Example of CNN bias

[JayVols]

But I have more at stake than you do. If my side wins this debate... then your property and money won't be threatened. Your civil liberties won't be curtailed. You won't be forced to accept moral viewpoints that you oppose. I am a small "L" libertarian. I don't want you to pay for what I want and need. I don't want to tell you what to do... and I expect the same.



That's fine. If it were one instance then you'd be right. I only gave one example so your objection is fair. However it is repeated.... that's what makes it bias.

Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[JayVols]

But I have more at stake than you do. If my side wins this debate... then your property and money won't be threatened. Your civil liberties won't be curtailed. You won't be forced to accept moral viewpoints that you oppose. I am a small "L" libertarian. I don't want you to pay for what I want and need. I don't want to tell you what to do... and I expect the same.



That's fine. If it were one instance then you'd be right. I only gave one example so your objection is fair. However it is repeated.... that's what makes it bias.

You first paragraph is where the problem lies. My side, your side- thought we were all Americans. This is not a sporting contest. If you are implying that I am a leftist, you are sorely mistaken.

Morality belongs in the home not government. Your morality is an offense to others. Others morality is an offense to you. No win situation. If you are talking about gay marriage, how can you be libertarian and advocate a group be denied the rights others enjoy?

I have property. Quite possibly more than you. How is my property in danger? Outrageous statements. Your aloofness in saying your way threatens no one while any other way will cause the collapse of our society is what agravates me. I get along with most everyone except those that act superior to others. I may be reading your posts wrong, but they come across with that attitude. I am no better than anyone else and neither are you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[sjt18]

You first paragraph is where the problem lies. My side, your side- thought we were all Americans. This is not a sporting contest. If you are implying that I am a leftist, you are sorely mistaken.

All Americans? OK. Agree with me. That solves everything. Now we're on the same side and there are no more problems.

Morality belongs in the home not government. Your morality is an offense to others. Others morality is an offense to you. No win situation. If you are talking about gay marriage, how can you be libertarian and advocate a group be denied the rights others enjoy?

I wasn't really. There are much larger problems than that starting with the worldview being taught in many public schools.

However since you did bring it up... a license is NOT a right. ALL licenses have qualifications to include marriage licenses. To their credit, I don't think many gay activist groups have tried to deny that marriage licenses should have no qualifications. I don't think they're asking for marriage to one's sister to be legitimized for instance... at least not many.

The people of the various states can define through their legislatures what those qualifications should be. It is a fairly unique instance where the corporate morality of voters is going to be expressed in a way that one side or the other dislikes.

My "libertarian" solution would be to have gov't get completely out of the marriage business. It would require that tax laws and many other laws that respect marriage be changed significantly... but that to me is favorable to having gov't choose to force one side or the other to accept a moral pov that they disagree with. As a substitute, the legal part of marriage could be handled through standardized contracts like the ones we use to buy cars and houses. The social/religious part... belongs to the individual.

I have property. Quite possibly more than you. How is my property in danger? Outrageous statements.

Your property isn't in danger from me. I don't want to tax it or your wealth. I favor indirect consumption taxes like excises, import tariffs, and sales taxes. I don't want to tell you what you can or can't do on your property... who you must or must not associate with... what you can or cannot say...

For instance, if you own a business I don't want to tell you that you MUST provide insurance for the second wife of a Mormon who works for you if you happen to be opposed to polygamy. Nor do I accept the notion that you should be able to force someone due to marriage laws to rent property or pay spousal benefits to a homosexual.

Your aloofness in saying your way threatens no one while any other way will cause the collapse of our society is what agravates me.

How can I be clearer? I don't want to meddle in your business. I don't want to infringe on your freedom. I want your rights to be maximized.

Can you say the same?

I get along with most everyone except those that act superior to others. I may be reading your posts wrong, but they come across with that attitude. I am no better than anyone else and neither are you.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I am not claiming to be a better person. I am (like you probably) claiming to be espousing better ideals.

It is precisely because I DO NOT see myself as better than you that I do not want to impose my values on you. If I can convince you... fine. If not... that's freedom.

How was your statement above not "that attitude"? You say that morality is not the business of gov't then immediately stake out the pompous position that I am wrongly denying someone their "rights"... but you are not while advocating changes to marriage laws that would necessarily curtail the rights of those who disagree with homosexuality.

Do you really support homosexual marriage that does not include forcing businesses to provide them with the same benefits as heterosexuals even if the owners morally disagree? Could an employer base a hiring decision on disagreement with a homosexual's marriage? Could someone deny renting to a married homosexual couple if it violated their religion?

If someone... anyone... could show how the freedoms of other people and especially religious people would be protected then maybe we'd have a starting point. But I have had people here very bluntly say "tough"... those who disagree will just have their rights trampled.

 

[JayVols]

All Americans? OK. Agree with me. That solves everything. Now we're on the same side and there are no more problems.
**I meant this in the context of we need to stop playing the our side vs their side mentality.**

I wasn't really. There are much larger problems than that starting with the worldview being taught in many public schools.

**I teach in public schools. In 17 years of teaching and 13 years as a student, I have never seen a 'worldwide view' being taught. I teach technology, US History and Modern History. I teach the fact that the US is the greatest nation in history despite our problems.
I do not ban prayer. We have Christian based groups in our school that are open to all. Yes, I also am a devout Christian.**

However since you did bring it up... a license is NOT a right. ALL licenses have qualifications to include marriage licenses. To their credit, I don't think many gay activist groups have tried to deny that marriage licenses should have no qualifications. I don't think they're asking for marriage to one's sister to be legitimized for instance... at least not many.

**Agree on the license vs right point.**

The people of the various states can define through their legislatures what those qualifications should be. It is a fairly unique instance where the corporate morality of voters is going to be expressed in a way that one side or the other dislikes.

My "libertarian" solution would be to have gov't get completely out of the marriage business. It would require that tax laws and many other laws that respect marriage be changed significantly... but that to me is favorable to having gov't choose to force one side or the other to accept a moral pov that they disagree with. As a substitute, the legal part of marriage could be handled through standardized contracts like the ones we use to buy cars and houses. The social/religious part... belongs to the individual.


**Agree government should not be in the marriage business.**

Your property isn't in danger from me. I don't want to tax it or your wealth. I favor indirect consumption taxes like excises, import tariffs, and sales taxes. I don't want to tell you what you can or can't do on your property... who you must or must not associate with... what you can or cannot say...

For instance, if you own a business I don't want to tell you that you MUST provide insurance for the second wife of a Mormon who works for you if you happen to be opposed to polygamy. Nor do I accept the notion that you should be able to force someone due to marriage laws to rent property or pay spousal benefits to a homosexual.

**Do not agree on excise/sales tax alone. Too unreliable source. I do agree that imports should be taxed more heavily. The US worker is at an extreme disadvantage going up against 3rd world countries' labor wages. I also favor punitive import taxes on US companies that relocate overseas simply to reimport their products. Relocation overseas hurts our economy. In the long term, I feel that it will be detrimental to the company as well. Foreign standards do not meet US standards (see China lead and formaldehyde recalls). It also takes wealth out of our country and will eventually effect the buying power of US citizens and eventually the company because they won't be able to sell to their target customers (US consumers)**

How can I be clearer? I don't want to meddle in your business. I don't want to infringe on your freedom. I want your rights to be maximized.

*As long as my views agree with your views.**

Can you say the same?

**I don't give a flying flip what people do in their home. This erosion of freedom argument is a scare tactic, imo. Once again, you want the most freedom for those that share your ideals. I could be mistaken, but that's how I interpret a lot of your posts.**


I am not claiming to be a better person. I am (like you probably) claiming to be espousing better ideals.

** I don't see situations in black and white. I see them as many shades of gray. There is no single philosophy that holds the perfect solution to every problem.**

It is precisely because I DO NOT see myself as better than you that I do not want to impose my values on you. If I can convince you... fine. If not... that's freedom.

**Agree with this. One knows that real freedom exists when they stand up for the rights of someone with an opposing view to express themselves as loudly as one's own views.**

How was your statement above not "that attitude"? You say that morality is not the business of gov't then immediately stake out the pompous position that I am wrongly denying someone their "rights"... but you are not while advocating changes to marriage laws that would necessarily curtail the rights of those who disagree with homosexuality.

**I was merely trying to point out an inconsistency, not expressing a personal opinion.**

Do you really support homosexual marriage that does not include forcing businesses to provide them with the same benefits as heterosexuals even if the owners morally disagree? Could an employer base a hiring decision on disagreement with a homosexual's marriage? Could someone deny renting to a married homosexual couple if it violated their religion?

**We already had this argument as a nation in regards to mixed race couples. Those that viewed that as immoral lost.**

If someone... anyone... could show how the freedoms of other people and especially religious people would be protected then maybe we'd have a starting point. But I have had people here very bluntly say "tough"... those who disagree will just have their rights trampled.

**See starred parts in quoted text**

**Yours and my religious views are protected. Playing the victim card gives power to others and allows you to be a victim. You want to experience REAL religious persecution? Go to China or any other host of nations. As a Christian, I can confidently say that I do not share your feeling of persecution or lack of protection of my religious freedoms. I do not want organized prayer in school. I do not want just anyone coming into my children's classroom to teach them religion. That's my job as a parent and I will choose which religious message that I want them to hear until they are old enough to choose on their own. Besides, if a local Baptist preacher wanted to come into a school to lead prayer, the school could not deny an imam that wanted to do the same.**
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VOLatile]

sjt is gs- and joevol-lite. Christian persecution in the US? Good grief. You have to be kidding me.

 

[therealUT]

sjt is gs- and joevol-lite. Christian persecution in the US? Good grief. You have to be kidding me.

Of course; Christians are not allowed to exercise their God-Given right to persecute those who do not act in accord with Christian tenets. After all, this nation's government was founded by Christians for the sake of Christianity.

 

[VOLatile]

Of course; Christians are not allowed to exercise their God-Given right to persecute those who do not act in accord with Christian tenets. After all, this nation's government was founded by Christians for the sake of Christianity.

That just reminded me of this:

 

[JayVols]

Of course; Christians are not allowed to exercise their God-Given right to persecute those who do not act in accord with Christian tenets. After all, this nation's government was founded by Christians for the sake of Christianity.

Not all Christians are like that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[therealUT]

Not all Christians are like that.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Correct; not all Christians complain about some perceived Christian persecution in the US, either.

 

[JayVols]

Correct; not all Christians complain about some perceived Christian persecution in the US, either.

Yeah, I can see playing the victim card if you were in China. Playing the persecution card in the US, I mean REAL persecution, is absurd. People disagreeing with one's religious views does NOT equal persecution.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[PoochPunt3rdDown]

That's what they want you to think. It's a conspiracy. Must I add you to the commie heathen lib nazi bastage list?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Do I have to fill out forms or am I already on the list? Because, I'll fill out the forms, dude.

 

[JayVols]

Do I have to fill out forms or am I already on the list? Because, I'll fill out the forms, dude.

An oath will be sufficient.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[gsvol]

My favorite CNN story;

I have a friend in Montana, one of his parents was
the state AG there and he gave me this first hand
account:

Turner had bought a 12,000 acre ranch nearby for
a getaway.

My friend was sitting in a cafe in a small town there
when in walked Ted Turner, who owned CNN at the
time with his wife Jane Fonda and the lady owner
refused to serve them.

Ted asked why and she said; "I'll be glad to serve you
Mr Turner, if you don't bring back that b!tch with you."

CNN = Communist News Network to me and always will.

I have no interest in anything they have to say.

Call me biased.

 

[BoseefusTheVol]

My favorite CNN story;

I have a friend in Montana, one of his parents was
the state AG there and he gave me this first hand
account:

Turner had bought a 12,000 acre ranch nearby for
a getaway.

My friend was sitting in a cafe in a small town there
when in walked Ted Turner, who owned CNN at the
time with his wife Jane Fonda and the lady owner
refused to serve them.

Ted asked why and she said; "I'll be glad to serve you
Mr Turner, if you don't bring back that b!tch with you."

CNN = Communist News Network to me and always will.

I have no interest in anything they have to say.

Call me biased.

Did Ted Turner slap her? I would have.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Did Ted Turner slap her? I would have.

And would have gotten slapped back. Gal has every right to call Fonda whatever she chooses. I suspect she had family in Vietnam and, like most involved there, would sooner shoot Fonda than serve her a meal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[MG1968]

And would have gotten slapped back. Gal has every right to call Fonda whatever she chooses. I suspect she had family in Vietnam and, like most involved there, would sooner shoot Fonda than serve her a meal.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

or see Jane riding shotgun in a Mig-17 while some US AA rounds are sent her way

 

[Abe Hoffman]

Твоя мать, отец ваш, ваша сестра, ваш несуществующего ребенка. Я убью их всех.

Translation from Russian: "Your mother, your father, your sister, your child does not exist. I'll kill them all."

 

[sjt18]

**See starred parts in quoted text**

**Yours and my religious views are protected. Playing the victim card gives power to others and allows you to be a victim.

I am still not playing the victim. I am recognizing threats. Public schools cannot legally favor one religion over another even if one is "right" and the other is "wrong". It is either implicitly or explicitly taught that a "neutral/secular" position on religion is superior to holding a strong faith. That is NOT tolerance... it is a VERY intolerant position.

Evolution and other aspects of materialism/humanism/modernism and lately post-modernism are used as frameworks for curricula or are taught as facts.

These things DO undermine religion generally and Christianity specifically. NT Christianity is not a fence sitting proposition. We are not empowered to make compromises and play nice. The original Christians were very uncompromising on what they believed... and many died for it. And yet you want to describe me as a victim for speaking out against threats?

You want to experience REAL religious persecution? Go to China or any other host of nations.

I am aware of the discrimination and persecution endured elsewhere. I am also aware of insidious attacks that make Christianity weak enough to collapse under its own load of apathy and lack of living faith.

As a Christian, I can confidently say that I do not share your feeling of persecution or lack of protection of my religious freedoms.

Do you believe that homosexuality is immoral? Assuming tht you as a Christian will acknowledge that biblically it is... do you think it is right for gov't to force the unwilling to accept homosexual marriages?

I have no problems with companies that make the choice to support them. I have a big problem with the idea that companies can or should be forced to.

I do not want organized prayer in school.

Nor do I in public schools... and that's the rub. No prayer is just as much a "law respecting an establishment of religion" as forced prayer is. There is no resolution that respects the rights of all except to dissolve the condition that creates the conflict... privatize all schools or return them to strict local control while reversing decisions that imposed the US Constitution on states.

I do not want just anyone coming into my children's classroom to teach them religion.

They aren't? Agnosticism is a religious pov. Atheism is a religious pov. Humanism and materialism are philosophical pov's that unavoidably overlap with religion. Evolution in particular teaches specific things about the origins of creation, the forces behind it, and the nature of reality itself.

That's my job as a parent and I will choose which religious message that I want them to hear until they are old enough to choose on their own.

Why? Why should you not have the choice to put your kid in a school that supports your effort rather than opposing it or at best teaching your kids to compartmentalize their faith? Nowhere in the NT will you find an allowance for a compartmentalized faith.

Besides, if a local Baptist preacher wanted to come into a school to lead prayer, the school could not deny an imam that wanted to do the same.**
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Right. So much like the homosexual marriage issue... you either decide whose ox will be gored (rights trampled/denied) or you get gov't out of the business of favoring one side over the other.

We agree on a great deal.

 

[sjt18]

sjt is gs- and joevol-lite. Christian persecution in the US? Good grief. You have to be kidding me.

If someone's rights can be denied by law due to their religious pov then that is persecution and discrimination. You can be closed minded all you like... but you have no more right to say a religious person must accept homosexuality as legitimate and subordinate the excercise of their property, speech, association, etc rights than a Christian does to make it criminal.

There IS real institutionalized discrimination against Christians in the US. We still have a great degree of freedom but it only stays that way if we recognize and oppose threats.

 

[sjt18]

Of course; Christians are not allowed to exercise their God-Given right to persecute those who do not act in accord with Christian tenets. After all, this nation's government was founded by Christians for the sake of Christianity.

This type of idiotic attempt to poison the well helps nothing.

 

[utvolpj]

big difference in wanting to make something illegal based solely on religious beliefs. I can't see how any of your examples point to discrimination like you claim.

What rights are denied you based on religious preference?

 

[sjt18]

That just reminded me of this:

Yeah... a very interesting "non-believer". He was a faithful attender of a Baptist Sunday service during his presidency... IIRC, it held its meeting in the Capitol bldg.

He was by no means orthodox... but he was neither an atheist or even an agnostic.

 

[sjt18]

big difference in wanting to make something illegal based solely on religious beliefs. I can't see how any of your examples point to discrimination like you claim.

What rights are denied you based on religious preference?

If you are talking to me... that isn't what our Constitution says. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or inhibiting the free practice thereof... Intent does not matter. Effect matters.

 

[lawgator1]

If someone's rights can be denied by law due to their religious pov then that is persecution and discrimination. You can be closed minded all you like... but you have no more right to say a religious person must accept homosexuality as legitimate and subordinate the excercise of their property, speech, association, etc rights than a Christian does to make it criminal.

There IS real institutionalized discrimination against Christians in the US. We still have a great degree of freedom but it only stays that way if we recognize and oppose threats.

Photo found of sjt....

 

[sjt18]

BTW, I am not a fan of "In God We Trust" on our currency.