The Constitution of the United States - General Discussion em True Nudists

DesertRatAutor original

Oct 9, 2012

Over 300 million people live under the US Constitution but very few people really know or understand its true meaning. Even some members of Congress are completely ignorant of what is contained in this document. Actually the Constitution is not so much a set of rules of what people can do, but is a set of rules of what the government CAN NOT do.

Today people are attacking this document as being out dated and not right for our times. Islamists are saying that a much older doctrine, Sharia law, should replace it entirely. Others are pushing for the laws of the United Nations to over rule the Constitution.

These Constitutional detractors are becoming relentless in their efforts and if they are successful the only out come will be total anarchy.

Therefore it is up us, We the People, to protect and defend the Constitution from these evil forces. We can best do that by studying the Constitution and learning the true meaning of what it says and what it means. I believe that any person, regardless of nationality, would be willing to defend the ideals of the Constitution, if they truly understood the document.

ReagirResponderInscrever-se

Respostas

SO
Soupie
Oct 11, 2012
Here is a great example of American exceptionalism. Between 1969 and 1975 the U.S. bombed the shit out of Cambodia killing hundreds of thousand civilians. They so destabilized the country that Pol Pot was able to take over. And during the Reagan years, his administration funneled 86 million in aid to Pol Pot and his supporters. He killed over a million and a half of his own countrymen. Good foreign policy there. Just like Noreiga in Nicaragua. You install a dictator, and then ten years later have to wipe him out.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 11, 2012
[quote][quote][quote]There is no non-corporate media. Unless you mean blogs. [/quote]Could also refer to non-mainstream media. There's quite a bit out there: independent companies (not corporate, though), freelance journalists, bloggers, plenty of people who spend countless hours researching. [/quote]
The media megacorporations, and there are just 6 of them have nearly all the market, are owned by the richest .01% and their corporations. They operate to continue their owners' privileges and scams. They're all tied in with the big banks, big oil, big defence, biotech, big pharma etc.
Have a look at Project Censored.[/quote]
Yup. Only a handful of main ones. Many feel that since there are so many sources out there, that there is choice. That way of thinking is totally wiped out when you do some investigating to find that even those small-town sources are just a part of a bigger source...and then you follow the chain upwards.

For example, look at News Corp, and Time Warner, which own Fox News and CNN, respectively. Then, look at other companies owned by these corporations. It's amazing how much of our media is controlled by only a few. What makes it more complicated is that even two networks that appear "against each other" are owned by bigger corporations that have joint ventures in other companies. They work together to a nice extent, but it boils down to money.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 11, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhxW3Mi-pC4

Just an interesting little tidbit...

I didn't pay much attention to the last part, but...Just to watch someone admit something like that openly and with confidence is amazing to me. There is confidence that people won't take to heart what is said about purposely manipulating things, and knowing that there will still be a following.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 11, 2012
Here's something folks might enjoy looking at:
http://www.cjr.org/resources/

Use the drop-down box and explore who owns what...
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 12, 2012
A quote from Thomas Jefferson"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, not as a gift of their chief magistrate"
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 12, 2012
[quote]A quote from Thomas Jefferson"A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, not as a gift of their chief magistrate"
[/quote]Agreed.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 12, 2012
[quote][quote]There are truths, half-truths, and lies. [/quote]
There's also propaganda by omission.[/quote]
Not sure if I want to put that one under half-truth. Technically, it's not lying if you leave stuff out....only omission, or partial truth. Pretty much giving some of the information and leaving the rest to be inferred, or speculated upon.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 12, 2012
[quote]No, it's just politics.[/quote]Generally speaking...The quick and easy answer.
Basically using a combination of methods to reach some goal, regardless of consideration for those you are meant to serve. Selfishness.
Outright lies are often caught. Telling only partial truths and allowing people to make assumptions is the most common way to get ahead.
Give the illusion of actually giving a damn, gain trust of the masses, feed them half-truths, twist facts (or at least allow the media to) to guide their way of thinking. Purposely omit facts to persuade opinions. Inject opinions, disguised as fact (many who have trouble knowing the difference).
The easiest way to gain trust of masses is a high state of fear or panic. You step up proclaiming to be that beacon in the dark that knows what's going on in the confusion, of course they'll put trust in you. Give them a boogeyman.
ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 12, 2012
I support Julian Assange but you can't really call him a "journalist" per say. Posting pages of documents and facts is not writing.
ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 12, 2012
I agree, but there are a few incidental steps on top of that to technically define yourself as a journalist.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 12, 2012
[quote][quote][quote][quote]There are truths, half-truths, and lies. [/quote]
There's also propaganda by omission.[/quote]
Not sure if I want to put that one under half-truth. Technically, it's not lying if you leave stuff out....only omission, or partial truth. Pretty much giving some of the information and leaving the rest to be inferred, or speculated upon. [/quote]I think when you are talking about the media, omission of relevant facts and issues really comes under the heading of lying. Given their duty and their role in a so-called democracy, it's deliberate distortion designed to deceive.
But the media doesn't do journalism anymore. Look at how they cheerlead the war on Wikileaks. Julian Assange is being assassinated by "journalists" purely for the crime of committing actual journalism.[/quote]
I've always considered that just half-truth. Lying is telling something totally different from truth, but omitting facts would leave only some truth and the rest to be inferred. Kinda like a wild night on the town with the guys. It's technically not lying to tell the wife or girlfriend that you went out for a few drinks, but leave out the fact that it was at a strip club. It would be a lie if she asked where and another answer given. It's being deceptive without lying. The media is the same way. They will leave out important facts, or just provide the ones that they choose. Choosing to say that a dictator at one time was buying weapons, but leaving out the fact that they currently weren't are two things. Saying that they "may be" working on a nuclear bomb isn't the same as saying "they are". By saying, "This person was at one time buying uranium and may be working on a nuclear bomb", it infers that they are currently doing so and are an imminent danger. If you want to convince the public, simply provide facts from the past to back that up. If you can provide hard facts to support a past of buying such things, then that's what the public will focus on most. If you omit some facts that would soften the impact of the story, leave them out, but it wouldn't be lying. It depends on what you want to accomplish. Being deceptive, yes, totally. Lying in the sense that they advertise being fair, unbiased, etc, but their actions speak otherwise. The use of euphemism is another thing, and it is very common. A betrayal of the trust of the People, same as those who are elected to be "public servants". If candidates truly felt they want to do what's best for the country, and not pursue their own goals, they wouldn't want to be president so badly. If really done right, I'm sure it is a lot of work and dedication. It requires making decisions best for the People, not personal advancement, profits, profits of corporations/friends, etc.
Unfortunately, journalism is going that way for many. There's an agenda for pretty much all, especially with the big corps with politicians in their pockets, or if they own stake/stock in an outlet, or are friends with the big guys in charge of the companies. I agree with Julian, but people don't understand the situation. What he did was try to expose corruption. The downside to that is he is being branded a danger by exposing names, etc.. Funny how the one who uncovered Valerie Plame's name wasn't dealt with so harshly. While some things would be best left out, you can still put enough info out there to show corruption. It's easy to brand this man a terrorist by speaking only of dangers of his actions, and simply leaving out what can be found about corruption. It's changing focus from one issue to another, and people totally forget about the other (corruption). People here mostly remain afraid of the world around them, and they will seek comfort and security, regardless of consequences. Being truly secure is only an illusion; any lock can be picked or broken, any room can be breached with the right tools, time, and determination. I can't believe in 100% security, so I must learn to live with that knowledge and not be paranoid.
As for the democracy thing...A democracy is majority rule. I don't remember ever voting on a law with the rest of the People. We elect people to represent us and make those laws in our best interest. Unfortunately, that's not what is being done. Democracies were spoken out against, since there's the potential for the little guy to get no say. I also fear the ignorance of the masses.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 12, 2012
[quote][quote]I support Julian Assange but you can't really call him a "journalist" per say. Posting pages of documents and facts is not writing.[/quote]Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.[/quote]
Writing is creating; simply producing documents is another thing. Yes, a journalist's task involves digging for facts and investigating something. What they find (facts found through investigations) is what is written in their works. A good journalist should also be free of biased and focus only on presenting facts. Many pieces of journalism are presented as fact, and do contain many facts. However, opinions are also put into the mix. This is what sways public opinion, instead of allowing them to draw their own conclusions.
ReagirResponder
DE
DesertRatAutor original
Oct 12, 2012
[quote]

Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.[/quote]It used to be but that is no longer the case. Because of the role that they once played, they were called the "Fourth Estate" or the 4th branch of government. We no longer have reporters who report just the facts. They all want to be commentators with their own spin on everything they cover.
ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 12, 2012
I know quite a few journalists with more ethics than that.
ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 12, 2012
There's a fantastic reporter for the CBC called Terry Milewski who was given the hideous task of following Stephen Harper on his last campaign. Any time he asked a question that Harper didn't want to answer that was shouted over the scrum, Harper's paid goons were ordered to drown him out. It was something to see on the national news and shameful.
ReagirResponder
TH
the_nude_topher
Oct 13, 2012
[quote][quote]

Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.[/quote]It used to be but that is no longer the case. Because of the role that they once played, they were called the "Fourth Estate" or the 4th branch of government. We no longer have reporters who report just the facts. They all want to be commentators with their own spin on everything they cover.[/quote]And if you did a timeline you would no doubt find that with the advent of Fox News the entire "business of news" changed forever.
Did you ever wonder where the concept of Fox/Faux News originated? Nope, it wasn't with Murdock. It was originally proposed to President Richard M. Nixon to be an unfettered voice for the Republican Party. Nixon did not think that anyone would cough up enough money to get it off the ground.He also thought he would never be caught breaking into Watergate, but that is a different history lesson.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 13, 2012
[quote][quote][quote]

Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.[/quote]It used to be but that is no longer the case. Because of the role that they once played, they were called the "Fourth Estate" or the 4th branch of government. We no longer have reporters who report just the facts. They all want to be commentators with their own spin on everything they cover.[/quote]And if you did a timeline you would no doubt find that with the advent of Fox News the entire "business of news" changed forever.
Did you ever wonder where the concept of Fox/Faux News originated? Nope, it wasn't with Murdock. It was originally proposed to President Richard M. Nixon to be an unfettered voice for the Republican Party. Nixon did not think that anyone would cough up enough money to get it off the ground.He also thought he would never be caught breaking into Watergate, but that is a different history lesson.[/quote]
What I find more interesting are the comments left on the page....But...
http://theweek.com/article/index/216884/did-fox-news-originate-in-the-nixon-white-house

Just the first thing I found on it. Going to dig a little deeper for copies of documents for a closer look and research.
http://edge-cache.gawker.com/gawker/ailesfiles/ailes1.html

ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 14, 2012
There are brutal acts of violence and calls to arms in the old testament and the apocrypha. Can we assume that you can literally translate the Koran accurately? There are far more peace loving muslims than there are violent extremists. The same is true of christians. But you cannot grant that fact to muslims, can you?
ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 14, 2012
How is that any different than the thousands of peaceful American Christians dancing in the street after "mission accomplished" and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed?
ReagirResponder
SO
Soupie
Oct 14, 2012
I don't think Gollum has much knowledge of Muslim history. Between the 10th and 14th centuries, Muslims basically civilized Spain. They brought more invention, science, culture, and intellectual knowledge than any other culture and peacefully co-existed with Jews and Christians. Until the Catholic church decided that they must have supremacy over all of Europe and drove them out.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 14, 2012
[quote]I do hope this clears up any doubt that Nima is rather shameless in his attempts to name call and belittle.[/quote]He started to clear that doubt up himself to me from the start with his first post. His last little rant added a little more clarity. This made it crystal clear.
ReagirResponder
DE
DesertRatAutor original
Oct 14, 2012
[quote]

I know quite a few journalists with more ethics than that.[/quote]Would you please give us some names? I'd be happy to seek them out for some honest reporting. I'm particularly interested in knowing the names of individuals associated with the major American networks.
ReagirResponder
ME
Membro
Oct 14, 2012
[quote][quote]

I know quite a few journalists with more ethics than that.[/quote]Would you please give us some names? I'd be happy to seek them out for some honest reporting. I'm particularly interested in knowing the names of individuals associated with the major American networks.[/quote]
Independent journalists: sure...it's possible. Major networks: not really....
ReagirResponder
DE
DesertRatAutor original
Oct 14, 2012
[quote]

[quote][quote]

Unearthing duplicity and wrongdoing by the powerful is, or should be, the primary task of journalists.[/quote]It used to be but that is no longer the case. Because of the role that they once played, they were called the "Fourth Estate" or the 4th branch of government. We no longer have reporters who report just the facts. They all want to be commentators with their own spin on everything they cover.[/quote]I think it's more corporate/government spin than personal. It's more like PR than journalism.[/quote]That is true. The problem arises when they report their views as facts and not opinions. There is no room for personal agendas in honest reporting. A true reporter can separate the two.
ReagirResponder