Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
1 - That matters a lot in constitutional law debate, but in terms of the public debate on the issue it's a technical point at best.
2 - Except when people don't want them to. The constitution is a powerful document, but nothing can overcome public indifference. People have been abducted and tortured and who's out on the street protesting for justice?
3 - When the new guy follows the exact same policy of the old, the new guy pretends its a different policy, the old guy and his party pretends its a different policy, and the media just repeats the statements of both parties without ever bothering to check if its valid.
That last one is a big problem. But the reality is that journalism is increasingly less profitable, and the industry is responding by getter less journalists to write more. Quality suffers, and there's little time for investigation - just reprint the statements of the two parties and move on to the next story.
Meanwhile, press relations grows more and more every year - all those media trained folk are moving from writing for newspapers to writing copy for politicians and business. Journalists are caught out all the time copy and pasting text straight from press releases. Never mind that the dialogue between the two major parties can be full of so many dubious assumptions as to be almost meaningless.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
It's because they're journalists not reporters. Journalists are there to provide opinion on facts; not to cover the news accurately, but to make big heaping sums of money for their bosses to spank over.
1500pts
Gwar! wrote:Debate it all you want, I just report what the rules actually say. It's up to others to tie their panties in a Knot. I stopped caring long ago.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
Yeah, Pffft! Go tell that to Leonard Peltier and see what he says.
All I know of him is that he's called "the underpants bomber", and really, that is sufficient to relieve any fear I might have of him.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Reporters fail to fact check for a few reasons, though the most popular seems to be that certain facts often get in the way of a desired narrative. Also, laziness, ignorance, a lack of skill, or a lack of intelligence.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Orkeosaurus wrote:All I know of him is that he's called "the underpants bomber", and really, that is sufficient to relieve any fear I might have of him.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Kid_Kyoto wrote:So people keep repeating this talking point that the underpants bomber was 'given the rights the constitution gives American citizens'.
1 - The Constitution does not GIVE anyone rights. Rights are intrinsic to human beings, the Constitution protects them by forbidding the government from infringing on these rights.
2 - The Constitution protects the rights of all 'persons' whether they are US citizens, green card holders, visitors, illegal aliens or whatever.
3 - This is the same policy Bush followed.
How is this level of lie and ignorance being spread without anyone calling them on it?
Yeah, Pffft! Go tell that to Leonard Peltier and see what he says.
Oh snap!
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
The "underpants" bomber was an African fellow named Umar Farrouk. He was trained by Al-Qaeda (supposedly in Yemen) and given an explosive (supposedly made in Yemen) very similar to the one used by the shoe bomber. The bomb was situated in the man's underpants (hence the name) and detonated via the injection of a chemical. The would-be bomber managed to light the bomb, but it failed to detonate on the flight from Amsterdam to the U.S.
Reporters don't fact check because they are dumber than a box of rocks and often true believers.
Ever hear a story about something you're familiar with? the errors are staggering.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I dont think that stupidity or incompetence is a factor at all.
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
Is the mantra for a good reporter, they want to make money just like everyone else, so they write what will sell. Simple really, why would you EXPECT them to fact check?
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
[DCM]
Chief Deputy Sub Assistant Trainee Squig Handling Intern
Professional Pride?
But yeah, Journoscum do it all the time. Bizarrely, they seem largely beyond reproach, hiding like cowards behind 'freedom of the press'.
Freedom of the Press is about being able to report on any subject, not make stuff up. Cretins.
Take the video of British Troops in Iraq. Reporter saw the whole thing, but released an edited version, which showed the Troops beating the crap out of a couple of Iraqi civilians. Understandably, there was outrage over this. Then the rest of the video was released by a different source. Showing the Iraqi's rioting outside the compound, and previously, Mortar fire aimed in that direction. Suddenly, the Troops go from vicious beasts picking on civvies, to Troops doing their bloody job, sallying forth into a hostile crowd, nabbing the ring leaders and giving them a good shooing.
AFAIK, the only Journo to get into trouble for this was Piers Moron, who authorised the printing of faked torture pics by UK Troops. He lost his job. Pathetic huh?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/02/04 13:32:14
Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives? Why not join us?
In the defense of the reporters. Fact Checkers were the first to get laid off in the Media industry and its just sooooo much work for them to do it themselves!
J.Black wrote:It's because they're journalists not reporters. Journalists are there to provide opinion on facts; not to cover the news accurately, but to make big heaping sums of money for their bosses to spank over.
Please tell me that's not actually the definition of the word.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Take the video of British Troops in Iraq. Reporter saw the whole thing, but released an edited version, which showed the Troops beating the crap out of a couple of Iraqi civilians. Understandably, there was outrage over this. Then the rest of the video was released by a different source. Showing the Iraqi's rioting outside the compound, and previously, Mortar fire aimed in that direction. Suddenly, the Troops go from vicious beasts picking on civvies, to Troops doing their bloody job, sallying forth into a hostile crowd, nabbing the ring leaders and giving them a good shooing.
What?
They were still beating hell out of a helpless guy on the ground. I saw the video and assumed he was a bad guy and still don't think what they did was acceptable. Up until now it never even entered my mind that someone could justify kicking someone when they were down.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Take the video of British Troops in Iraq. Reporter saw the whole thing, but released an edited version, which showed the Troops beating the crap out of a couple of Iraqi civilians. Understandably, there was outrage over this. Then the rest of the video was released by a different source. Showing the Iraqi's rioting outside the compound, and previously, Mortar fire aimed in that direction. Suddenly, the Troops go from vicious beasts picking on civvies, to Troops doing their bloody job, sallying forth into a hostile crowd, nabbing the ring leaders and giving them a good shooing.
What?
They were still beating hell out of a helpless guy on the ground. I saw the video and assumed he was a bad guy and still don't think what they did was acceptable. Up until now it never even entered my mind that someone could justify kicking someone when they were down.
Some guy walks up and shoots your mom. Can you justify kicking him when he's down now? If you can't you're lying, to us or to yourself.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As with governments, people get pretty much the kind of news reporting they deserve.
It isn't hard for an educated person to look critically at a story, do some research and begin to form a conclusion as to whether the story seems to be true or what the flaws are.
Most people are not critical enough about their media consumption.
Also, good news reporting costs money and we want everything free on the Internet these days.
Frazzled, are you talking TV personalities or newspaper reporters (assuming a decent-sized paper)? I might agree with you on the former...not on the latter.
Killkrazy mostly nails it.
Newspaper have slashed budgets like you wouldn't believe. Years ago they'd send their own reporters to cover stories...now it's far more likely they'll run with a wire service article. And the impact of blogs and other "news" outlets has been staggering, IMO. Do you really spend the time confirming a story with two sources when some yahoo on a blog can run with it (and unlike you, suffer no real impact on his "brand" if he's completely wrong) and steal all your web traffic? Pretty hard call when your news org is surviving on a shoestring budget.
I find the case of financial media fascinating. IMO, the advent of multiple financial news channels covering financial markets 24/7 has to have contributed to the strong upsurge in market volatility we've seen in recent years. The problem is that there's really only so much financial "news" in a given day. So what you get is incredible amounts of overanalysis and either irresponsible optimism (during bull markets) or excessive despair (during bear markets).
And half the articles you see are biased from the get-go. I mean, what if you saw a headline saying "Stocks to suffer long, painful road to recovery," and in the article it quoted portfolio manager Pete Bigshot of PIMCO as saying that bonds were likely to outperform over the next few years?
He's a financial guru...he must know what he's talking about, right? But you may or may not know that PIMCO is primarily a bond house and that Mr. Bigshot has a personal financial incentive to promote buying bonds and bond funds.
I see articles like this ALL the time, and if you aren't familiar with names, companies and players, you don't even realize when a given news article is little more than a PR piece. And the news outlet giving some investment company the pulpit just looks the other way because in return they get more "news" to fill time and might get some readers/watchers/views...especially if the content is dire/controversial.
If I could do my M.A. over again, I might have done something with this topic as a thesis.
Good Q G. I would have to say TV/radio reporters vs. newsprint.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
They had a few black eyes and a bust lip or two between them. Disgusting behaviour.
And when the poor woman who was having her driving licence checked at the time, who was covered in blood and cradled him as he died, spoke out against his killers, she should have been cautioned for her aggressive use of English as well.
I dont think any soldier should beat a prisoner, its unprofessional, but i understand how things can get heated. To sit in your chair and make such black and white condemnations of people is just ridiculous to me.
Your brother getting shot in the face next to you might make you behave a tad "hot headed".
Im not excusing unprofessionalism, but feth me, lets not be so quick to judge.
And for the record, Piers Morgan was a monumental witch, and yes the photos were faked.
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
1500pts
Defenders of Obscurus 
