1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

NY Times Op-Ed contributor Identifies the source of our problems: The Constitution

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Obamanation, Dec 31, 2012.

  1. #1
    I always get a kick out of reading the NY Times. The Grey Lady and her staff of erudite contributors have long been completely out of step with the American public, appearing to be an increasingly more radical left wing propaganda outfit, but this article takes the cake. Here Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor with Georgetown University, makes the case for doing away with the constitution.

    Thats right. The problem is the constitution. He carries on with his appeal to dictatorship:

    Apparently Mr. Seidman has forgot that the congressional representatives in the House were elected by the people for a term of two years. Apparently he has also forgot that after the turn of the year, the same party and the same people will still control the House.

    As I mentioned earlier, to read such idiotic drivel in the NY Times has become completely unsurprising, which is one of the many reasons Playboy Magazine has a wider readership, with harder hitting articles I dare say. What is much more concerning is that Georgetown is one of the top universities in the country and this idiot is a major contributor to the shaping of our nation's top minds. Like many professors, I can imagine Mr. Seidman runs his class like he recommends the country be run. Like an autocrat, issuing grades based not on performance but rather on perception of thought conformity.

    He is truly a good fit for the NY Times, which like the Huff Po, reviews every last one of the comments posted on it's articles and letters to the editor for thought conformity. Non conforming thoughts are tokenized, or omitted altogether. Mr. Seidman's article was so over the top, the NY Times decided to do away with the comments section altogether.

    Perhaps most troubling of all, an increasing number of uninformed Americans consume this crap and pay it credence based purely on the source, without ever considering the merit of what is being said.
     
    Obamanation, Dec 31, 2012 IP
  2. earlpearl

    earlpearl Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,584
    Likes Received:
    150
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    155
    #2
    You know they can't all be gems. Sometimes the op ed writers at the NYTimes are total Dingbats. Sometimes the writers make a prediction that is at least 100% wrong if not 200% wrong.

    Take the op-ed from this dingbat: At least 150% wrong if not 500% wrong: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0
     
    earlpearl, Dec 31, 2012 IP
  3. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #3
    That op-ed writer must have been some sort of oracle. Detroit went bankrupt.

    Its a pretty sad comparison to a constitutional law professor clamoring for the elimination of the constitution.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 1, 2013 IP
  4. Rukbat

    Rukbat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    125
    #4
    It really chaps your hide that reality has a decidedly liberal bent, huh?
     
    Rukbat, Jan 1, 2013 IP
  5. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #5
    Say what.....??
     
    grpaul, Jan 1, 2013 IP
  6. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #6
    Its amazing what one can call reality when all opposing voices have been silenced. The New York Times lives in a bubble, just like you.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 1, 2013 IP
  7. Rukbat

    Rukbat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    125
    #7
    The "bubble" known as "everywhere neocons aren't". Nice projection, BTW.
     
    Rukbat, Jan 2, 2013 IP
  8. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #8

    The bubble known as the silencing of dissenting opinion. In that spirit, I picture you as an avid MSNBC watcher, who considers every breaking story on Fox to be "non-news". It is a fairly common psychosis for lefties like yourself. One has only to look at the comment policies on every left wing rag, save the Daily Beast to understand the left doesn't want to hear opposing views. Huff Po, NY Times, TNR, you name it. If it is left, it's comments are heavily censored for the sake of preservation of the bubble.

    Your comment is a perfect example, though I am far from a NeoCon. You consider neocons to be opposing thought, so you brag about their absence from your social circles. Good for you. I go WAY out of my way to make sure my social circle includes the hard left. Without their views, I would sound as clueless as you do.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 2, 2013 IP
  9. Rukbat

    Rukbat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    125
    #9
    Fox News considers Fox News to be "non-news". They fought very hard for the legal right to use the word "news" for a network that's strictly for entertainment (according to their attorneys).

    And, since the attorneys and executives at Fox News agree, it's evident that you think they're also suffering from the "psychosis" that their "news" shows are "non-news".

    Or you're just one of the many fools who've bought the Kool Aid that their shows are actually factual. Don't you recognize a Poe when it fights in court to be a Poe? Or does your warped world-view demand that you accept them as real news even though they claim that they aren't?
     
    Rukbat, Jan 2, 2013 IP
  10. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #10
    Source please.

    Setting aside for a moment your unsubstantiated claim that Fox considers itself to be non-news, one has only to look at the recent reporting on the Benghazi scandal and cover up to know Fox News lead the way on a bit of investigative journalism that would normally have been quarterbacked by someone from a mainstream newspaper, or perhaps one of the networks. If you had seen any White House press briefing in the last decade, you would have noticed a Fox journalist sitting at the front of the briefing room. Perhaps you caught one or two of the Presidential debates, hosted on Fox.

    Conversely, I'm sure you missed the manufactured propaganda scandal that caused Dan Rather to step down from his prestigious position with a major network. I'm sure you missed the Journ-o-list scandal showing collusion for talking points being discussed among other so-called "news" outlets.

    What you've done here is doubled down on the idea that news that doesn't fit your views is not news at all. You have once again demonstrated the bubble you've built for yourself to live in. Congratulations?
     
    Obamanation, Jan 2, 2013 IP
  11. Rukbat

    Rukbat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    125
    #11
    Akre and Wilson v. Fox. Florida appeals court February 14, 2003. You can look it up in Westlaw. Fox' attorneys argued (successfully after losing in a jury trial) that the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

    See above.

    The fact remains - you're one of the fools who believes that everything Fox presents as news is true. The California appeals court says that making their stories up is fine.
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2013
    Rukbat, Jan 2, 2013 IP
  12. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #12
    Amazing you couldn't find a link tot he case outside of Westlaw. The moonbats seem to have copies of the findings posted all over the place, which is most likely where you discovered it.

    http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

    Funny how you read the commentary about the findings while having completely failed to read the content of the judgement itself. Strange how the conclusion you arrived at is quite a bit different than the summary provided by the court. Funny also how your entire "fox is not news" mantra is born out of a case with a local Florida news station WTVT-TV, which happens to carry the Fox logo, having nearly nothing to do with what people know to be "Fox News", which is an identifying moniker for a cable news network, one that has nothing at all to do with what airs on WTVT-TV. Are you slow on the uptake, or do you just see a wrongful termination suit against Fox and think, "THOSE BASTARDS!!!". Perhaps both? I'm guessing you also missed the part where all of Wilson's claims were rejected by the lower court, with only one of Arke's claims being upheld based on her own belief she was a whistleblower, not on the actual merits of the claim. The story, in fact, never made it to air so its hard to claim WTVT-TV told lies.

    Here is a more likely scenario. The two "journalists" which were terminated by WTVT-TV were left wing activists looking at presenting an left wing ideological news bit that the editors rejected because of the liberal bias in the content they provided. They refused to remove the bias and lost their jobs. They got even more pissed in their righteous liberal rage and filed suit for wrongful termination. They lost in court. Months later, their reporting made air on WTVT-TV with Monsanto allowed to present their argument along side the claims made by the activist reporters.


    More evidence of the bubble you live in. Maybe if you got your news from multiple sources. You know, people other than moonbats.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 2, 2013 IP
  13. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #13
    Out of interest, why do americans talk about the constitution like it's some kind of infallible, divine text? Do you not think it all possible that some of the principles laid out in it could turn out to not be the best option?

    Personally i think it would be better to look at each case and rationally form a conclusion, not look at an ancient text and defend a position purely because it's supported by that text. "it's in the constitution" is no more a valid argument for a position than "it's in the bible" is.
     
    stOx, Jan 10, 2013 IP
  14. Bushranger

    Bushranger Notable Member

    Messages:
    2,841
    Likes Received:
    257
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    200
    #14
    I think the bible is important in law because that's where many laws sprang from. I guess it's the same with the constitution. It's used in argument so often because again, it sprouted most laws to begin with. ie: let's go back to the start of this... I'm not saying it's right or wrong, moreso pointing out reasons why they do get brought into debates, often.
     
    Bushranger, Jan 10, 2013 IP
  15. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #15

    No one is claiming that the constitution is infallible, after we have amended it 27 times. How many substantive changes have there been to the bible?

    Fell free to think of it as a bloody horrible document, simply better than anything that came prior to it. For one, it doesn't make provision for royalty whose power comes from God, as your government does. Much of the constitution was written with a mind to freedom from tyranny, freedom from a dictatorial rule, freedom from the Crown. I believe the catch phrase of the day was "No Taxation Without Representation".

    How ironic that this very thread is about a constitutional "scholar" calling for an end to this outdated and ancient parchment because he wants more taxes in spite of the opposition people's representation(The House of Representatives). He is basically calling for the exact tyranny our constitution and our government were created in opposition to. Maybe next he'll be clamoring to make Obama our King, or some other equally stupid and backward thinking idea.

    What I find stunning is how people think basic concepts, like the idea 1+1=2, become outdated, just because they were first written long ago. If 1+1=2 were written in the bible, it would be no less true.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 10, 2013 IP
  16. Rukbat

    Rukbat Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,908
    Likes Received:
    37
    Best Answers:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    125
    #16
    The fact that the Bible writers copied a law that had first been thought up over 1,000 years before the Bible was written doesn't make the law "spring from" the Bible. The Code of Hammurabi (from which we get many of our laws) is more than 1,000 years older than the Old Testament. The basis for those laws (they were too mature to have sprung from nothing) are probably as old as Uruk (ca 4400 BCE). The laws in the Bible are just restatements of much older laws.
     
    Rukbat, Jan 10, 2013 IP