Trump: I always want to tell the truth. When I can, I tell the truth

If liberals favor abortion, they logically should favor euthanasia it seems to me. They shoot horses, don't they?

 

The Dems will impeach your Hitler first of the year or they will be Hitler collaborators

You are so totalitarian. The clergy are normal citizens and have the right of free speech. Canada controls speech in churches and I imagine Theresa May does also and I am guessing that Australia does, too. The lady in Santa Fe would agree with aborting the unborn child but she would probably be opposed to old ladies like her getting the axe when their healthcare becomes expensive--I mean, they shoot horses, don't they?.

 

Fair minded news coverage on controversial subjects may exist, but it might be better to cite a supposed example for analysis. Words can be weighty, a picture portray a thousand. What I notice are narratives designed to seduce emotionally, subconsciously. I expect opinion pieces to have some of this, but founded on solid argument. However, propaganda masquerading as news is a lie of the worst sort. It deserves its own disparagingly labeled category, something several notches below Mark Twain’s “statistics.” But for now, Fake News will do.

It isn’t that I see “main stream media, elites or liberals as that corrupted power,” rather they are first and foremost part and parcel. Treating them as anything but is to be badly deceived. Justices, legislators, and executives are not more biased than pundits, professors, or publishers, and “the pen is mightier than the sword.” The latter is why authoritarian governments must control the media, and why all political entities alternately seek to use it to advantage and find need to defend against it.

Publishers and producers do not get a pass, because they do not deserve one any more than politicians. (I decided against using an extended metaphor with used car salesmen.) The point is that everyone is human and everyone has a dog in the hunt. “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” If this all bursts your bubble, I don’t apologize. It needed bursting, big time. In any case, I’m not interested in living in it. I’m trying to practice what you preach, and doing at least as good a job.

Thanks for responding to my request regarding the news story. Seems we agree that this one is obviously biased. I’d hoped for a bit more detail regarding all the ways the bias was embedded. But I mainly got the impression you feel the bias justified. That would be a problem, or the problem. Interpretation of the situation is an entirely different issue. You may have some good points there, though I probably mostly disagree with your assessment. We can discuss it in that thread.

 

You want government control of free speech a la British empire and the UK.

 

Hey, you said that the priest did not have the right to put a pro-life sign on the RCC church. Probably not in Australia. If the lady wanted abortion, did she also want euthanasia? Would she object to a sign calling for abortion on demand?

 

I am sure that in Australia that he would have been arrested and there is no doubt that Theresa May will have you arrested in the UK. However, we still have free speech in this country, at least on paper. Probably, in Australia, a Muslim cannot get up in a mosque and say that Mohammed had sex with a nine-year old girl. In the UK police state, Lauren Southern was stopped by the imperial government from handing out a tract that Allah is gay.

Now if we could just CNN "reporters" to refrain from manhandling ladies.

 

Seems we agree on the general premise, just not on degree and angle(s), and probably starting points.

I want to know not just what someone is telling me but why, and also what they’re not telling me and why. Anyone calling himself “Honest Jake,” especially the MSM, gets special scrutiny. And a straight white male warning of straight white males because they are straight white males deserves the severest of logical penalties, permanent removal from public discussion and debate. One has to wonder what right he thinks he has being there in the first place. He is certainly dangerously untrustworthy, but not because of those traits.

As for the priest, the PhD, and the reporter, my point here is that it's not really a news story but propaganda. I understand your theory of the would-be honest reporter, but is he real, or more like Bigfoot? I’d need to see some hard evidence. “Honest Jake” just won’t cut it. Even weathermen hype the weather.

 

Does CNN have the right to strike White House employees as part of tree speech?

 

You say you want people to think critically, but your assessment of the priest story seems lacking. On what basis is his action an abuse of power? You’ve demonstrated none. You would have to establish that there is no real freedom of religion, which may be true in Australia, and is certainly the way some want it in America, but is not yet so here. This is what I meant by us having different starting points. Just because you don’t like something or disagree with somebody does not mean you have the right to take away enumerated or implied rights. Are you not at least familiar with MLK?