idrankwhat

Apparently not. Sounds like they even shot one of the crocs so they could "dis-arm" it. (I know, I'm going to hell for that one)

Are you familiar with our First Amendment? Yes, but we now have "free speech zones" to take care of that.

This is fodder for a different thread but religion has plenty of exposure in the media, and to our politicians/leadership, and to our justice dept (hopefully this is only temporary). And it seems that sometimes only the fanatical voices are ones getting access and being heard. It's sort of interesting when you consider that many people seem to think that our greatest threat is from radical religious zealots. I can't say that I completely disagree. If I had to pick, I'd say "greed" was our biggest enemy, then maybe the ones with the Readers Digest version of their holy book.

Why do you say an opinion piece, that examines what some Christian leaders are saying, shows Fox has zero credibility? I didn't. Why do you argue like Bill O'Reilly? Have you stopped beating your wife? Maybe I should have put a smiley at the end of my statement. I said "not zero" but more to the point, it was just a jab at FOX NEWS for being the source for this piece. But reading it again, is this article from their religion correspondent really an "opinion" piece?

How about somewhat partisan but well referenced? Interested in any of those credibility challenges? I'll give you a hint. O'Reilly hates them but wont talk to them and has refused their offer to appear on his show.

Maybe not zero, but this commentary comes close http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,266860,00.html

See, I don't see that at all. They are talk show, hosts, commentators, editorial types. I've never seen any of them come across as news nor proclaim themselves as news. They talk ABOUT the news, but never seem to report it. That's crazy talk. Yea, I guess you're right for the most part. They just mention that they're telling you the news that you won't hear elsewhere but that's not really news broadcasting. However, Hannity does open his show with something like "the best, most comprehensive news.......". I think he's smirking when he says it but it's hard to tell on the radio.

Most of the time there just there to be a punching bag if they disagree with him. He cuts people off incessantly when they try to make a point. He shouts at them if they don't bow out because he seems to think that volume helps his argument and it's a way to assert his control of the discussion. And after he's given a few seconds for his guest to try to make their point he launches into a monologue to get HIS spin on the issue planted as the take home message. I think it's a lousy way to interview a guest. It's disrespectful and it deprives his viewers of the alternate view that is supposedly the reason for the guest in the first place. And resorting to the argument tactics that he uses is a good indicator that he doesn't think that his argument can withstand honest scrutiny. My tip for a good interview: let the guest speak more than the host. That said, I don't think he's interested in having an honest debate about the issues and I don't think that his "entertainees" tune in to hear one. So he's doing his job well. Rush Limbaugh says it best: "I always say my real purpose is to attract the largest audience I can, and hold it for as long as I can, so I can charge confiscatory advertising rates,"

Actually I think he's a sincere jackass who won't hesitate to hype his jackassedness if he thinks it will help the payday so I think we may both be right. And I think that applies to all of them. Admittedly though, I can't compare him to any of the left wing hack jobs because I never listen to Air America and I think I may be the only person in this forum who has no idea when Rosie's show comes on. I'm guessing that it's while I'm at work and I really couldn't give a crap what she thinks either. The reason that I give B O' a hard time is because he, Limbaugh, and Hannity etc. have a tendency to pretend that they're "news" sources (and are often presented as such in forums like these). That's where I think they cross the line. Bottom line, news/entertainment/whatever of the sort that all of those parties provide do a disservice to any thinking person. I put them all in the same category as the paternity testing, chair flinging, security guarded scream fests that make money for Maury, Springer, Geraldo and the like. We'd all be better off with re-runs of Match Game or the Gong Show. Now THAT was entertainment!

I can't give him the leeway that rehmwa does. I can't say for certain but I wouldn't be surprised if he's not as much of a prick in person as he is on television. His brand of "entertainment" serves no one but himself, FOX, and the viewers who think that anger, hate, disrespect and misinformation hold a valid place in the national discourse. He fits in my file of "ignorance peddlers" but he doesn't hold the top slot. However, he is a master of a number of fallacious argument techniques. I guess everyone needs a talent.

Nope, I just call them puppy mills for The US Dept. of Justice.

Which party is that? I can't decide if this applies to both or neither.

I'm going to think about the rest of what you posted for a while. But I wanted to comment on your last statement to add that I won't disagree that our bill of rights is being reduced to a(n) historical curiosity, and I wouldn't limit it to the ninth and tenth.

I'm beginning to get the impression that they're more interested in publicity or putting themselves in a situation where they reap the financial awards of a lawsuit stemming from an altercation. This reminds me though, where's that thread about when it's ok to shoot someone?

SPIN CHECK! "equally abhorrent"? One is described as experiencing a "civil war" with "Joe Sixpack" and "ultra-liberal bleeding heart" and the other is simply "dominated by the far right". Given your choices, I had to go with "doing what they've gotta do". They're politicians, what do you expect? I'd expect McCain to attend if he thought there was any chance that he'd pick up more votes than he'd lose.

I'd argue that the ninth amendment clarifies it well, then backed up by the fourth, and implied in the third and fifth. So even if "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." isn't sufficient, then it's easy to see the common ground in the other amendments listed.

Here's the new National Anthem. http://www.jesusland.com/jesusland2.mp3

Just checking but you're being "feces shus" right? I couldn't think of a worse idea, unless of course that ticked included Pat Robertson as Sec of Defense.

Yes, it was beautiful. I clicked on the SC forum link and was presented with this thread juxtaposition Delay: Science classes teaching evolution cause violence. When is it ok to shoot somebody?

That's just a shame. I mean the guy's only trying to help find a cure for lung cancer and they go throw him in jail http://www.healthrelatedinfos.com/2007/04/17/marijuana-compound-may-fight-lung-cancer.html

That's true, but the idea of the anti-abortion people is to slowly chip away at R v W and eventually make all abortions illegal. This is simply one case and it deals with an extremely small percentage of abortion cases, so this is only a small victory, but it is indeed one more chip. I guess what bugs me the most, besides the government intrusion into personal life, is that most of the people who champion themselves as "pro-life" aren't pro-life, but more accurately, anti-abortion.

Right off hand, I can't tell you. But I'm willing to bet that the patient's Dr can and apparently, according to Ginsburg, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists can as well.. And I don't know about anyone else but this "lib" thinks that inserting the government between a Dr. and a patient is the wrong thing to do.

I'll go along with that. So what's next, impeaching the judges?

Yep, just what we need, more justices that think that things are Constitutional when they deprive only a small "fraction" of people of their Constitutional rights. The right to keep government out of the Dr/patient relationship, torture, spying....it's all ok if we only screw up a few people's lives.