a light bulb.

 

The Constitution also says that the Congress and the government are not allowed to do anything unless the Constitution specifically allows them to.
Anyway, they are supposed to use that money to protect America! While the Twin Towers fall in ruins, they waste taxpayer money to promote their political agenda! This is totally outrageous.

Regards,
CraigG

Answer: 1.
Question: How many psychics does it take to change a light bulb.

 

You know Andy I still stand by the comment that NPR are objective. They have conservatives on as often or more often than libs. The funniest thing I ever heard on radio was on NPR, Terry Gross of Fresh Air interviewed Gene Simmons of the rock band Kiss. If you don't know Gene is a monster consevative (way out there) and he kept coming on to Terry Gross (who I think is lesb).

 

Only if you remove all legal and moral responsibility. Want to know how damaging the type of “advertisements” you are speaking about really are when unchecked? Go live in South Korea. It will not take you long to find N. Korean “advertisements” drifting down out of the sky from exploded weather balloon delivery methods, or one innocent looking street adds. There are other more insidious methods too, but I’ll spare you the details. Granted this is an example of one country attempting to subvert another, but the principle applies. Its government “advertising”.

Here is the flaw in your logic. One word. “Someone”. It is not “someone”, it is not a corporation, it is not any other private or individual entity. It is the Government of the United States of America, which has legal responsibilities and duties to be an unbiased governor of its peoples. Without those “checks and balances” a little government bias will by nature become total information control. There are books and books and books and……that give examples of this throughout history.

Simply a recent example.

Again, the rules that govern government and corporations are by necessity, different.

I give you props on your willingness to put your thoughts out there, but when you miss key big picture points, you tip your hand to your lack of experience and knowledge. This will often bring your education into question. This leads me to think that the first class for all Poly-Sci majors should be “Developing a Thicker Skin 101”. You are studying and potentially entering the political arena. It is cut throat, brutal, vicious and inhuman in its personal attacks. A simple truth you need to learn, AND apply is that the stronger you react, the stronger the next attack will be. Also, reacting strongly tends to indicate you have something to hide, and that too smells like sweet carrion to political vultures.

Finally, please try to avoid a mistake common to your age group (another way you paint yourself a target of ridicule), don’t confuse the Freedoms stated in our constitution with the freedom from responsibility.

 

ajm229 when I question your education what I am really saying is that I am concern with professors teaching fiction as fact to foster their own agendas and what you are being misleadingly exposed to.

 

Not true. There are clauses in the Constitution that give powers not enumerated to branches of Congress: "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers" (Art. I, Sec. 8), "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Art. II, Sec. 3) (this begs the question of "how" shall he carry out those laws?).

Protecting our freedom of speech for ALL people is to protect America. If you want to shut somebody up, then you are infringing on that. It's that simple.

Like you said, this is one government trying to subvert another. This does not apply here. America is not trying to subvert any other country by allowing free speech for all, and in that country, there is no protection of free speech by written document issued by the government. So, uh, I have to say that this is like comparing apples with thermonuclear weaponry.

Yes, the government of the USA is PROTECTING your freedom of speech, my freedom of speech, journalistic freedom of speech, and yes, POLITICAL FREEDOM OF SPEECH, which is, by nature, the most protected speech of all, as it should be. Politicians and the government should be able to disseminate ANY information to its people at ANY time by ANY means. And this does not mean it will lead to total control by the government of the media; the books and books you mention do not cite countries that have had Constitutional democracies, and thereby have not had legal protection of free speech. Again, apples and thermonuclear weapons.

What key big picture points have I missed, exactly? The information that you have cited here has no bearing on the US Constitution or freedom of speech. In that regard, I don't think I have tipped my hand at all to whatever amount of education I have had (which, by the way, you all don't actually know).

Okay, smart guy, what am I hiding, if you know it all about this? I am expressing an opinion based upon the premises of the Constitution of the United States (which, as you know, is readily available online or at any major bookstore) objectively. The people in this forum have begun to twist my words and bite at my clauses until they believe that I am telling them what to think. I could be bitter and brutal myself, but I think that since in here we are all good friends and not factions in the political spectrum, that we can have a good discussion where people express OPINIONS and not try to change others' thoughts. I have myself said COUNTLESS times that this is ONLY AN OPINION, and not a political agenda or a platform. When I get into politics as my career, I will have plenty of time to do this. I only want to get other people to see different sides of this issue, and right not, your attacks on me are only managing to subvert any kind of real discussion that we could be having.

I'm sorry, but where exactly is the freedom from responsibility anyway? (By the way, "freedom FROM responsibility" implies that people should be free to NOT have responsibility.) Who says that I haven't taken responsibility for all of the comments I have made here and every opinion that I have expressed? This is not the presidential debates here, so stop acting like I'm some kind of politician under attack. Fact of the matter is that I'm a kid with an opinion. Like it or don't, accept that I'm just stating what I believe (which changes daily with what I learn from school and my non-school life). When I get to the point where I can run for Senator or what-have-you, THEN ask me what I believe on the topic and debate me til the cows come home.

I thank you.
~AJ

 

No, Andy, what you have been saying is that I am not learning anything that is worthwhile to sustain myself in the political arena. My OPINIONS have no bearing on my education, and they are constantly changing as I learn in and out of the classroom. Therefore, I ask that you read the above post, and stop treating me as anything other than another human being utilizing his free speech rights and expressing his opinion.

~AJ

 

I made my comments about the education for you once stated that you were a republican and what you have been posting lately doesn't fit mainstream democrat or republican thinking but of that of the far left which seems to dominate the college campus.

 

It's called being objective - try it sometime. And how the hell would you know what is on a college campus? I bet you haven't been on one in years. And furthermore, what I am saying DOES fit republican ideology. Classical liberal republicanism (by John Locke) states that the people are rational enough to make their own decisions, and therefore, government should be more decentralized to let the people control more of it. Government should take care of things like interstate/international trade, defense, setting standards for education/food and drugs/health, etc. Just the big stuff that the people can't really do themselves. In the case of free speech, teh government should not regulate who can be on the air; that should be left to the people to decide by monitoring ratings - if someone is doing poorly in ratings on the air, he or she should be pulled, because obviously the populus does not want to listen to them. But under no circumstances should ANY type of speech be made not free, unless it immediately and unconditionally threatens to disrupt the society (the go-to example for that is yelling "fire" in a crowded place, which causes people to panic and threatens the lives of others). Republicanism/Liberalism ideologies have not that much to do with free speech; that's just one of those things that must fit all ideologies: free speech is free to all, for all, and by ALL.

 

Guys....you need to calm down....

I know that this forum is open to any topic but it is not open to name calling or such....
I'm not going to close the thread as I think that it is a good topic...but the name calling needs to be left out.

If you can't talk about a topic like a man...and take comments like a man.......

Speedy

 

You state that the government should not regulate what is on the air yet in your earlier posts you defended Bush's administration paying reporters to write favorable articles and NPR's passion for throwing extreme leftwing agendas on the air paid for by tax payer's dollars.

A free press is only free when it is private and not manipulated by the government or government employees for their own purposes.

Air America and Rush are examples of Free Press. Need I say more on this matter?

As for the college campus statement, I am actually considering relocating to Gainesville and start a new chapter in my life. I have looked into teaching in a few other colleges where I have been offered postions, I have a few degrees to speak of, but I would have not fitted in and my fighting days are over now. Family is the thing now.

 

NO, NO! The government is supposed to defend our country against other countries, not other Americans.

Regards,
CraigG

Answer: one.
Question: How many psychics does it take to change a light bulb.