Ron Paul poses with the founders of Stormfront, Don Black and son Derek Black.
Ron Paul Yanks Mic During CNN Interview After Reporter Presses Newsletter Questions
“I didn‘t write ’em, I disavow them. that’s it.”
“I never read it, I was aware of it ten years after it was written…
Hmm...
Ok, what're they talking about, and what is Ron Paul denying writing?
the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.
So today he denies writing them... or even knowing about them... I see...
Ah... but...
Back in 1996...
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
(...)
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.
(...)
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
(...)
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
Sorry, but if Ron Paul is nominated, Obama will win a second term.
The Democratic-Media Propaganda Machine will ruthlessly plaster the airwaves with this stuff until Ron Paul's numbers plummet way lower than they forced Herman Cain's numbers to drop with unfounded accusations of "sexual harassment".
Now, who is clean, amongst the GOP nomination hopefuls?
Michele Bachmann. She has no baggage of the sort that Cain, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Romney et al have.
In fact...
Bachmann has appeared more eager to be seen as a candidate with broader appeal. She pointed to her record in Minnesota where she had had to win over both independents and Democrat voters to take her seat. She has also gone to great lengths to place herself and her worldview in with the Constitution and the values of America's founders.
Perhaps Bachmann's greatest strength displayed during these televised debates is an ability to keep her opponents on the defensive with an adversarial manner that none of the other candidates seem quite capable of. She effortlessly succeeded in making Ron Paul look ridiculous for the views he holds on Iran and brutally exposed his policies as "dangerous." Paul was left spluttering -- "She took my time!" -- but when he resorted to accusing her of getting her facts wrong, he only succeeded in appearing desperate.
(...)
And if ever Americans decide they do want a president who combines the unwavering determination of Thatcher with the sunny disposition of Reagan and the staunch moral clarity of both, well then they have it in Michele Bachmann.
40 comments:
I've been reading Ron Paul's writings for years and have never read anything that is remotely racist.
You got to be one of the most stupid neo conservatives in Canada.
If Ron Paul was elected and could get congress and the senate on board with his Austrian School of Economics and his libertarian beliefs he would be able to restore the US back to the country that became the strongest both economically and socially (freedom) the world has ever seen.
The rest of the republican Presidential field is no different then Obama and the democrats and would certainly lead to a US that is bankrupt and become a 3rd world country controlled by the US Fed and their banking friends.
The fact that you consider yourself a so-called conservative and have a hate for Paul just tells me that you are just like the rest of the Neo cons who believe in big government as long has the government spends on things like military, police and prisons. I see no differences between Republicans (neo-cons) and democrats (liberals) you both believe in big government controlling people!
Ron Paul is a libertarian who understands that government is the problem never the solution!
Deno
Well said Deno!
Ron Paul is and will be the only "Republican" candidate to turn this ship around.
Just like the Titanic, America is going full throttle through the icebergs in the midnight hour, willfully oblivious to the catastrophe ahead, if not full throttle reversed immediately! Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it.
Sorry Senti, but your trying to pin the tail on the Ron Paul donkey is not going to work. Paul is the only one with the fiscal knowledge and intestinal fortitude to reign in the Fed and the Banksta's, pull the troops out of the worlds cesspools and let them implode and establish the plan he has in place to keep America from turning into one of the countries which they are now fighting.
The military is just another big government social program, ever devouring the country's finances, men and women through the patriotic blood spilled each and every day, following their master and commander's orders.
Ron Paul is growing impatient with the tripe and viciousness of the liberal media. A lot of water has passed under his bridge, he is becoming weary with the navel-gazing media, more interested in entertaining than enlightening.
Senti, I would ask what it is that Ron Paul has written himself which you have issue with. Not what the media has cherry picked out of context. Please site examples and then we can debate HIS ideas and writings.
Thanks, Man
And Merry Christmas to you, Gabby and all the CS contributors and trolls!
I think either Ron Paul OR Michele Bachman would make superb candidates. Also Ms. Palin, whose premature withdrawal has robbed the campaign of considerable entertainment value.
Since you're back, Glacierman, could I ask you for a Christian perspective on Sentinel's suggestion that Obama should be killed?
Hold on Balbul.
You are implying Sentinel is suggesting assassination. He is clearly only advocating due process of law, sentencing for high treason and then hanging OB.
Shame on you.
BTW Merry Christmas to one all all.
correction
"..and all"
Canuckguy, I think increasingly that the folks who encourage Sentinel down this very delusional path for their own amusement are complicit.
Damn Spam!!
Delete it Sentinel.
OK, Balb! I will take your bait, but I will not speak for our dear host. He has some ideas which I whole-heartedly agree with and others which I do not.
I do not believe that CS is advocating anything which would be of a criminal nature, it would have to be a ruling of the courts.
As the Constitution of the United States, which forms the foundation for the laws of that country states, a traitor should be held accountable for their actions and under said documents, would indeed be executed if tried for said offense and found guilty. Now, the question would be, is there anyone in the that country who would be willing to bring up those charges and yet another for the willingness of the legal system to consider such a thing?
The State has the right to execute, and I believe it is God given. But, mercy always triumphs over judgement, and should be the higher law.
"I do not believe that CS is advocating anything which would be of a criminal nature, it would have to be a ruling of the courts."
I didn't see a call for a trial in Sentinel's post, merely a call for a killing. Could you point me to his reference to due process, etc?
"mercy always triumphs over judgement, and should be the higher law."
Agreed. So does the Catholic Church, interestingly.
Balb, I do not presume on another's thoughts and intentions without being able to see the man face to face and eye to eye.
If you believe that this nip-picking is healthy and valuable, that is your business. I hardly think that this is CS's intent or wish. Although, the circumstances of the politics in the states are troublesome and there does not seem to be any truth or even the desire to expose the truth within the media which was hailing the magic-would-be-king in his ascendence to the Cherry Blossom Throne.
As for the mercy reference, the Catholic Church got that from the Word. That IS the standard and foundation of what and Who we believe.
That is the reason for this whole festive winter Christmas celebration thingy that we make all this fuss about!!!!
And! Merry Christmas Balb!!!
"Balb, I do not presume on another's thoughts and intentions without being able to see the man face to face and eye to eye."
Good. I look forward to being afforded that generosity of spirit.
"And! Merry Christmas Balb!!!"
Same to you, Glacierman. We had a good one here - kids and grandkids, and a whole two weeks off. Hope yours was restful as well.
Glacierman... tell me... honestly... do you think the media's going to pull its punches and refrain from destroying Ron Paul's image with the Swing Voters, using his baggage and past utterances?
Will they spare him the treatment they gave Bush, Palin, Bachmann, Cain? Think so... or think he can counter and survive?
Well, if so, then you have a lesson to learn... if he's nominated against Obama. If he is, he's dead in the electoral water... RiP, his political epitaph would read, perhaps...
As the Sentinel, my prediction is that he won't be nominated (I see signs that the media won't let this happen), but if he is, I guarantee he'll face the worst barrage of attacks ever from the Left.
And since RP et al are constantly firing at the so-called "neo-cons" instead of the Left, well, there's no worse war plan than attacking a non-enemy whilst the enemy sneaks up behind oneself for an ambush...
Remember, they use the Big Lie strategy.
They don't care about truth, nor do many Swing Voters.
The ACCUSATIONS are more than enough. Accusations needn't be substantiated for significant negative impact to be exacted, unfortunately.
That's what happened to Herman Cain. Nothing against him was based on any evidence... yet it squashed his chances.
For a politician to write racially-charged and anti-Semitic-sounding stuff so much... we know already that that, for non-leftists, is politically radioactive and odious and tends to be used by the MSM, the Dems and Hollyweird to destroy them in the eyes of the Swing Voters.
This is the political reality. If the Republicans are to win, they can't have someone with RP's baggage. Period. They need someone clean.
CS, Merry Christmas Brotha, from another Motha!!!
The media, who is the whore of the left, will not pull punches with RP; not like they have with OB, that is for sure!!
Even the link you had with RP storming out of the CNN media center has been a fabrication of the MSM. Raw footage has now exposed the story to be a smear and a complete fabrication. I am become more convinced that the MSM and the left are so scared spitless of him, that there will print, photoshop, and even attempt to entrap the man to try and discredit him at every turn during this campaign.
Ron will now have to have his own camera crew filming his every move and every conversation (got to love small camcorders and media devices) so as to expose the lyin' left and their manipulation of the man.
A man's past cannot be the judge and jury. What kind of stones would you being throwing after King David, my friend? He had a man murdered to try and hide his greedy impluses, impregnating another's wife and deceive the nation. Yet this man is a "man after God's own Heart"!! Huge character flaws by today's standards. We have the Clinton's to prove that, in our modern history - although the courts made sure the truth was buried and the record altered from the truth.
We have become well acquainted with some very wise Words. We will be measured by how we measure. Ron Paul in being measured. Yes he can be awkward, yes he can be unorthodox, yes he is not polished and refined as a king or royalty...but, he speaks the truth and you never have to try and guess what he is intending to convey. And that is what the spin-doctors hate. They will become irrelevant in this world, as they will not be called upon to try and decipher the double-speak and hegalian-dialectic speech patterns of the present administration.
We do have to remember that RP is in a leadership race with the neocons and RINO's (Newt and Romney et al) who are towing the company line, just like Obama. And to be real, the current Dems and Repubs are the flip sides of the same coin! They are all about increased government, taxes, social security, Obamacare-Romenycare, military expansion/empire building; all unsustainable and huddling the country to bankruptcy and collapse as the worlds superpower. It is lunacy to expect to do the same as they have a fortuitous outcome.
Ron Paul is the only candidate to try and talk radical, nation saving cuts and slashes in this race. Like him or hate him, he is truly the only one with REAL solutions. Not just cut backs of the same-old-same-old.
Look past the flaws and hear what he has to say with your heart AND mind engaged.
He will get a beating for sure by the MSS, but he is the only one who is principled enough and understands the value of the Constitution and how important it is, the spirit with which it was written, to be able to weather this storm. Get ready for the tidal waves ahead. The Constitution is the Ark for America. Please be careful that you are not one of the masses who laughs and mocks but are caught without the life-boat!!! (I think you understand)
Merry Christmas, Glacierman, and all!
And, do remember, GM, I'm merely warning of what RP and his army face if he's nominated. I seriously see a devastating defeat, merely because of my years of acquisition of understanding of how politics works in the real world nowadays. I just don't see RP and his army prepared for that kind of bloodbath, and am warning, giving fair warning... is all.
As for the King David reference, well, once an Israeli Jew did remark that I sound like King David Himself in my standing up for Israel...
Do I think RP is racist? Got to admit i'm not sure, thinking probably not, but still I cringe at the reactions to him that will ensue, how numerous and frequent, and how devastating their effect. There's no more damaging effect than the media's "racist" smears, as we know... and if one has previously uttered a LOT of merely racist-SOUNDING stuff... that's enough to easily poison the minds of millions of Swing Voters against that candidate...
Still, I have serious disagreements with some of RP's personal interpretations of the Constitution and stuff. Which is fair, of course. At the same time, I point out that Bachmann is the only actual expert on the Constitution, and that does count for something politically, at the very least.
I also disagree with RP on just leaving Israel to fend for herself, because, remember, God will curse those who curse Israel... interpret that... ;)
Oh, wasn't referring to you, GM, btw...
But those of us who believe in the Bible, particularly Genesis 12:3, know that we better not throw Israel under the bus.
Aside from Biblically, America and all the Free World have a powerful strategic interest in standing with Israel, including militarily and financially. I say withdraw support for enemies like "Palestine" and Pakistan and divert the monies to standing with Israel, and supporting freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights, not only in the Middle East, but worldwide. Pulling our support out would send the wrong signals to the world, especially to Israel's AND OUR enemies. Without Israel, our enemies will, of course, be far stronger... even though God will, of course, protect Israel, though if WE don't stand with her, well...
I also disagree with RP's claim that Iran isn't a threat, and that appeasing her and being nice to her will make her be nice to us and others. It's too... Chamberlainian... too... Peace-in-Our-Time-y... we know that Churchill was right all along, and I prefer to "err" on the side of Churchillianism...
And his claim that there's no need to fear Islam, period... belies what one cannot help but wonder might be a dangerous ignorance on his part... is he that ignorant about the reality of Supremacist, Imperialist Islamism in the world, not just "over there", but here at home too?
All serious, and valid questions...
At the same time, we DO need, I say, to take a massive chainsaw to the Leviathan Beast of Government...
Got to chop trillions in wasteful spending, abolish entire unneeded bureaucracies... do something about the harmful-now public-sector unions, get the taxes down, balance the budget, use surpluses to attack the debt, and make it tougher to outsource, ie. to take jobs away from Americans and give em to china...
A question for you both on Ron Paul.
I think you would both agree that RP would be unacceptable to Democrats, who represent roughly 50% of the American electorate.
You would presumably agree that he will also be unacceptable to the moderate Republicans you call RINOs.
So...how on earth do you suppose he will win an election?
Balb, he will win the election when the electorate get their collective faces slapped with the realization that they are in the middle of the The Great Depression: Part Deux!!! And if you don't believe we are headed there then you need to get your head out into the sunshine.
When unemployment gets reported at the real numbers of close to 20% and then they go to 40 or 50% like they did last go around, and there won't be any military, any social programs, medicare, or any of the other government pet projects, then the people will be so ready to throw the likes of Obama, Romney, Cain, Biden as well as the Bankstas from the nearest bridges.
When the people become hungry enough, they will choose wisely. Right now, the hopey-changey-wishful-thinking has overtaken the masses and they have not yet come to their senses. They still believe that O has the plan, he just hasn't had the opportunity to implement it yet. The delusion continues.
Winston Churchhill was not an electable leader, as was proven during the years after the war, as his brand of leadership was not palatable to the people. He was fabulous as a leader during the war, giving brilliant speeches and rallying the country under flag and Queen. But he was incapable of leading when the war was over.
Ron Paul is exactly what is need in a leader to weather the storm we are currently in.
You need to get your head around this, as it will only be a very short duration of time when the push becomes a shove, and then somebody is going to get hurt.
I know that there are unwise and unseasoned people on both sides of the electoral spectrum, but as I stated earlier, the Dems and Repubs are the same coin. The longer the debate goes, the more the glaring differences between Ron Paul and Obama will become apparent, and the country (and world) are watching with horror as the implosion of the world economic system is happening before their eyes. Let it come, we need a shake to waken the slumber of the sleeping giant, which is what the States has become.
Ron Paul will not only become electable, but the ONLY CHOICE the country has to survive.
For you Balb, explain to me why I shouldn't vote for Ron Paul if I were able to vote in the upcoming election?
CS, to the best of my knowledge, RP wants to cut all funding to every nation in the world.
If the US were to stop funding the Lebanese, Syrians, Saudi's, Egyptians and everyone else there wouldn't be the need to fund the Israeli's, as they are one of the only countries able to sustain their own economy without help.
He loves the Jewish people, if is a Christian. It is the hardcore Zionists with which he has the issue...as do I.
"For you Balb, explain to me why I shouldn't vote for Ron Paul if I were able to vote in the upcoming election."
Oh, given your world view, you should no doubt vote for him. I'm simply saying that a large majority of Americans won't, in part for the reason cited by our host.
Balb, please man! I ask you for your opinion and reasons. You asked me a question, I responded with some specifics.
Can you afford me the same?
Uh...I did provide you with an opinion and my reasons. My opinion is that Ron Paul is not electable in the US: he will, in my opinion, alienate too large a portion of the electorate to be considered seriously as a candidate by the Republican Party. Our host's post focused primarily on the selection of a candidate who can actually win. (I disagree with him on Michelle Bachman, who strikes me as a bit of a lightweight - although she's urged the Birthers to give up and move on, to her credit)).
Happy New Year Sennty and Ma Griz!!!
Just wondering how you feel and wish to parallel this article with Michele being caught lying about the now revealed non-bribe which Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) took to jump ship over to the Ron Paul camp?
Character matters, and the same weight should be applied to her words as they do to Ron Paul's. When the pressure gets turned up, the spotlight becomes brighter and reveals the truth.
"Michele being caught lying about the now revealed non-bribe which Iowa State Senator Kent Sorenson (R-Indianola) took to jump ship over to the Ron Paul camp?"
You present this as a fact. What I've read is contradictory assertions from both camps.
As a person who has expressed contempt for conventional journalism, I've sure you'd never make such an assertion (the kind no credible reporter would make) without confirmation. So...what's your source to confirm Michelle Bachman is "lying", please?
Theadore Beals, better known as Vox Day, from his blog Vox Popoli.
He has first had information about this. But you might not be too interested, as he is WND columnist, and I already know what you think of them.
But, he runs with the influential and movers and shakers...actually...he is a mover and shaker. So, his first hand contacts are pretty reliable.
But you can look up the contents here:
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/12/bachmans-chairman-endorses-paul.html
Reporters are paid informants, Balb. It just depends on who they are getting their paycheck from, depends on the slant of the "news" they produce. Editors make the decisions as to what is allowed for public consumption, not the reporter. If you are a good reporter, you know who butters your bread and you report accordingly.
So please cut the sanctimonious and holier than thou attitude of the likes of your pals over at the CBC. They are beholding to Mothercorp.
Thanks, Glacierman. A few comments.
"He is WND columnist."
Heh. Thanks, strike one.
The link you provided cites the full text of the press release we're discussing, plus an insulting, unsubstantiated slur with NO factual backup. Period. Full stop.
If that's what you consider "proof", then I certainly understand how you can take WND seriously, and why you appear to have a hard time distinguishing journalism from propaganda. Sorry, an unsubstantiated slur is neither "proof" nor "evidence".
"Reporters are paid informants, Balb."
Yes, reporters are paid, in part, to collect, analyze, and process information."
"It just depends on who they are getting their paycheck from, depends on the slant of the "news" they produce.
I think you're having a hard time with the notion that a media outlet can actually be committed to the principles of journalism - accuracy, fairness, balance, and so on. I've found that most folks on the political extremes, left or right, have that problem. Because they rely on seriously biased sources for their information, they assume that ALL media are equally committed to propaganda.
"Editors make the decisions as to what is allowed for public consumption, not the reporter. If you are a good reporter, you know who butters your bread and you report accordingly."
Well, you're correct in that editors enforce the editorial policy of their media outlet. If that policy includes a commitment to fairness, accuracy, balance, redress of errors, and so on, then those are the standards editors enforce. If a media product has a specific political bias, as is the case at Mother Jones, WND, Adbusters, or SunTV, then editors will enforce that criterion as well, inevitably to the detriment of journalistic quality.
"So please cut the sanctimonious and holier than thou attitude of the likes of your pals over at the CBC. They are beholding to Mothercorp."
Oh, I have "pals" in most media outlets, Glacierman, including a friend now working for SunTV after a few years with CBC. Folks tend to gravitate to the outlet that gives them the kind of fulfillment they're looking for at a particular time in their lives. Her motivation was money, which is fine. On the other hand, the folks interested in developing their skills as broadcast journalists tend to seek out CBC.
Let me give you a little challenge, Glacierman (and Sentinel, if you're keen to play).
a) Go to the Vox Day post, and read the two statements provided (ignoring irrelevant, unattributed and unsubstantiated slur from the blogger himself.)
b) In the Wes Enos statement, see if you can spot the truck-side loophole, or weasel-wording, in the way Mr. Enos characterizes the motivation for Kent Sorenson's action.
Let's see whether those years of reading WND have sharpened your critical faculties.
Thanks Balb,
Now it is my turn on few points!
Vox Day is indeed a WND columnist, but that is not his gig. He is much more than that, you should spend some time over on his blog to "educate' yourself as to his knowledge base and expertise in multiple disciplines.
Your condescending attitude to my critical thinking is laughable. You see, as the Law of Moses states, you do not convict anybody on a sole word, but on the testimony of two or three. Vox stated that his friends (more than one) had observed and analyzed Michele's character issues and then made the statements. He was just quoting them. This is how journalism is supposed to work. On the basis of two or three witnesses. You also do not know that Vox grew up in Minnesota, is very well intrenched within the business, media, social and political structures. So, for you to pretend like you are so smart with your deductive and analytical prowess, I would suggest that you set a goal of learning a couple of things in 2012 and sharpen up your skills before you preach to the choir.
"I think you're having a hard time with the notion that a media outlet can actually be committed to the principles of journalism - accuracy, fairness, balance, and so on. I've found that most folks on the political extremes, left or right, have that problem. Because they rely on seriously biased sources for their information, they assume that ALL media are equally committed to propaganda."
Every media person has a bias point of view. There is no such thing as perfect journalism, as the likes of Sun/Fox/CBC/CTV/CNN...can attest. The likes of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism are producing biased and left wing journalists by the pail load. But not if you are from the left, they suddenly become balanced and fair and "right".
Here is a test for you Balb:
Which of these words would you be most likely to choose in your day to day conversations as your frame of reference?
Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion
Anti-choice or Pro-Life
Climate change denier or AWG
Christian or Atheist
Fundamentalist or Realist
Progressive or Regressive
These are just a few of the terms which define the subject matter in almost every news publication in the world, depending on which end of the spectrum you are on. Your alignment and use of words from your point of view say a lot about who you are and what you believe. The words we use define us and shape the view others form about us.
Look forward to your response!
"Vox Day is indeed a WND columnist."
Life is short, I'm getting older, and there are a lot of sources out there. I don't generally pay much attention to Truthers, Birthers, anti-vaccine fanatics, folks who claim Elvis is alive, or WND columnists. I like to start my research at a certain level at credibility, thanks.
"Your condescending attitude to my critical thinking is laughable."
Excellent. I'm glad my writing amuses you.
"This is how journalism is supposed to work. On the basis of two or three witnesses."
Uh, no. Journalism "works" with verified sources, quoted, vetted and fact checked. Not with an individual's assertion that anonymous folks told him: and not with the fundamental flaw in reasoning called "appeal to authority". I'm guessing you haven't spent a LOT of time in newsrooms?
"So, for you to pretend like you are so smart with your deductive and analytical prowess, I would suggest that you set a goal of learning a couple of things in 2012 and sharpen up your skills before you preach to the choir."
Thanks, I have set the goal of learning a couple of things for 2012: I will be learning to teach mixed gas courses to technical divers, completing my training as a sommelier, and starting research for a book on the Kivalliq famine.
"Every media person has a bias point of view."
More correctly, every human being has a point of view which incorporates elements of bias. The more intelligent ones learn to recognize their biases as prejudice, examine them, and try to achieve a more objective perspective.
"There is no such thing as perfect journalism as the likes of Sun/Fox/CBC/CTV/CNN...can attest."
Quite right, as there is no such thing as perfect political practice, priesthood, novel-writing, consultancy, or any other area of human endeavour. There are only ideals that individuals and organizations strive for and achieve, or fail to achieve, in differing measures. It's not an absolute: it's a continuum.
"The likes of Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism are producing biased and left wing journalists by the pail load. But not if you are from the left, they suddenly become balanced and fair and "right"."
Yes, folks on the extreme right tend to see most media as "left wing", and folks on the extreme left tend to see most media as "right wing" - obviously.
And from the observer's own perspective, that is, of course, accurate. Just don't mistake it for any kind of objective reality.
"Here is a test for you Balb...Look forward to your response!"
Absolutely: I will respond. But how 'bout you respond to mine first? (or acknowledge you can't spot the weasel-wording)?
You're a little slow, there, dude (tough assignment?), so I'll take your question in good faith, and I will trust you to respond to mine. Okay?
"Which of these words would you be most likely to choose in your day to day conversations as your frame of reference?
Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion
Anti-choice or Pro-Life
Climate change denier or AWG
Christian or Atheist
Fundamentalist or Realist
Progressive or Regressive"
Well, let's clarify. You're asking me which terms I would use in my "day to day conversation". That's not quite the same as the terms I would use if I were writing a news release or an on-air voice over, where I would examine my script carefully for signs of my own bias. So if you're seeking to demonstrate that humans bring prejudice to their perceptions - well, uh, yeah, as I noted in my comments above. My point is that professionals strive to identify and understand their biases, and eliminate them to the extent possible from their narrative.
So back to your list:
1) "Pro-Choice or Anti-Abortion": Well, I would use the term "pro-choice" in describing someone who supports a woman's right to decide on accessing such services: and I would use the term "anti-abortion" to describe someone who categorically denied that right to women. You do understand that the two terms you provided don't mean the same thing, I hope?
2) "Anti-choice or Pro-Life":
I would use the term "Pro-Life", for two reasons: it's the way that group describes itself, and strictly from a writer's point of view, the two terms "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" provide a nice linguistic symmetry.
3) "Climate change denier or AWG":
Again, you're asking me to choose between two terms that are NOT synonyms of each other. That's why editors are important, Glacierman ;) AWG defines a hypothesis (i.e., that human activity is resulting in a portion of the current global warming trend. "Climate Change Denier" is a somewhat clumsy phrase describing someone who denies that hypothesis.) The terms are not parallel; which term I used would depend on whether I was describing the hypothesis or a respondent to the hypothesis.
4) "Christian or Atheist":
Err...well, again, those terms describe completely different belief systems. I would use the term "Christian" to describe someone who accepts the divinity of Christ and follows his teachings: I would use the term "atheist" to describe someone who doesn't believe in the existence of a supreme being. The two words you provided are not in the least interchangeable - I'm afraid your question makes no sense. Sorry.
5) "Fundamentalist or Realist"
Sorry, but you're doing it again. I don't even know what you mean by those two terms in this context. I would describe as a "fundamentalist" a Christian, Jew or Muslim who held to the literal truth of their scripture and rejected more recent findings from physics, biology, astronomy, cosmology, archaeology, paleontology and so on that appear to contradict their holy books. I would describe as a "realist" someone who weights and draws conclusions on the basis of evidence.
6) "Progressive or Regressive"
Well, I guess that depends on what behaviour I was describing. Since the Conservative Party described itself as Progressive for many decades, I'm sure you can appreciate my dilemma with your odd choice of terminology here.
So, Glacierman? Still waiting for your response to my little challenge...
Sorry Balb,
Been busy working. Not trying to ignore, just got lots on the plate.
I have been over you challenge and your a) statement doesn't ask or say anything. What are you asking for?
As for the weasel-wording, you are asking about somebody's motivation. How the heck can I or anybody else make a quantified or qualified statement without actually talking with that person? Wording is wonderful to play with, but that is just playing.
I have much better things to do than try and play mind-reading word games, Balb.
Let's just enjoy the fireworks and hilarity from this side of the fence, shall we?
Go Ron Paul! Lead the Nation back to being the Great and Grand UNITED States Of America!!
LOL. That sure is a lot of reasons for refusing the challenge, Glacierman - you're boo busy, plus I didn't "ask or say anything", plus you couldn't possibly respond to the question you say I didn't ask anyway.
Well, let me help you out here.
Just to recap:
- You claimed Michelle Bachman was "caught lying".
- Your "evidence" is a blogger/WND "reporter" writer who cites anonymous informants and claims to understand Ms. Bachman because he knows quite a few people from Minnesota and had heard bad things about her. (You do realize that citing this a "proof" is ridiculous, don't you?)
I asked you (fairly clearly, I thought) to spot the weasel wording in the statement by Wes Enos. Here is the statement cited.
"“I won’t say much about the situation or the conflicting statements beyond this; I can say unequivocally that Kent Sorenson’s decision was, in no way financially motivated. His decision had more to do with the fact that the Ron Paul supporters have been something of a family to him since he was first elected in 2008 and here in the end, as it becomes more and more apparent that the caucus cycle is coming to an end, Kent believed that he needed to be with them as they stand on the cusp of a potential caucus upset. While I personally disagree with Kent’s decision, and plan to stay with Michele Bachmann because I truly believe in her, I cannot, in good conscious watch a good man like Kent Sorenson be attacked as a ‘sell-out’ ….That is simply not the case, and it was not the basis of his decision,” said Mr. Enos."
Let me help you out here, Glacierman. A journalist would read this statement, smile, and ask the following questions:
- Mr. Enos, you state that Mr. Sorenson's decision was not financially motivated. That, of course, doesn't mean that no financial incentive was offered: you're simply saying that wasn't the reason Mr. Sorenson jumped ship. Can you tell us whether any financial incentive was offered?
- What is the source of your insider knowledge of Mr. Sorenson's motivation?
- Are you aware of the full details of the employment situation offered by Mr. Paul's campaign? (Salary, benefits, level of position, promises of future positions?)
Get the point, Glacierman? If I were a key campaign staffer jumping from a sinking ship to a stronger one, I wouldn't admit financial incentive either - I'd drape myself in noble colours and sing the praises of my new boss, while trying to diss the old one TOO much - which is exactly what Sorenson is doing.
I have no idea what his real motive, and neither do you. I do know that claiming Bachmann has been caught "lying" on the basis of the evidence you present is just silly.
"How the heck can I or anybody else make a quantified or qualified statement without actually talking with that person?"
Well, you seemed ready to conclude that Ms. Bachmann was lying.
Post a Comment