Friday, August 6, 2010

Hummmm....

I’m truly puzzled. I’m puzzled by the press and their silence on issues paramount in every ones mind. I may be the last man on the boat with this issue and if I seem redundant or obvious, I’m sorry, but that is the very reason I feel something needs to be said again. These people who call themselves journalists seem to lack the obligatory passion for truth. They as well as the rest of us are the protectors of liberty, but they even more so for they are the mouthpiece of America. There are durable reasons why people have been driven away from the network news programs. Those who curse and taunt people who watch Fox News are rebels without a clue: They get their news from a left leaning press and loony kook fringe news sites to serve their agenda against the right. But if you ask the basic question: Why have so many turned to Fox and away from CNN, NBC, CBS and ABC, The simplicity of the answer infuriates the left causing them to be defensive. It is that very attitude that manifests itself in their telling of the news. They had no problem calling president number 43 a liar, war criminal or comparing him to Hitler. We were invited and encouraged to speak out against our leaders.


Not so much now.

Doing so now makes you racist.
Saying no now means you’re standing in the way of progress.

Who’s progress? Excuse me for being contrary but I don’t see me or my family making much of any “progress” at all.

I see a lot of people who are friends of the left making progress.

I see a woman about to become Supreme Court Justice and she has never sat on the bench. The press must think that’s ok because I’ve heard hardly a word about her “experience”

It wasn’t ok five years ago though for Harriet Mires: A vastly more qualified candidate.

Silence from the press on the important issues such as a Supreme Court Justice speaks volumes. Their silence speaks not of bias, for that is merely a symptom. It speaks of slothful and irresponsible countenance of the loss of so much liberty so swiftly. I don’t watch network news because its bias, I choose Fox News because of its hunger for truth and creative investigative reporting. Those speaking against it are simply supporting laziness and a left agenda, which is redundant, sorry.

19 comments:

Liberty said...

I happen to dislike both Fox News and the "mainstream" news. What does that make me? v.v

Teresa said...

Fox news does actual reporting of the news and doesn't hide the facts whereas the rest of the networks go out of their way to hide the truth. The MSM is so indebted to the Obama administration its disgusting. The MSM are also biased, against the majority of the people.

Anonymous said...

"Liberty said...
I happen to dislike both Fox News and the "mainstream" news. What does that make me? v.v"

Um, someone who doesn't like news.

Liberty said...

Anon- haha. True. I do read Fox News and "mainstream" news, but I oftentimes find that both are biased, generally the same way, and it gets annoying. And yes, I have seen very conservative pieces come out of the "liberal" news machines. Go figure.

Eman said...

Liberty, you beg the question “What is your primary news source?” From the looks of your two answers here, you are either not being honest, or you are at the least misleading our blog readers here. First you say you dislike fox News but do not indicate why that might be. Second you then say you do read Fox News as well as other outlets. From what point to you call a news cast bias? I have read your blog, I have seen your posts, I have read your responses. It appears to me that in your obviously young life (less than 18 yrs.) you fall well into the liberal end of the political spectrum. Yet you say Fox is bias. Why would you find Fox bias? Is it because they ask tough questions? Is it because they report stories no one else will? Is it because they do actual investigative reporting as apposed to liberal hit pieces on the networks?

Here’s the REAL question Liberty: If a news story is only covered by Fox News, does that make them bias, or just better? Does that make them worse that network news? Example: for weeks no one on network news covered the story of the dropped charges against The New Black Panther Party for Voter Intimidation. Are you saying we should not have been told this? Are you saying the press has no obligation to report such a thing?

I appreciate you visiting my blog Liberty but from my perspective, you are all over the map in how you judge things to be right and wrong. Things that have been wrong to do in my mind since I was born seem to be alright to do now with your way of thinking. Some things you have commented on have so many variables it’s impossible to know where the line of right and wrong is drawn from your point of view. That’s the problem with liberal thinking. There are no absolutes. No black and white, just a lot of gray areas which promote lax enforcement of laws. It would seem everything is ok with you as long as it does not affect you. The problem with that is sooner or later it WILL affect you. This President has taken more of our freedom away that any three presidents have, and he’s done it in 20 months. He’s forcing people to buy healthcare telling people their premiums will go down when we now see them going up in huge ways. The sales pitch he has given every major bill has been chocked full of lies and half truths. Is that your standard? Is this how you want America to be? Changing the rules to fit the moment and not the intent?

You scare the crap out of me.

Liberty said...

Eman- my primary news source is pretty much...everything. Books on current events, any news site I find while researching an issue, blogs (both like-minded and non), and I do find quite a few news stories on Facebook (I am an avowed Facebook addict, haha).

If you would also note, I was not just bashing Fox in my above comments, but also the other news outlets. I find them all biased away from my position- that is, they support unconstitutional wars and the invasion of my privacy. That is one thing, at least, that it appears liberals and conservatives can agree on.

I will say that occasionally, Fox covers things that need to be covered. So do the network news at times- for instance, some of them brought up things about Bush that should have been picked up by more sources, but were not. Fox does a good job of exposing some of Obama's faux pas, though I think sometimes they go a bit too far, just as their more "liberal" counterparts did with demonizing Bush.

As to where I draw a line of "right and wrong", it's actually pretty simple- go read the Constitution, and you'll see my manifesto. I believe that America was founded on the principle of personal liberty. I also believe that that principle is inherent in our Constitution, hence many of my political views. I think people should be free from governmental intrusion in their lives. How is that "gray"?

And as to your very last comment- well thank you. I can't say I've ever scared anyone that much, though I think I did once accidentally shut my cat in our dryer and he crapped on our clean clothes. But yes.

Eman said...

I hope you make it back here soon to answer some questions I have for you concerning your comments.

In your comments about network news you said, “I find them all biased away from my position- that is, they support unconstitutional wars and the invasion of my privacy.”

Which war do you deem “unconstitutional” including what grounds or amendments to said document you base this on?

How do the news channels “support” the invasion of your privacy?

Are you against the War in Afghanistan, Iraq, or the overall War on Terror?

Liberty said...

I consider both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as unconstitutional due to the clause in the first article of the US Constitution that states that Congress is to declare war. No formal declaration of war was issued either to Afghanistan or Iraq.

Most news channels support legislation like the USA PATRIOT act, which blatantly undermines fourth amendment rights. They have remained mum on certain pieces of legislation like the Terrorist Expatriation Act, which would strip US citizenship from suspected terrorists. Further, most of them (including Fox) say nothing about things like this: http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2010/08/24/full-body-scan-technology-deployed-in-street-roving-vans/
or this: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html?xid=rss-fullnation-yahoo
(I may have missed some news articles pertaining to the above two topics. Feel free to correct me. :)

Hence, I am forced to conclude that they don't care, or, perhaps, don't know, about the government's actions. Not exactly the function of a free press.

As to the wars...well, long story short, I'm against all three. Of the three, I think the war in Afghanistan could probably be justified the most, though I think the said justifications are shaky at best. The war on terror is a farce, for reasons I've explained on my blog numerous times, and the war in Iraq was just...stupid. It served no purpose.

So yes. Hope that cleared some things up. :))

Eman said...

The Article in the Constitution which you speak of would be relevant if we had declared war on another country. We declared war on terror, which knows no boarders. Both the House and the Senate voted to go to war. If you are unwilling to support and fight for “liberty” then you want America to fail and fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists. You either want to keep America whole and sound or you want it to fail. Your answers have only served to mystify me even more. You can’t have freedom without a cost Liberty. Freedom is not free. Its cost is blood. By saying you are not in support of any of these conflicts places you at odds with your stated intent and betrays your very name.

I saw Fox do the story on Google’s roving cameras on its news channel for two days. It’s also on it’s website as well as ABC’s and NBC’s so I have no idea what your gripe is about that.

I think the families whose kids were killed, injured or worse in Iraq would take offence to your thought that the Iraq war was… “Stupid… It served no purpose.” We now have a young yet fragile democracy in the Middle East. There never has been a democracy in the Middle East save Israel. You have something against democracy? We also now have an ally and military bases in that country which boarders Iran, a country trying to acquire nuclear weapons and developing uranium enrichment without any watchdog keeping an eye on what they are doing or what its true purpose is. Every country with nuclear weapons or reactors must comply with UN inspections and protocol. Iran is not. You ok with that?

You have a utopian outlook on a very cruel and violent world. That’s why you scare me and still do.

Liberty said...

For the war on terror point, etc.- see this post. It explains why I believe the "war on terror" was- and is- a failed idea, and why it will never suceed. As to Iraq- it had no purpose. I feel for the families whose soldiers have died, very much so. I wish their boys and girls had never had to go die- which is the point of my stance. They didn't have to die. They did die however, because of a wasted conflict that was started for some reason which I still haven't completely figured out.

"I saw Fox do the story on Google’s roving cameras on its news channel for two days. It’s also on it’s website as well as ABC’s and NBC’s so I have no idea what your gripe is about that."

Thanks for correcting me on that. Like I said, I wasn't sure whether or no other news sources had picked it up. I rarely read Fox or ABC or NBC, as I stated above. ^.^

"You have something against democracy?"

Yeah, actually. Democracy is mob-rule, like about one step away from anarchy. Benjamin Franklin said something like- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." I do like my Constitutional Republic with a dash of democracy quite well, but if America ever falls to the level of democracy...well, that will be a sad day. And I could go on and on about Iran, but I won't, because I don't have that much room.

I'm sorry if my views seem "utopian". I've actually been told I'm quite cynical. :P I simply believe a couple things without a doubt:
Diplomacy should always be tried first. If we're having a problem, we should look at ourselves first instead of blaming the rest of the world. The Constitution is quite possibly the best framework for government ever written by men. Liberty is amazing. All people have certain inalienable rights.

If that's utopian, I'm sorry. But it's what I think. :)

Eman said...

“just because I don't want to fight two useless wars in the Middle East with the terrorists, does not automatically mean I am 'with' the terrorists. I believe there are better, more cost-effective, less bloodthirsty ways to go about reaching a solution.”

Can you be specific as to how you would do this?

Liberty, you want to negotiate with terrorists? You want to… talk… to our enemy.

Here’s how this would go:

Terrorist: You are an infidel and Ala has decreed you must die. Therefore I will kill you.

Liberty: Can we talk about this please? We will stop all hostilities and leave you alone if you will stop attacking U.S. interests and people.

Terrorist: You can stop all hostilities, that’s fine. We will then kill you

Liberty: How about we give you a billion dollars?

Terrorist: Ok, fine, then we’ll kill you.

This is the resolve of this enemy Liberty. You can talk all you want. They will still fight and die to make sure the great Satan dies too. That means you.

Can you please spell out how you would do it “better” than has been done in the past? We heard this same line from Obama and Kerry in two elections and have never seen what “better” is. You say you can do better but fail to tell us how that would be done with an enemy sworn to die for their cause and sworn to kill you and everyone you know. So please, enlighten us all how this would be done.

“Our military, on the other hand, is used to going out, proverbial banners waving, acting macho and facing an organized military of the same caliber as they.”

Say what? There are a hundred things wrong with that statement. If this is what you think our armed forces are like, there is no reason for me to ask another question. This statement proves to me you have things in your head placed there by liberals and peace lovers that are simply poppy-cock.

Teresa said...

Eman,
This has been an interesting back and forth debate between you and Liberty.

Liberty,

How many years should a nation give/allow another nation to change their ways and prove that their not a threat to the world? How many U.N. violations/resolutions would it take to convince you that a particular nation has made an effort to take care of the issue in a peaceful manner before going to war?


The U.N. is a useless organization since it seems to have no capabilities of doing its job- which is mainly supposed to be keeping the peace around the world- by evidence of those in the U.N. being involved in the oil for food scandal. So, for the U.S. to depend on the U.N. to keep peace and authorize war "legitimately" in the U.N's eyes is ludicrous. This organization is a useless pile of doo doo and needs to be kicked out of America.

Liberty said...

Have you ever read bin Laden's stated reason for attacking us? It's all political- all about how we're meddling in their affairs. We stop that, I'm pretty sure our problem would stop, or at least decrease. IIRC, we had little problem with Muslim terrorism before we got involved in the Middle East. Oh, and gave them guns and stuff to help them blow us up more effectively. Yeah. Oops. Also, I don't think we should give them money. That's stupid, because we're in our own economic crisis.

"Better" would be not repeating the mistakes of the past- in other words, not getting involved in "nation building" and orchestrating the fall of one regime to put in another, like we did in Iran. "Better" would be minding our own business so that others would do the same, like shutting down the 700 plus military bases we have all over the world. "Better" would be not sending our soldiers to die for an ideal that will never be realized. You'll never get rid of terrorism. If you killed everybody in the Middle East, you wouldn't get rid of it, because terrorism is a tactic that is, and can be, employed by people from every corner of the globe.

As to our military- yes, they are used to facing a military that is the same as they are. That's what hurt us in Vietnam- there wasn't an organized military quite like we were used to. That's what's wrong with this conflict- there isn't an organized military facing us to speak of. This is one of the major ways I believe our politicians have let our soldiers down- they are sending them into a fight against a foe they aren't trained to deal with, IMO.

And please stop calling me a liberal. It's incredibly annoying, especially seeing as all the liberals I know call me a conservative, and it's equally annoying (mainly we debate the economy). >.>

Eman said...

“It's all political- all about how we're meddling in their affairs. We stop that, I'm pretty sure our problem would stop, or at least decrease.”

This is the statement of a person who has no idea the resolve of our enemy. This is dangerously obtuse Liberty.

“We had little problem with Muslim terrorism before we got involved in the Middle East.”

That’s just flat out wrong. We have been involved in Middle Eastern affairs for a hundred years. Lebanon and Libya come to mind. We fight this war because we have no other means to exact justice for more terrorist attacks on the USA and it’s CIVILIANS in this decade alone than there are days in the year. Thousands of Americans, Christians, Muslims and Jews and their children, KILLED!

And you…wanna …talk. Wow….

You say “Better” is not repeating the mistakes of the past.” Talk about Monday Morning Quarterbacking. Are we the only country expected to kill only the enemy and no civilians? (By the way, the answer is YES) If we fought this war the way it should have been, there’d be very few terrorists left. I guarantee it!

And I’d love to just “mind our own business” Liberty but when disaster strikes anywhere on the planet, who’s the first one they call for money, food and…money…and…money? When ¼ of Africa faces starvation, when a tsunami hits India, when a hurricane wipes out the Dominican Republic…. Who gets the call?

And then we get told we didn’t do enough, we didn’t send enough, we didn’t give enough, we didn’t care.

And another thing, I dare you to tell a Marine, coming back from his third tour in Afghanistan or Iraq, that they know nothing about the enemy. That’s something I’d pay to see.

Liberty, your biggest problem right now is you are acting your age.

Liberty said...

"If we fought this war the way it should have been, there’d be very few terrorists left. I guarantee it!"

I beg to differ. "Terrorist" is a loose term. It can be applied to anyone. Muslims are not the only terrorists. Terrorism has been employed as a significant tactic by people from the ancient Romans to the relatively modern-day Viet Cong. To get rid of "terrorists", you'd basically have to outlaw people, because anyone can employ tactics that can be labelled "terror". After all, what else do you call an act of rape and murder than terrorism? We will never get rid of terrorism. Ever. Further, our attempt to get rid of the people who perpetrated 9/11 has failed utterly. Have we caught the main operatives of al Qaeda? No. Do we know anything more about al Qaeda now than we did in '01? Not really. What we have done is spent billions of dollars we didn't have, thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of their civilians have died.

"And I’d love to just “mind our own business” Liberty but when disaster strikes anywhere on the planet, who’s the first one they call for money, food and…money…and…money?"

And personally, I think that's a mistake. Our government shouldn't be involved in philanthropy when our own people are suffering because of an economy in the crapper, and who are seeing their country steadily declining into tyranny. Just my opinion. ;)

"And another thing, I dare you to tell a Marine, coming back from his third tour in Afghanistan or Iraq, that they know nothing about the enemy. That’s something I’d pay to see."

I was not speaking of individual soldiers. I know soldiers myself, and some of them are quite well-informed about the area they were fighting in, and acted in a manner worthy of my country. But there are enough "bad apples" who either don't know or just flat don't care, that it makes it bad for our entire country, and just incites more acts of terrorism and insurgency over there. (Blowback. Don't you love it?)

"Liberty, your biggest problem right now is you are acting your age."

Once again, please stop it with the ad hominem attacks. My age has no place in this debate.

Anyway, I still believe diplomacy should be tried first before we go and ruin sovereign countries in imperialistic actions. We didn't try diplomacy. We just went in, guns blazing, while the politicians rode a wave of patriotic fervor to enrich themselves.

Eman said...

"We didn't try diplomacy. We just went in, guns blazing, while the politicians rode a wave of patriotic fervor to enrich themselves."

If memory serves, the Iraq war began because Saddam thru out the UN and and would not answer FOR YEARS charges it had WMD. They had used them. A LOT!! God knows how many times the UN Gen. Assembly met to try diplomacy. The build up of troups took months with the warning of come clean or else. This in no way resembles "guns blazzing".

What are you talking about?????

Teresa said...

Here are two sites showing the number of U.N. resolutions pertaining to Iraq:

http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect2.html

There is more information of what turned out to be more than a decade of negotiations with Saddam: http://www.usasurvival.org/docs/iraq_un.pdf

Liberty said...

Obviously, this debate is going nowhere. If you'd like to see more of my thoughts on this subject, please go to my blog- I'm sure it would clear up a lot of your questions concerning my stance. :))

Eman said...

Again I have to disagree with you Liberty. I think the discussion was going rather well. The only problem has been your unwillingness to see the truth here. We did not go in “guns blazing” as you have asserted. And no, you don’t have to “outlaw people” to stop terrorism, you have to face it, fight it, and keep fighting it because if you don’t, you can bet your life they will kill us all. They will take what they can and bring about changes no one wants in America. You say fighting terror is useless. You just gonna stand there and take it Liberty? America will not be bullied by these or any other faction of hate. I also find it interesting that you don’t want to fight them. People with that type of attitude are the reason we could lose all we have held dear for over 200 years. That’s why I say you scare me Liberty. You are unwilling to fight for what’s right and just. Where would we be with a nation of people unwilling to stand up to opponents. Being a female, I understand how you might not like war and conflict, but Liberty, the Bible says there is a time of war and a time for peace. This is not a time of peace. Not by along shot. And it’s not a time of peace because of Islam and their Jihad against us, not because we resist them.