ADVERTISEMENT

CNN steps to the plate (regarding FREE SPEECH)......

Michael.Felli

Well-Known Member
Mar 19, 2013
3,906
614
1
"Free speech is a global human rights issue. It is the sadly waning and fragile flame of the Enlightenment -- a flame that America was tasked with protecting. We chose to do so with the First Amendment, and we have done a relatively good job of it. We could do better. We fancy ourselves as the bastion of freedom? Step up and prove it."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/opinions/randazza-bangladeshi-blogger-das-killed/index.html


“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison
 
"Free speech is a global human rights issue. It is the sadly waning and fragile flame of the Enlightenment -- a flame that America was tasked with protecting. We chose to do so with the First Amendment, and we have done a relatively good job of it. We could do better. We fancy ourselves as the bastion of freedom? Step up and prove it."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/12/opinions/randazza-bangladeshi-blogger-das-killed/index.html

“Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors, must arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.”
James Madison

This stuff is no joke. We live in the US where historically the "intolerant religious fundamentalists" are Jerry Falwell types or at worst people that yell "God hates fags" at the funeral of soldiers. By American standards such people are intolerant but in comparison to religious fundamentalism elsewhere they're virtually Libertarians. It's hard for some Americans, especially people on the far left, to fathom that there are people in the world that take their religious fundamentalism so seriously that simply killing people that think differently is perfectly acceptable and normal. They do exist though and they have to be dealt with.
 
OP2------"People on the far left" have grown just a wee bit tired of the fear-mongering and pointless wars that result. They are skeptical of your solutions. Where women are murdered every day by the people who allegedly love them, there is no inability to "fathom" senseless, pointless violence in the world.
 
Only media outlet mocked more than CNN on liberal sites is Faux.

Yeah, and that's because all the other outlets are liberal and they just can't stand that Fox has more followers than any two of their outlets and those liberal outlets have more of their contributors disciplined for "faux" claims.
 
Yeah, and that's because all the other outlets are liberal and they just can't stand that Fox has more followers than any two of their outlets and those liberal outlets have more of their contributors disciplined for "faux" claims.

"More followers." Heh-heh.

That's always the yardstick by which televison greatness is measured. Hee-Haw and (insert any sit-com with a laugh-track here) come to mind.

By the way, this might interest you: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/0...es-finds-fox-news-lies-even-more-than-before/
 
Last edited:
Yeah, and that's because all the other outlets are liberal and they just can't stand that Fox has more followers than any two of their outlets and those liberal outlets have more of their contributors disciplined for "faux" claims.
That is not exactly an Occam's Razor kinda thing you go going there.
 
OP2------"People on the far left" have grown just a wee bit tired of the fear-mongering and pointless wars that result. They are skeptical of your solutions. Where women are murdered every day by the people who allegedly love them, there is no inability to "fathom" senseless, pointless violence in the world.

I thought when I said "far left" I might be painted as a righty and I was correct. Believe me, I'm not. Go ask people on the WVU OT board if I'm a righty and they'll laugh out loud.

I'm a socially liberal, fiscally fairly conservative closeted atheist (although much of the WVU OT board would disagree with applying the word "conservative" to me in any way). But what I don't do unlike some on the far left is reflexively take the side of anyone that mainstream America is against. I use my judgement on a case by case basis.

It's ironic that you mention women being treated badly. The marginalized groups that the far left historically championed, like women and gay people, are exactly the ones that need protection from Islamic fundamentalists. In this country the left insists that women get equal pay as men and that gay people be allowed to be open about it and yet when ISIS throws people off of buildings for being gay or religious fundamentalists in Pakistan kill a women for being raped because they view the act of her being raped as dishonoring the family then we have to try to understand them? No! Human rights are human rights and they trump any religious book.

Bangladesh is a relatively moderate Islamic country and yet this is the second time in less than a year that someone was hacked to death on the street solely for blogging in favor of secularism. For crying out loud, the only reason people WEREN'T killed solely for drawing a cartoon in Texas a couple weeks ago was because the would-be killers were prevented by force.

Granted most Muslims are sane, normal people but the crazy Islamic fringe isn't like the crazy Christian fringe in the US that wants things like prayer back in public school. The crazy Islamic fringe wants an imposed theocracy. All you have to do to know this is to listen to what they say and observe how they act.
 
I thought when I said "far left" I might be painted as a righty and I was correct. Believe me, I'm not. Go ask people on the WVU OT board if I'm a righty and they'll laugh out loud.

I'm a socially liberal, fiscally fairly conservative closeted atheist (although much of the WVU OT board would disagree with applying the word "conservative" to me in any way). But what I don't do unlike some on the far left is reflexively take the side of anyone that mainstream America is against. I use my judgement on a case by case basis.

It's ironic that you mention women being treated badly. The marginalized groups that the far left historically championed, like women and gay people, are exactly the ones that need protection from Islamic fundamentalists. In this country the left insists that women get equal pay as men and that gay people be allowed to be open about it and yet when ISIS throws people off of buildings for being gay or religious fundamentalists in Pakistan kill a women for being raped because they view the act of her being raped as dishonoring the family then we have to try to understand them? No! Human rights are human rights and they trump any religious book.

Bangladesh is a relatively moderate Islamic country and yet this is the second time in less than a year that someone was hacked to death on the street solely for blogging in favor of secularism. For crying out loud, the only reason people WEREN'T killed solely for drawing a cartoon in Texas a couple weeks ago was because the would-be killers were prevented by force.

Granted most Muslims are sane, normal people but the crazy Islamic fringe isn't like the crazy Christian fringe in the US that wants things like prayer back in public school. The crazy Islamic fringe wants an imposed theocracy. All you have to do to know this is to listen to what they say and observe how they act.

All of that is great, but starting ground wars in Muslim countries was an incredibly stupid way to address it. People who think "we have to do something about crazy Muslim fundamentalists" need to own that the solution they tried in 2003 backfired badly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
No. And I guess neither of you. Only media outlet mocked more than CNN on liberal sites is Faux.

But, go ahead and continue believing false narratives. That will help us all.

Fox is certainly a right wing conservative medium but it is actually the closest to centrist (middle of the spectrum) we have in this country. That is how far left all of the other channels are...
 
  • Like
Reactions: todd brewster
All of that is great, but starting ground wars in Muslim countries was an incredibly stupid way to address it. People who think "we have to do something about crazy Muslim fundamentalists" need to own that the solution they tried in 2003 backfired badly.
WOW are you re-writing history there and you know it. Totally not having that debate on this thread but you know what you are doing...STOP
 
WOW are you re-writing history there and you know it. Totally not having that debate on this thread but you know what you are doing...STOP
If we are not having the debate, then we are not having the debate. Bite it.
 
Well, I do know our "trade agreements" with China and Vietnam have emphasized free speech:)

Really, stop the silliness - it is ALL about $$$$$$$
Free Speech? NOT by this country if a buck can be made never has been !!
 
Fox is certainly a right wing conservative medium but it is actually the closest to centrist (middle of the spectrum) we have in this country. That is how far left all of the other channels are...
I understand that you believe that. And, I understand that you do not understand what a departure from reality that belief is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
I understand that you believe that. And, I understand that you do not understand what a departure from reality that belief is.
Please I'm well centered in reality. Why do you think every credible conservative broadcaster has left ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN? Because their culture is so far left they don't tolerate opposing views. Whether you agree with them or not George Will, Brit Hume and Chris Wallace are all decent commentators and broadcasters and all are the most recent examples of people escaping the close minded liberal elitism that has taken over the media in the majority of American Newsrooms.
 
Please I'm well centered in reality. Why do you think every credible conservative broadcaster has left ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN? Because their culture is so far left they don't tolerate opposing views. Whether you agree with them or not George Will, Brit Hume and Chris Wallace are all decent commentators and broadcasters and all are the most recent examples of people escaping the close minded liberal elitism that has taken over the media in the majority of American Newsrooms.
Last I heard, George Will was still with ABC. But, I admit to not paying attention to any of them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jjsocrates
Please I'm well centered in reality. Why do you think every credible conservative broadcaster has left ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN? .

Why did they leave?

They left because the aforementioned networks are managed by people who believe the earth is older than 5,000 years, that it is dying perforce of too much carbon in the atmosphere, and that it faces problems far bigger than gay marriage.

More and more, the "conservative" base is anti-science, anti-secular, anti-women's rights, while being pro-big oil, pro-big coal, pro-big pharm, pro-big Wall Street and proBenjamins for the top 2% at the cost of education and health for all.

Rational people and rational networks reject conservative selfishness, and they don't care which Conservative pundits leave.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
More and more, the "conservative" base is anti-science, anti-secular, anti-women's rights, while being pro-big oil, pro-big coal, pro-big pharm, pro-big Wall Street and proBenjamins for the top 2% at the cost of education and health for all.

This cracks me up. Anti-science - how about naming just one calamity that the left has claimed would happen as a result of "global warming" err ah "global climate change"? Why did you pro-science libs.move away from the man made global cooling of the 1970s? Why have the pro-science libs. who in 1988 claimed the Earth has 10 years only to hear Al Gore, in 2008, claim the Earth has 10 years.

Anti secular - How does wanting "Freedom of Religion" imply anti-secular?

Anti-women' rights - what women's rights; do you mean the one that allows a woman to take the life of an innocent child in the womb? I suppose that child's right to life should be denied because a liberal court made a 5 to 4 decision to allow abortion. Where is that right granted in the constitution?

Pro-big everything? Do you mean pro-jobs. You know the jobs you libs. have been driving from this Country in favor of Government hand out. Understand this, the excesses of the irresponsible can overwhelm the resources of the responsible.
 
Why did they leave?

They left because the aforementioned networks are managed by people who believe the earth is older than 5,000 years, that it is dying perforce of too much carbon in the atmosphere, and that it faces problems far bigger than gay marriage.

More and more, the "conservative" base is anti-science, anti-secular, anti-women's rights, while being pro-big oil, pro-big coal, pro-big pharm, pro-big Wall Street and proBenjamins for the top 2% at the cost of education and health for all.

Rational people and rational networks reject conservative selfishness, and they don't care which Conservative pundits leave.

This cracks me up. Anti-science - how about naming just one calamity that the left has claimed would happen as a result of "global warming" err ah "global climate change"? Why did you pro-science libs.move away from the man made global cooling of the 1970s? Why have the pro-science libs. who in 1988 claimed the Earth has 10 years only to hear Al Gore, in 2008, claim the Earth has 10 years.

Anti secular - How does wanting "Freedom of Religion" imply anti-secular?

Anti-women' rights - what women's rights; do you mean the one that allows a woman to take the life of an innocent child in the womb? I suppose that child's right to life should be denied because a liberal court made a 5 to 4 decision to allow abortion. Where is that right granted in the constitution?

Pro-big everything? Do you mean pro-jobs. You know the jobs you libs. have been driving from this Country in favor of Government hand out. Understand this, the excesses of the irresponsible can overwhelm the resources of the responsible.

What Knocker said and what George Carlin said about environmentalism in the early 90s....

 
This cracks me up. Anti-science - how about naming just one calamity that the left has claimed would happen as a result of "global warming" err ah "global climate change"? Why did you pro-science libs.move away from the man made global cooling of the 1970s? Why have the pro-science libs. who in 1988 claimed the Earth has 10 years only to hear Al Gore, in 2008, claim the Earth has 10 years.

Anti secular - How does wanting "Freedom of Religion" imply anti-secular?

Anti-women' rights - what women's rights; do you mean the one that allows a woman to take the life of an innocent child in the womb? I suppose that child's right to life should be denied because a liberal court made a 5 to 4 decision to allow abortion. Where is that right granted in the constitution?

Pro-big everything? Do you mean pro-jobs. You know the jobs you libs. have been driving from this Country in favor of Government hand out. Understand this, the excesses of the irresponsible can overwhelm the resources of the responsible.

It cracks you up? Actually, it fracks us all up. Geologists have already attributed the recent spate of earthquakes in the southwest to fracking. Meteorologists are attributing the catastrophic drought in the west to climate change. The only ones arguing are big oil

Climate change is seeing the disappearance of thousands of subspecies of animals a year, polar bears are rapidly disappearing in the arctic, world sea levels are rising even more rapidly than predicted due to melting caps in the Antarctic (which is causing monstrous beach erosion all along the eastern seaboard, especially in Florida where highways are more frequently underwater). And it's only going to get catastrophically worse. This is the first year we have spent an entire year with carbon over 400 parts per million, and it's accelerating exponentially. We only have a few decades unless people like you get their heads out of the sand because, when the artic tundra begins to thaw and releases it's methane, it's game over, because methane is six times worse than carbon. What happens next will not be reversible. Only two times in earth's history has there been that kind of carbon in the atmosphere, and both times preceded the planet's two great mass extinctions.

Global cooling? What a joke. There was one study in one magazine that said we "might' be experiencing global cooling. One. Even the world scientific community laughed. It disappeared as fast as it arrived. Climate change is different, and world's scientific community is unanimously behind the studies. Your children -- certainly your grandchildren -- are going to experience a far different earth than the one you grew up in.

I'm not even going to touch the other stuff.
 
Last edited:
What Knocker said and what George Carlin said about environmentalism in the early 90s....

You pretty much missed George's point, which begins at 3:55. We'll disappear soon enough. We just seem bent on hastening our own demise.
 
It cracks you up? Actually, it fracks us all up. Geologists have already attributed the recent spate of earthquakes in the southwest to fracking. Meteorologists are attributing the catastrophic drought in the west to climate change. The only ones arguing are big oil

Climate change is seeing the disappearance of thousands of subspecies of animals a year, polar bears are rapidly disappearing in the arctic, world sea levels are rising even more rapidly than predicted due to melting caps in the Antarctic (which is causing monstrous beach erosion all along the eastern seaboard, especially in Florida where highways are more frequently underwater). And it's only going to get catastrophically worse. This is the first year we have spent an entire year with carbon over 400 parts per million, and it's accelerating exponentially. We only have a few decades unless people like you get their heads out of the sand because, when the artic tundra begins to thaw and releases it's methane, it's game over, because methane is six times worse than carbon. What happens next will not be reversible. Only two times in earth's history has there been that kind of carbon in the atmosphere, and both times preceded the planet's two great mass extinctions.

Global cooling? What a joke. There was one study in one magazine that said we "might' be experiencing global cooling. One. Even the world scientific community laughed. It disappeared as fast as it arrived. Climate change is different, and world's scientific community is unanimously behind the studies. Your children -- certainly your grandchildren -- are going to experience a far different earth than the one you grew up in.

I'm not even going to touch the other stuff.



Nutcase.
 
It cracks you up? Actually, it fracks us all up. Geologists have already attributed the recent spate of earthquakes in the southwest to fracking. I'm certain that there are some that claim that and it may be true but it sure hasn't been proven. Meteorologists are attributing the catastrophic drought in the west to climate change. Oh, we haven't seen droughts in the west before have we? The only ones arguing are big oil No, not the only ones, but independent scientists also. Actually, I just read an article that the liberals who prevent damming and other water control methods to protect dying fish and insects are the cause.

Climate change is seeing the disappearance of thousands of subspecies of animals a year, Oh geez, species haven't been disappearing ever when man were hunters and gatherers thousands of years ago, have they? polar bears are rapidly disappearing in the arctic, No they aren't. The population of polar bears rises and falls with the food supplies - when supplies are good, they increase in number; when the food supplies are scarce, they decrease. world sea levels are rising even more rapidly than predicted due to melting caps in the Antarctic (which is causing monstrous beach erosion all along the eastern seaboard, Actually photographs from space show that the Ice in Antarctica is growing and these are very recent photographs especially in Florida where highways are more frequently underwater). You flakes have been claiming that we are going to lose beaches and cities for years and yet you can't name one place where we have even lost a foot of beach. And it's only going to get catastrophically worse. This is the first year we have spent an entire year with carbon over 400 parts per million, and it's accelerating exponentially. We only have a few decades Oh, it's decades we have left, but but but in 1988 you flakes told us we only had one decade left and then your hero Gore told us in 2008 that we only have one decade. unless people like you get their heads out of the sand because, when the artic tundra begins to thaw and releases it's methane, it's game over, because methane is six times worse than carbon. What happens next will not be reversible. Only two times in earth's history has there been that kind of carbon in the atmosphere, and both times preceded the planet's two great mass extinctions.

Global cooling? What a joke. There was one study in one magazine that said we "might' be experiencing global cooling. Bull dunk, you flakes were claiming that in mass. One. Even the world scientific community laughed. It disappeared as fast as it arrived. Climate change is different, and world's scientific community is unanimously behind the studies. No the worlds scientific community is not unanimous, there are a great many scientists who do not support your flakey claims. Maybe if you quit making outrageous claims and quit manipulating the data to fit your story, more will believe you, but that ship may have sailed. Your children -- certainly your grandchildren -- are going to experience a far different earth than the one you grew up in.

I'm not even going to touch the other stuff.
 
"It cracks you up? Actually, it fracks us all up. Geologists have already attributed the recent spate of earthquakes in the southwest to fracking. Meteorologists are attributing the catastrophic drought in the west to climate change. The only ones arguing are big oil"

You forgot to include "some kid told me..." as a source.

And here I thought I was experiencing a drought here in So Cal because I live in a desert.
 

The bottomline, knocker, is that conservatives only believe science when it benefits them financially. If 97% of the world's scientific community told us a mammoth rogue planet was on a collision course with earth in five years, it's quite predictable how the Libs and Cons would behave. The Libs would trust science and embark upon programs aimed at preventing it. The Cons would denounce the study and call it a World Scientific Community hoax, then call their broker to see how it was affecting stock prices and trade accordingly. At the end of four years, when the planet was in view and tidal waves were sweeping the globe, Bill O'Reilly would blame it on Obama and all the Cons would lie down and surrender to a righteous death, convinced the left had negotiated with aliens in the 11th hour to have the planet sent.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
"It cracks you up? Actually, it fracks us all up. Geologists have already attributed the recent spate of earthquakes in the southwest to fracking. Meteorologists are attributing the catastrophic drought in the west to climate change. The only ones arguing are big oil"

You forgot to include "some kid told me..." as a source.

And here I thought I was experiencing a drought here in So Cal because I live in a desert.

Dude. Newsflash. Southern California has always been a desert. Without the Owens Valley to the North and the Colorado River to the East, it would still be a desert. But the North and the East ain't getting no rain, and so the reality and the truth of where you live has been brought home to you at last.

So get creative, and find a way to blame it on Obama, because no way could the climatologists be right.

BTW. The rain-rich west flanks on the Sierra Nevada and the usual swampy lands around Sacremento; are they/were they deserts too?

Sure, it could be an anomaly. You have about one more year left to find out. At which point, water will cost more per gallon than gasoline, and yours will be one more hypocritical voice in a chorus crying that government should have done more when there was still time.
 
Last edited:
Dude. Newsflash. Southern California has always been a desert. Without the Owens Valley to the North and the Colorado River to the East, it would still be a desert. But the North and the East ain't getting no rain, and so the reality and the truth of where you live has been brought home to you at last.

So get creative, and find a way to blame it on Obama, because no way could the climatologists be right.

BTW. The rain-rich west flanks on the Sierra Nevada and the usual swampy lands around Sacremento; are they/were they deserts too?

Sure, it could be an anomaly. You have about one more year left to find out. At which point, water will cost more per gallon than gasoline, and yours will be one more hypocritical voice in a chorus crying that government should have done more when there was still time.

Dude. The anomaly would be having too much rain, not too little.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

Do your "experts" blame man on the megadroughts prior to 1900?

I've been through many drought years. I know what it is.

The population has doubled in CA since the 70's. I blame the politicians for being clueless all these years and ignoring the growth and letting environmental concerns trump us humans. You may look to the government to "fix things" but I sure don't.
 
Dude. The anomaly would be having too much rain, not too little.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

Do your "experts" blame man on the megadroughts prior to 1900?

I've been through many drought years. I know what it is.

The population has doubled in CA since the 70's. I blame the politicians for being clueless all these years and ignoring the growth and letting environmental concerns trump us humans. You may look to the government to "fix things" but I sure don't.

There have been droughts all through the measurable history of this planet. Everywhere.

Lots of causes. Drought in the humid, rain-rich Yucatan brought an end to the Mayan civilization. It was caused by volcanic eruptions further south. What caused the past droughts in CA? Any idea? Probably a decade or so of colder ocean currents. Does it matter?

What matters is that carbon is undoubtedly causing this one. What matters is that we are pumping carbon into the atmosphere with alarming consequences that are only beginning to be felt. If we're capable of actually controlling what we're doing, what good does it do for you to announce drought happened before? Is knowing that that some kind of magic talisman that's going to help the prolem we ourselves might be causing?

I hope science has screwed up. I hope the Fox News army of anti-science fools are right. Because at the rate they're fighting rational thinking--defined as erring on the side of caution--being wrong might just bring at end to human life as we know it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ten Thousan Marbles
Hey Skunky, what do you have to say about these reports of global ice as shown by NASA photos?

http://www.isciencetimes.com/articles/6040/20130911/global-cooling-arctic-ice-cap-60-photo.htm

That's an anomalous change in weather, not a change in climate. Climate is measured over decades, not over one year. One year is nothing more than a spike in a graph that's measuring fifty. That photo was from 2013. Got one from 2014? April 2014 saw the second lowest amount of ice in the NASA's satellite record. What are we going to see in 2015?

Arctic ice is subject to anomaly. Antarctic ice isn't, and if you've read anything at all on the subject, you know that the sheet is dissolving at a frightening pace, and New England sea measurements are up alarmingly. You kinda remind me of Ted Cruz, who went to Boston in March, saw ice, and told us he's seen proof with his own eyes that Global Warming was a hoax.
 
Skunk obviously knows what he is talking about. He obviously is aware of the real research and the real data.

Why the rest of you would rely on talking points being fed to you by the conservative news media is something of a mystery.
 
This cracks me up. Anti-science - how about naming just one calamity that the left has claimed would happen as a result of "global warming" err ah "global climate change"? Why did you pro-science libs.move away from the man made global cooling of the 1970s? Why have the pro-science libs. who in 1988 claimed the Earth has 10 years only to hear Al Gore, in 2008, claim the Earth has 10 years.

Anti secular - How does wanting "Freedom of Religion" imply anti-secular?

Anti-women' rights - what women's rights; do you mean the one that allows a woman to take the life of an innocent child in the womb? I suppose that child's right to life should be denied because a liberal court made a 5 to 4 decision to allow abortion. Where is that right granted in the constitution?

Pro-big everything? Do you mean pro-jobs. You know the jobs you libs. have been driving from this Country in favor of Government hand out. Understand this, the excesses of the irresponsible can overwhelm the resources of the responsible.

You didn't address the fact that a lot of people on the "conservative right" IS made up by people who believe the earth is older than 5,000 years. You kinda picked apart his argument, piece by piece, but you completely skipped over that one. Not feeling the need to take on the anti-evolutionists?
 
You flakes have been claiming that we are going to lose beaches and cities for years and yet you can't name one place where we have even lost a foot of beach.

If you lived at sea level in the South Pacific, you might have a different story.
http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/marshall-islands-here-today-gone-tomorrow/
http://www.businessinsider.com/islands-threatened-by-sea-level-rise-2015-1
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...h-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT