Posted on 10/24/2014 4:11:49 PM PDT by IChing
I know so many people like that, it is almost as if they cling to their ignorance like it is something to be proud of.
They don’t even know how low class they are.
Toloreance? Nah! Politically Correct robots for a Socialist funded take over of America led by racial-pimps like those vaulted Revereends Sharpton, Jackson, and other racists like mark du mont, who like other Black radicals, keeps the pot boiling, making his money on the contents......
I knew it was off as far as the exact place/dept. (the scene was in the immediate aftermath of the “sandwich” shooter in St. Louis), but went with Flaherty’s description anyway, was hurrying. Thanks.
It is depressing as hell. You said it right, as far as the blind, ignorant “certainty” of the rabid mobs. Intelligent people cultivate a healthy degree of doubt where appropriate.
What’s more depressing to me, though, as someone who’s spent his life in law enforcement and security work, is to watch how the police are just reduced to quivering subjugation and impotence. If ever there was disorderly conduct and assault warranting immediate arrest, that video shows it. But the cops just grovelled and retreated.
OMG I just watched the Liberia film on your site. Wish you had a “do not eat while watching” warning on it.
Speechless…..
all I can say is I was never prejudiced but with this administration my opinion of the majority of the blacks is F===Off
You mean the one I posted in the comments section below one of my previous articles? If so, that’s only a short segment of a much longer set of documentaries about Liberia, full of stuff like that....
Yes, that one. I don’t think I could stomach more than I saw…unimaginable to live a life of such unrelieved misery. And now Ebola is going to make it worse.
Was that you in the film? Whoever it was is incredibly brave.
It wasn’t me in the film. Thanks for checking out my other articles, btw, and for commenting.
Their theory is that they will always ask the questions, and will themselves never have to explain anything. It is my theory that in principle it is possible that they could be brought to book, but I’m a little hazy on a couple of details. Here are the parameters as I see it:
- There has never, in the modern era, been a political class with the guts to stand up to the political clout of journalism - there is never likely to be. That includes even Ronald Reagan. So the only possible recourse would have to come from the courts - specifically, the Supreme Court of the United States. Since the SCOTUS ObamaCare decision we worry about Chief Justice Roberts, but we have no imminent prospects of ever having a better lineup at SCOTUS than we do today. We should go for it.
- Since we’re never going to have an administration with the political will to confront journalism, we - and who “we” is, I’m not precisely clear on - must file a civil suit against “the media.”
- But “the media” is an amorphous concept, not an identifiable defendant - and “the media” as we know it includes fiction as well as nonfiction productions. So “the media” is out as a defendant; we need to be specific and we need to be correctly targeted. Our real beef is with journalism as an institution, and yet there are all sorts of First Amendment qualms about any action against it. However, it is my thesis that that concern is misplaced because journalism which is “the media” is abusive of the First Amendment.
- There are three main characteristics of “media” journalism.
IMHO those two characteristics define our defendant. The wire services in general and the Associated Press in particular inherently homogenize journalism because they constitute active cooperation among journalists in determining what the news is. And what is “objective.”
- ”media” journalism claims to be objective - which proves that they do not take the difficulty of minimizing the tendency of “where you stand” to be influenced by “where you sit.” Claiming to be objective constitutes proof that you are not objective about yourself.
- ”media” journalism is actually broadcast journalism, and
- ”media” journalism is wire service journalism - and the wire services (all of them) inherently homogenize journalism.
- Since all major journalism, including broadcast journalism, is wire service journalism, simply naming the wire services and their members as defendants covers the waterfront of active defendants. But in the case of broadcast journalism there is the major item of the imprimatur of the government on “objective” journalism broadcast over “public” airwaves. There is no logical proof of journalism’s objectivity, and the government exceeds its First Amendment limitations when it suggests otherwise. The FCC is a linchpin of “media journalism,” and it must be a defendant in our suit. In addition, the Federal Election Commission represents McCain-Feingold and the rest of “Campaign Finance Reform,” all of which are based on the theory that wire service journalism is objective. The FEC should be sued into oblivion.
- The torts which should be alleged consist, IMHO, of
- depriving the country of independent journalism. Wire service journalism is free, yes - but not independent, no. Wire service journalism is a single entity.
- conspiring to promote journalism at the expense of responsibility. Theodore Roosevelt defined the issue in his 1910 “Man in the Arena” speech:
”It is not the critic who counts . . . the credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena . . . who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly . . .” The “Objectivity Establishment” systematically promotes the opposite, cynical perspective that “If you own a business, you didn’t build that . . .” Rejection of the claim of “journalistic objectivity” does not depend solely on the philosophical claim of the impossibility of objectivity, or the unprovability of the claim. The claim of journalistic objectivity falls because if you restrict your attention to the performance of journalism in comparison to truth - that is, if you compare what was said by journalism to be objective, with what time has shown to be true, journalism flunks. And even when truth is already known - for example, that Zimmerman was Not Guilty because he was attacked and battered to a dangerous degree before he used his weapon - journalism will continue to demagogue to the contrary. That demagoguery is dangerous to George Zimmerman, it is dangerous to Officer Wilson, and it is dangerous to the people not only in Florida and Missouri, but to the nation. The FCC does not have the right to enable demagogic journalism when public order is at risk. Broadcast journalists have licenses, and they should lose them if they endanger public safety.
- We have the defendant, and we have the tort. Who is the plaintiff????
The set up is white on black, national attention, yell fire in a crowded theater, convict and punish without any evidence or care if there is any. One of our foundations in this country is being eroded by the media and our very own political imposters
It's not a race issue. It's a culture issue. If your culture belongs in a petri-dish I'll do my best to keep you there. End of story...
I see. The races are equal and identical, then. Thanks for such profound insight. You have been trained successfully. Where do I report for re-education?
Are the races equal? I think it's subjective again, to culture. We all have an unknown potential. Does the culture nurture that potential or savagely crush it? Can an individual taken out of one cultural environment and placed in another successfully adapt and acclimatize, then adapt to those cultural standards? We see it constantly.
As far as being trained, where did you get yours? Do you believe that blacks can never adapt to American culture and thrive? Again, hundreds of examples that a few individuals do so with great success.
No, I will not ever condemn anyone for their race. I believe the attitude that tends to do so is filled with the sort of filth that should be flushed rather than fostered.
Are American conservative Christians culturally superior? Absolutely. But it's an open club and anyone can join as long as they respect the rules.
The races are equal and identical, then. Thanks for such profound insight. You have been trained successfully. Where do I report for re-education?
Seriously? What is wrong with you? You don't belong on FreeRepublic.
Thus being said, I believe there is nothing left unsaid between us in this lifetime. I hope you turn yours around, I will not be corresponding with you again in this one.
I agree that the influence of Christianity transcends the biological propensities of race on culture. Talk about specific individuals all day long if you wish, but general categories exist and can be assessed as well. The Bible is full of generalizing about tribes and racial groups; Genesis even says the descendants of Cain have some sort of marker on them. What small demographic commits over 50% of the murders in our society? That’s just spiritual speculation of course, however if you claim to be a Christian, you can’t deny scripture. People like you have a haughtiness about these matters based on political correctness and moral myopia that blindly rejects biology and nature, and apparently presuming that all are the elect. You also fear intellectual examination of what you have been taught.
And for your information, I would never condemn anyone for their race either. I simply refuse to ignore significant correlation, however, and prevalent biological traits. Exceptions to general rules merely bring the rules into starker relief.
For that matter, apart from biology, failure to join the open club you mentioned points to aggregate content of character, now, does it not?
Is it your position that Abraham Lincoln was an ignorant man?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.