Journalistic Integrity - Page 3

Originally Posted by trumptman

Politico's Jonathan Martin provides expert analysis of the Florida primary for MSNBC this morning and hurls an offensive epithet to describe counties in the panhandle of the state.

Leftists are always experts at being racists.

Three Papers in One!
"It is time to end the ability of a single senator, or group of senators, to block the confirmation process by threatening a filibuster, which can be overcome only by the vote of 60 senators," the New York Times editorialized yesterday:

We agree with President Obama's call in the State of the Union address for the Senate to change its rules and require votes on judicial and executive nominees within 90 days.
This is a major change of position for us, and we came to it reluctantly.

In calling this "a major change of position," the Times gives the impression that it has long supported the filibuster. But a Times editorial of Jan. 1, 1995 was headlined "Time to Retire the Filibuster." It called for abolishing the process altogether, for legislation as well as nominations.

The paper's "major change" yesterday was a change from its last major change of position, which it explained in a March 29, 2005, editorial titled "Walking in the Opposition's Shoes":

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

Yet amid its zigging and zagging, the Times has been consistent, in that its view on the filibuster has always been in line with the immediate interests of the Democratic Party. Its claims both in 2005 and today to have undertaken a thoughtful reconsideration of the matter look rather hypocritical.

Andrew Rosenthal, the Times's editorial page editor, seems aware of this problem. Yesterday he tweeted a link to the new editorial with this comment: "It risks fringe rightwingers getting named by a GOP president, but filibustering nominees must end." This seems to imply a promise to stick to the current antifilibuster position if, a year or two from now, President Romney's nominees are being held up by a Democratic minority's unwillingness to bring them to the Senate floor.

We'll believe that when we see it.

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Komen Foundation reverses funding decision of Planned Parenthood

Now we begin the wait for the bevy of articles and editorials claiming that Komen "caved" or "buckled" under pressure from Planned Parenthood advocates just the like articles we saw claiming they "caved" and "buckled" under pressure from anti-abortion advocates.

I won't hold my breath.

Oh, and widespread media criticism of brainwashing the kids into promoting your agenda:

Originally Posted by tonton

Suck eggs, MJ.



And while you're at it, suck a couple more.

• "I don't want it!" Brooke replied angrily, attempting to throw the flyer back to her mother. "There's a picture of Obama on there!"
  
  Brooke, her mother confirmed, is five years old.

Originally Posted by tonton

According to the admittedly hearsay report, the VP of Komen flat out LIED about their intentions. Looks like the media was right on that call.

Originally Posted by tonton

And college students holding signs is equivalent to five year-olds who have been taught to hate Obama? Uh. Okay?

Originally Posted by tonton

According to the admittedly hearsay report, the VP of Komen flat out LIED about their intentions. Looks like the media was right on that call.

And college students holding signs is equivalent to five year-olds who have been taught to hate Obama? Uh. Okay?

Originally Posted by tonton

Forget to take your meds, Nick?

Originally Posted by trumptman

You've got serious projection issues if you are declaring five year olds who don't want a paper flyer to be hateful. Go double your dosage.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Politico's Jonathan Martin provides expert analysis of the Florida primary for MSNBC this morning and hurls an offensive epithet to describe counties in the panhandle of the state.

Leftists are always experts at being racists.

Originally Posted by tonton

Stop being obtuse. She didn't not want a piece of paper. She didn't want a piece of paper specifically because it had a picture of Obama on it.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Yes and you call that....HATEFUL. If I am holding a rally for some cause and attempt to hand you a sign or flyer for said cause and you do want it because you don't support the cause, that isn't a HATEFUL action.

You've just turned disagreement into HATE. You are the one being obtuse here if you cannot see that. Disagreement isn't hate. Preferences aren't hate. Your rationale for why she hates Obama is nothing more than not wanting the flyer. That is ridiculous and twisted reasoning. It is insane.

Originally Posted by tonton

We're talking about a five year old. Five year olds don't 'disagree' with people.

She was taught to hate Obama.

When I was five I certainly didn't hate Jimmy Carter, because my parents didn't teach me to hate people. When I was ten I didn't even hate Reagan. By the time I was fifteen and I could determine for myself the effects of what he was doing (making rich people richer and poor people poorer), I started to develop the ability to disagree with him.

Originally Posted by trumptman

Sorry but per child development, children start developing their own strong opinions starting between three and four years old. They may not have sound reasoning but they not only disagree with adults, they do so quite strongly. Just ask any three year old wearing cowboy boots along with their bathing suit in the middle of the summer.



For the last time, not wanting a flyer isn't the same as hate. You've got to get that ridiculous notion out of your head. She could have been offered a flyer for Mickey Mouse and wanted Rainbow Bright. That doesn't mean she hates Mickey Mouse.



When you were five you probably expressed almost all your opinions in strident manners. You didn't have to hate Jimmy Carter but given the choice between watching him or watching Scooby Doo, I suspect you would have choosen the latter rather with the same level of tact as most five year olds. This likely was true of things like bathing, vegetables, and sharing toys. None of these things are hate. Even if you had used the word hate, as in "I hate carrots" or "I hate taking a bath" it would just be considered as nothing more than you learning to express yourself and not legitimate and actionable hate.

Originally Posted by tonton

I'll concede the semantic point, but I hope you're not actually trying to say that a five year old who has never met Obama, who dislikes him, for whatever reason, wasn't taught by adults to support their political position. Isn't this discussion about the political indoctrination of children?