Apology on behalf of the media.

I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...


I am curious how you acquired the magical ability not to be brainwashed y the media... an ability you apparently think eludes everyone else... or maybe your just a self-gratiating member of the "I say everything sucks, therefore I can never be wrong" club.
 
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...


I am curious how you acquired the magical ability not to be brainwashed y the media... an ability you apparently think eludes everyone else... or maybe your just a self-gratiating member of the "I say everything sucks, therefore I can never be wrong" club.
You should wake up in the morning, look into the mirror and say "Baaaaaaaaaa".
 
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...




This isn't nearly as impressive as you think it is - unless you support government controlled news.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #8
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...


I am curious how you acquired the magical ability not to be brainwashed y the media...

Questioning it isn't hard. You just have to do it.

an ability you apparently think eludes everyone else...
Not everybody.. but a lot of people.

or maybe your just a self-gratiating member of the "I say everything sucks, therefore I can never be wrong" club.
Guilty conscience?
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...


I am curious how you acquired the magical ability not to be brainwashed y the media... an ability you apparently think eludes everyone else... or maybe your just a self-gratiating member of the "I say everything sucks, therefore I can never be wrong" club.
You should wake up in the morning, look into the mirror and say "Baaaaaaaaaa".

*laughs*
 
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...
Contrary to popular belief it is not the job description, nor the civic duty, for news media outlets to investigate or reveal political corruption or government activity in general. Every once in a while a reporter gets lucky and can do the investigation, and cause official investigations; but for the most part, such investigations can be extremely dangerous. The incorrect expectation of the news media has been reinforced by popular opinion editors and broadcasters, some of whom are former judges, prosecutors, and legislators.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...
Contrary to popular belief it is not the job description, nor the civic duty, for news media outlets to investigate or reveal political corruption or government activity in general. Every once in a while a reporter gets lucky and can do the investigation, and cause official investigations; but for the most part, such investigations can be extremely dangerous. The incorrect expectation of the news media has been reinforced by popular opinion editors and broadcasters, some of whom are former judges, prosecutors, and legislators.
Did you watch the video?
 
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...
Contrary to popular belief it is not the job description, nor the civic duty, for news media outlets to investigate or reveal political corruption or government activity in general. Every once in a while a reporter gets lucky and can do the investigation, and cause official investigations; but for the most part, such investigations can be extremely dangerous. The incorrect expectation of the news media has been reinforced by popular opinion editors and broadcasters, some of whom are former judges, prosecutors, and legislators.
Did you watch the video?
Yes, I watched the video, and I did better than that. I listened to it. What don't you understand of my comment?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I watched the video, and I did better than that. I listened to it. What don't you understand of my comment?
I'm confused on why you don't seem to support a stronger informed population.
 
I'm confused on why you don't seem to support a stronger informed population.
That is not the job description or duty of the news media, either.
It should be your representative who transmits the truth. The problem is the government is improperly formulated - the checks and balances do not work correctly. Just because they say there are checks and balances that does not mean it works correctly - that is why you rely on the news media. And you know that they are unreliable.

Everybody will tell you that our governing system is not perfect, but they are not willing to try to construct a better system, although we have tremendously more, better, technology and man power than what they had when they designed the three-part separation model. The design of the government is inherently flawed, and cannot meet the demands of diversity that the nation has evolved to, nor the expectations of a relatively more sophisticated citizenry than the people of the 18th century.

 
Last edited:
I'm confused on why you don't seem to support a stronger informed population.
That is not the job description or duty of the news media, either.
It should be your representative who transmits the truth. The problem is the government is improperly formulated - the checks and balances do not work correctly. Just because they say there are checks and balances that does not mean it works correctly - that is why you rely on the news media. And you know that they are unreliable.

Everybody will tell you that our governing system is not perfect, but they are not willing to try to construct a better system, although we have tremendously more, better, technology and man power than what they had when they designed the three-part separation model. The design of the government is inherently flawed, and cannot meet the demands of diversity that the nation has evolved to, nor the expectations of a relatively more sophisticated citizenry than the people of the 18th century.

Ahh... You're an idiot. Cool. Just lead off with that next time.

Fort Fun Indiana: or maybe your just a self-gratiating member of the "I say everything sucks, therefore I can never be wrong" club.
 
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
 
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Feel free to start a thread showing which one is better and why, you might convince me to change my mind. There is nothing better anywhere else in the world as far as I can see. If there was, I would be promoting to change it. I'm open to whatever more information you want to supply to convince me otherwise. In that thread.
 
I am not arguing that the American government is inferior to any government in existence or retired, but that there is a better form of government to be constructed to serve more accurate justice, and guide towards world peace. And I am not arguing that the Preamble of the 1787 Constitution is faulty and needs to be repealed. To the contrary I am arguing that the 1787 Preamble is a noble and just mission and should be recommissioned. The problem is that the directive systems for the government operations are flawed, and skew the approach to domestic tranquility, which is a “benchmark” provided in the preamble for evaluating the government operations.
Just because the preamble describes a noble mission, that does not mean that the government operations are conductive to that noble cause.
Most likely, it will be the honest law practitioners who will recognize the inadequacies and corrective adjustments described in this publication. And it will be them, the sober and practical minded municipal police officers, judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and engineers, who will lead campaigns for municipal, state, and the federal charter conventions to safeguard the honor of their careers in light of the emerging better government theory.

 
I'm sure it's been posted before... But it needs posted again. And again... And again...


That was great except that his speech tap danced around the clear Democratic bias that more than anything has destroyed our Media.

it's called reality journalism and law enforcement as opposed to your ridiculous propaganda machine that is about 1% of world media because it's all owned by Rupert Murdoch the scumbag with help from Saudi Arabia.....
 
I am not arguing that the American government is inferior to any government in existence or retired, but that there is a better form of government to be constructed to serve more accurate justice, and guide towards world peace. And I am not arguing that the Preamble of the 1787 Constitution is faulty and needs to be repealed. To the contrary I am arguing that the 1787 Preamble is a noble and just mission and should be recommissioned. The problem is that the directive systems for the government operations are flawed, and skew the approach to domestic tranquility, which is a “benchmark” provided in the preamble for evaluating the government operations.
Just because the preamble describes a noble mission, that does not mean that the government operations are conductive to that noble cause.
Most likely, it will be the honest law practitioners who will recognize the inadequacies and corrective adjustments described in this publication. And it will be them, the sober and practical minded municipal police officers, judges, lawyers, doctors, scientists, and engineers, who will lead campaigns for municipal, state, and the federal charter conventions to safeguard the honor of their careers in light of the emerging better government theory.

I tend to agree. We started going wrong when Congress decided that governing the country was too complicated for a few hundred people so started adding massive bureaucracies to "handle" the task of governance. Inevitably, these bureaucracies got the idea that THEY and not Congress are empowered to pass laws restricting the rights of non-governmental citizens. They got around the Constitution by calling these laws, "Rules" and "Regulations" instead of laws.
 

Forum List

Back
Top