6 people who are destroying free thought in america

[FROGGEman2]

...Or an Evolutionist about Creation.

Cuts both ways.

But not always - I've met people who don't believe a word that's in The Bible...
But they've read it numerous times.

I have never met a Creationist who doesn't think of Evolution as "Darwinism."

Thats 'cos it's a good fucking story. It's like the Lord of the Rings

 

[Dys]

...Okay, cool, I guess.

Frankly, I don't bother watching news/political shows - if I wanted to be lied to, I'd ask a Creationist about Evolution.

...Or an Evolutionist about Creation.

Cuts both ways.

One would assume he meant someone who follows the beleifs of the new testament when he said creationist.

 

[Queen Michael]

Also about making an assertion about Creationists lying about evolution, why do you think that is true? Let's say evolution is completely correct and they are wrong, are they necessarily lying about it or are they just incorrect? I've argued with Creationists before and the one thing I would say is that they don't have much information on what they are trying to argue about, but they aren't lying necessarily.

My definition of "lying" is "saying something which is not true". Whether you think it's true or not doesn't matter. That's my definition of the word, because if unintentional untruthfulness doesn't count, it'll mean you can logically say "I didn't lie, I just told you something that wasn't true."

 

[Samurai Goomba]

But that's because they don't realize the Right to Free Speech doesn't actually exist in today's America. We give it lip service, but I've become increasingly convinced that's all it is.

I think the problem with free speech today is that its utterly misused. People see it as a carte blanche excuse to say whatever ridiculous things come to mind.

You can't walk down Pennsylvania Avenue screaming, "HEY EVERYONE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO KILL THE PRESIDENT TODAY!" even if you only mean it as a joke. The police will throw your bum in jail and laugh at you when you start spewing the free speech excuse.

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/first_amendment

There's a good reference on what the right to Free Speech entails. Yeah, you can't threaten the peace, but you CAN say pretty much anything you want so long as you aren't doing so. For example, saying racist/xenophobic/homophobic stuff (so long as you keep it nonviolent) is totally okay under the Right to Free Speech. Likewise, you can criticize anyone you want, regardless of how much power they have. If the government attempts to censor you, they must show cause for doing so.

You also have the right to gather in a nonviolent manner. So as long as you're not threatening the peace, you can gather for almost ANY nonviolent reason. Including religious belief. It's different if your group supports expressly illegal activities, but otherwise, you're good.

That's how it's supposed to be. In the real world, you can't practice your religious beliefs in a public place (no prayer in school is one example), can't say anything that might "offend" somebody else (in a nonviolent way), and generally receive media-approved scorn and derision every time your opinions don't match up with the propaganda we're force-fed about what opinions are and aren't okay.

It's not so much any one specific thing, but a combination of various factors that lead me to believe most Americans are going through the motions when they talk about how awesome our free speech is.

You can say anything you want... But you'll get fired. You can say anything you want... But you'll get arrested. You can say anything you want... But a mob will kill you. You can say anything you want... But if you don't say what you're SUPPOSED to say, something bad will happen to you. Bleah, what kind of choice is that?

But that's because they don't realize the Right to Free Speech doesn't actually exist in today's America. We give it lip service, but I've become increasingly convinced that's all it is.

Please tell me more. Being Swedish, it's hard for me to know as much about the USA of today as any US resident. (Of course, when people complain about a lack of free speech, what they mean is often that they don't get their opinions expressed on every TV station, in every newspaper etc. In short, they say "I don't have the right to free speech!" when they mean "No-one will express my opinion for me, so I have to do it myself!)

Check out the above reference link for a list of all the "rights" we're SUPPOSED to have regarding Free Speech.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Never heard of "Old Earth" Creationism? Which is basically that God did everything, but he chose to do it the way Darwin said. Not saying I believe that, but there you go.

I have.
I've just never met someone who believes that.

I've also read about the Greek gods, but that doesn't mean people still believe in them - if I met someone who did, I would revise my statement.

Well, I met some people who claimed to believe in Old Earth Creationism... On TV.

[small]Shut up, it's my only friend.[/small]

 

[Embright]

Also about making an assertion about Creationists lying about evolution, why do you think that is true? Let's say evolution is completely correct and they are wrong, are they necessarily lying about it or are they just incorrect? I've argued with Creationists before and the one thing I would say is that they don't have much information on what they are trying to argue about, but they aren't lying necessarily.

My definition of "lying" is "saying something which is not true". Whether you think it's true or not doesn't matter. That's my definition of the word, because if unintentional untruthfulness doesn't count, it'll mean you can logically say "I didn't lie, I just told you something that wasn't true."

By that logic you would be right, but also by that logic you are not talking about lying. My definition of lying comes from the dictionary.

 

[Kinguendo]

But... But I like K.O.

He is funny and sometimes says things I agree with... Bill O'Reailly is an absolute wa...

 

[Queen Michael]

Also about making an assertion about Creationists lying about evolution, why do you think that is true? Let's say evolution is completely correct and they are wrong, are they necessarily lying about it or are they just incorrect? I've argued with Creationists before and the one thing I would say is that they don't have much information on what they are trying to argue about, but they aren't lying necessarily.

My definition of "lying" is "saying something which is not true". Whether you think it's true or not doesn't matter. That's my definition of the word, because if unintentional untruthfulness doesn't count, it'll mean you can logically say "I didn't lie, I just told you something that wasn't true."

By that logic you would be right, but also by that logic you are not talking about lying. My definition of lying comes from the dictionary.

Hmph! The dictionary! Bah, humbug!
(By the way, what is the dictionary definition of lying?)

 

[j0z]

Okay...
Now, I am neither republican or democrat, or green for that matter. I am almost a laise fair capitalist and libertarian. Although I tend to side with the republicans.
Now you know where I am coming from, I can give my thoughts.
First, the list was a lot more balanced than what I first feared.
I really don't know of any major news outlet that has true, straight down the middle coverage. Nor do I take as fact anything I hear or read about politics from anyone. Everyone is out trying to spread their own beliefs, and they will try their best to ignore facts that contradict them.
So, I think that everyone just needs to be aware of it and remember that when they watch the news.

Also, I know many people here hate Fox News, but I do not see them as biased as MSNBC, and if you don't watch the commentators, it isn't as bad as most make it out to be. Except for the Mass Effect thing...
Also, the Limbaugh jab could have been better done. I like facts with the opinions. I don't care how obvious they seem.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

But... But I like K.O.

He is funny and sometimes says things I agree with... Bill O'Reailly is an absolute wa...

Keith Olberman is the liberal Bill o' Reily

 

[Embright]

Also about making an assertion about Creationists lying about evolution, why do you think that is true? Let's say evolution is completely correct and they are wrong, are they necessarily lying about it or are they just incorrect? I've argued with Creationists before and the one thing I would say is that they don't have much information on what they are trying to argue about, but they aren't lying necessarily.

My definition of "lying" is "saying something which is not true". Whether you think it's true or not doesn't matter. That's my definition of the word, because if unintentional untruthfulness doesn't count, it'll mean you can logically say "I didn't lie, I just told you something that wasn't true."

By that logic you would be right, but also by that logic you are not talking about lying. My definition of lying comes from the dictionary.

Hmph! The dictionary! Bah, humbug!
(By the way, what is the dictionary definition of lying?)

Take your pick but http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lie says
lie 2 (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

Okay...
Now, I am neither republican or democrat, or green for that matter. I am almost a laise fair capitalist and libertarian. Although I tend to side with the republicans.
Now you know where I am coming from, I can give my thoughts.
First, the list was a lot more balanced than what I first feared.
I really don't know of any major news outlet that has true, straight down the middle coverage. Nor do I take as fact anything I hear or read about politics from anyone. Everyone is out trying to spread their own beliefs, and they will try their best to ignore facts that contradict them.
So, I think that everyone just needs to be aware of it and remember that when they watch the news.

Also, I know many people here hate Fox News, but I do not see them as biased as MSNBC, and if you don't watch the commentators, it isn't as bad as most make it out to be. Except for the Mass Effect thing...
Also, the Limbaugh jab could have been better done. I like facts with the opinions. I don't care how obvious they seem.

True on the limbaugh thing, Sorry about that. Perhaps i'll get around to it. For now, i'm going to skulk around the forums.

 

[SecretTacoNinja]

...Okay, cool, I guess.

Frankly, I don't bother watching news/political shows - if I wanted to be lied to, I'd ask a Creationist about Evolution.

A winner is you!

I'm not even American and I know Bill O' Reilly one of the biggest arseholes in the world.

 

[Gladion]

Thanks for that cool post. As a non-American, I found it to be pretty informative I'll go and check some other sources about these people.

 

[notsosavagemessiah]

That's the best you can do. Don't just trust what i say. Go forward, see for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

 

[Lord Thodin]

If we were smart we'd destroy our system and make a caesar. Then at least only ONE person gets blamed for mistakes, and only ONE person can take any praise. Its clean, and cut, and would probably reintroduce slavery. It would get rid of retarded political writers, but still

 

[Silva]

Ann Coulter embodies everything people outside of America dislike about America. That is, she is warmongering, extremist, hyper-nationalist, overpatriotic, jingoistic, racist, and stupid.(Don't get me wrong, there's plenty I like about America, but I'm talking about international public opinion here.)

I think that that last line of Mathew's was first class - "Maybe this [book] should be called [Slander] too". Genius line. I know nothing about Matthews, but that is impressive. Frankly his questions, though typical debate points were used, weren't that penetrating, and he took a position of disagreement without pushing his fews forth. It wasn't precisely objective since he had to talk over her a bunch, but that's how controversial interviews always go.

The amusing thing is, Coulter was very much ready to state that she wanted to sell her book with sensationalist rubbish:

MATTHEWS: Is that a way to win friends in the Arab and Islamic world
by saying they stink.
COULTER: I think it is a way to get people...
MATTHEWS: Is that deep?
COULTER: ... to read my book, so I thank you.

For all we know, she may not be privately a conservative at all. She's making money off of the hatred she's spawning from everyone who's not as extreme as her publicly. Never buy her books. Never, ever. Don't feed the beast.

And Fox News? Don't get me started again. I've said my piece on Faux News in a related thread.

A Swedish Christian newspaper which my aunt reads wrote an article about Coulter in which they praised Fox News for the objectivity. I quote:
"Many regard it as the most objective news channel to be found in the US."
Needless to say, I don't like that newspaper a whole lot. It's called Världen idag, in case you want to know what to watch out for.

Objective? Oh come on! Even the deluded should know that's not what objective means. If you want objective, watch The News Hour, where they have impartial moderators and always present both sides of the argument. Don't go to Fox. Jeez. (I know, you don't believe this garbage yourself. That's just my frustrated reaction.)

I'm not even American and I know Bill O' Reilly one of the biggest arseholes in the world.

Damn right, spoken like a fellow non-American person.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly
Link is relevant (and offensive.)

+1 Respect for using Maddox.

Oh wow, that's the trophy from Big Rigs, isn't it?

Both in one post?

Too much win.