Saturday, January 21, 2012

Freedom of the Press.........Revisited

So, I found something interesting in the Freedom of the Press debate. It was argued that the Conservative media is bias. Too the point, that the Liberal media is not. It was also stated that blogs are considered Press.

Under those circumstances, I have an interesting note. TGP recently published a post about Robert E. Lee. There was some backlash. Most notably from Mud_Rake.

Speaking of warmongering…
On one of the right-wing posse’s blog this AM is a ‘Happy Birthday’ to Robert E. Lee. I’m waiting for the Confederate Flag to be honored next.
Yet, speaking of warmongering, the blog host, referring to Lee said this:
Had he followed up his early victories with an immediate invasion of the North, we might not have to tolerate such atrocities as federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws.
Gulp!
Well, folks, there you go. Adolescent mind, man’s body
So, this is a comment from one of his Posts. Here is another comment..........
Hello Muddy,
“Had he followed up his early victories with an immediate invasion of the North, we might not have to tolerate such atrocities as federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws.” (WTF!!!)
Robert E. Lee did follow up with an immediate invasion into the North with mass forces secured by his early victories…. It was called “The Battle of Gettysburg!!” (No wonder I see you taking this site towards an Educational trend. There is obviously a need!)
Now the befuddling question is how does one’s mind link Robert E. Lee to not having federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws….as if this is a bad thing? Is it because of “State’s Rights” over riding “Federal Government Laws” if the Confederacy had held out and secured a victory? Here is a perfect example of the “Simple Minds” reference that was the topic in my latest posting on my site. And They Allow These People To Vote!
Consevative media outlets are bias? This is awesome, a perfect example. Here is  TGP's original post
On January 19th, 1807, Robert E. Lee entered the world, the son of General "Lighthorse Harry" Lee, one of George Washington's greatest assets.  He was raised as a Southern gentleman, and entered West Point in 1825.

Because of the history lessons of our liberal school teachers, most Americans misunderstand Robert E. Lee.  Most Americans don't realize how great a man he was.  Another thing most Americans don't realize is that Lee did not want to make war on the United States.  Had his own home state of Virginia not seceded, Lee would have been the only General that Abraham Lincoln needed to finish off the Civil War.  But because Lee could not fire on his fellow Virginians, Lincoln would go through seven Generals before finding a man who could whip Lee in his weakened state.

Some of Lee's tactics are still used today.  He was a brilliant tactician, but for his hesitance to attack the North. Had he followed up his early victories with an immediate invasion of the North, we might not have to tolerate such atrocities as federally mandated speed limits or seat belt laws.  But Lee only wanted the Northern Aggressors to leave his poor Virginia alone.
Here is how I interpret it.  TGP writes a piece on how Robert E. Lee was a great soldier, and leader. He was a man who chose State over country. Which is something that Liberal bloggers do on a daily basis, as long as it fits into their retoric.
A liberal Blog-Host posts a comment, that is not entirely true, choosing specific "PARTS". Readers buy wholeheartidly into it. How's that for bias?

32 comments:

  1. Johnny,

    In my own defense, I would point to the fact that Mud is an idiot.

    To the unknown poster of the comment, what is wrong with federally mandated speed limits and seat belt laws? They don't work, and they give the government an unauthorized "tax base" in violations. Seat belts don't save lives, no matter what you have heard. Speed limits don't save lives. Not wrecking your vehicle saves lives, so the leftie logic should be to get rid of vehicles. But, alas, they can't pass that "in the peoples own best interest" so they just chip at us with unconstitutional laws "with good intentions."

    Robert E. Lee and his cohorts were opposed to this, which was the main cause of the Civil War, not slavery, as the history books attest. Before Mud and his whacko posse jump me, yes, slavery was a part of it, but it was states rights that drove the south to secession.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tenth,
    Correct you are on all points but that doesn't fit into the left's narrative.

    The South lost the war and the every state lost state's rights. That battle has been waging ever since.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "A liberal Blog-Host posts a comment, that is not entirely true, choosing specific "PARTS". Readers buy wholeheartidly into it. How's that for bias?"

    I know of a lefty blogger who reads "Promote the general welfare" in the preamble to mean that the government's job is to PROVIDE welfare...even though the term "welfare" as we know it today did not mean a government handout until about 1965.
    Prior to that, "welfare" meant "well being".
    The preamble's intent of promoting the general welfare meant that the government should not hinder the people's well being.

    Only a liberal would read the word welfare and insist that the founders meant that the new government being created was responsible for housing, feeding and, clothing everyone who didn't feel like working.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Rewriting history and facts? So the North winning the Civil War is a bad thing? Hmmmm......I thought sure the 11 Southern States in the Confederate were allowed to vote in the Federal Government. Hell, I even heard that some of the Presidents since the war were from Southern States.

    (By the way, Snoop Dogg has multiple felony convictions. Check it out yourself.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. What the hell is this idiot talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Johnny,

    History is not normally a liberal's (Progressive, Democrat, Socialist, whatever) strong suit.

    Yes Bobby Lee did invade the North in 1863 and that invasion was turned back at Gettysburg. He also invaded in 1862 and was turned back at Sharpsburg, MD. If those liberals in the echo chamber really want to put a fine point on it, Confederate soldiers invaded Vermont from Canada

    The overall effects of the War of Northern Aggression were mixed to be sure.

    By crushing the South's bid for independence the effect in actual terms was to manifestly strengthen the Federal government. We have all suffered as a result.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Question - if indeed the South left the union, then why doesn't history record events in the context of a war between two sovereign nations? No, I'm not nuts ... just asking a question.

    Having moved here from Iowa and having had to almost re-learn some history that I was taught, I now like to pose Qs such as the above. Remember, I am always learning.

    ReplyDelete
  8. TGP- No need to defend yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  9. H/Nox- You bring up a valid arguement.

    Sepp- Funny, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mrs. AL,

    That is an interesting question.

    From a Southern point of view it was a war for independence. In the letter Virginia sent to ratify the Constitution they made it plain that Virginia could withdraw from the Union if and when they desired.

    A "civil war" would at least imply in my mind that there were two or more factions fighting for control of one government or nation. That was not the case in our "Civil War."

    I guess the answer might lie in who wrote the history rather than what actually happened.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anon- Thanks for your input. The debate is whether or not the North's victory circumvented state's rights.

    As far as Snoop Dogg. Who cares? Just a joke. Most people here see it, read it, and then laugh. You actually looked it up? Good for you, but next time, try letting some laughter into your life.

    ReplyDelete
  12. TGP- I would assume that our anonymous poster is our buddy Mud. Maybe he has to be anonymous, so he can hold true to his word of not coming back here. But if I'm right, give him credit. He's finally following instructions. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. MrsAl- I will be learning as well. I'm sorry to say that I'm not to educated on the Civil War. But, I will say that every time you here about the Civil War, you also heard about Lincoln freeing the slaves.

    Now of course this was a bi-product of the North's victory, but it may very well overshadow a bigger picture. That being, State's rights. I would have to do alot more research on this subject. But I totally understand what TGP, H-Nox, and CS are saying.

    ReplyDelete
  14. CS- Very good point. If the South just wanted to be their own "Fderal Government", why did the North pursue aggression?

    ReplyDelete
  15. OK, now that you're here. You made mention of certain persons being upset as being referred to as "LIV's". Your resident "history" blowhard has even chimed in.

    The post was regarding States' Rights vs. Federal regulation. And this is not the first time this has happened on these blogs*.

    SPEED LIMITS AND SEAT BELT USE ARE REGULATED BY THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

    I realize that many of your posters have lead very sheltered lives, but hey, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

    * Remember the recent fiasco when a certain blogger posted a clip about the West Coast newscast being different than the East Coast newscast? And there is evidence of this type almost everyday on at least one of these blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anonymous/Alpahabet/NWON/Jeff/Gio,

    From Wikipedia on Speed Limits:

    "In response to the 1973 oil crisis, Congress enacted the National Maximum Speed Law that created the universal 55 miles per hour (89 km/h) speed limit. The 55 mph speed limit only reduced gasoline consumption by 0.5% to 1%. Its impact on safety is unclear; studies and opinions of safety advocates are mixed.

    The law was widely disregarded by motorists, even after the national maximum was increased to 65 miles per hour (105 km/h) on certain roads in 1987 and 1988. In 1995, the law was repealed, returning the choice of speed limit to each state."

    From Wikipedia on Seat Belt use:

    "Most seat belt legislation in the United States is left to the states. However, the first seat belt law was a federal law which took effect on January 1, 1968 that required all vehicles (except buses) to be fitted with seat belts in all designated seating positions. This law has since been modified to require three-point seat belts in outboard seating positions, and finally three-point seat belts in all seating positions."

    You sir should take a couple of minutes to research things before you blast off clearly misleading, accusatory, and ridiculous statements.

    I would point out that given your track record of calling people with whom you find minor errors "liars" were our roles reversed and you were fact checking me - you would be calling the person that made this assertion a liar:

    "SPEED LIMITS AND SEAT BELT USE ARE REGULATED BY THE STATES, NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!"

    I don't consider you a "liar" (even though in your world you would) rather you are uninformed and politically ludicrous.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, I think you're a liar, and stupid.

    Speed limits are regulated by the states. But the Federal government threatens to withhold federal funds if states don't toe the line. Look at the national legal limit for DWI. Feds coerced the states to pass that law, using the threat of withholding highway funds. Voting age, drinking age, all things regulated by the states, but "encouraged" by the Feds.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You can state your outdated and/or false facts all you want. The speed limits and seatbelt regulations DO vary from state to state. Using your logic, the Federal Government must be using different rules for different states.

    Please stay on topic which was the Federal Government's making of driving laws. By the way, do you buckle your kids in? And I suppose the government is overstepping when enforcing drunk driving laws?

    And even blowhard scholars know Wikipedia is not a valid source.
    And what's up with all the name calling?

    ReplyDelete
  19. I thought the subject was bias.

    You will have to provide some facts if you expect me to believe that the seat belt laws vary by state.

    Funny how all you blowhards use wikipedia all the time, but frown on anyone else using it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous/Alpahabet/NWON/Jeff/Gio,

    Even your idol Mud_PILE uses Wikipedia liberally.

    I used Wikipedia on purpose because of its liberal (progressive, democrat, leftist whatever) slant. I thought you would like that.

    I also used it to prove a point - how easy it is to prove you wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon- TGP is 100% correct. These laws are passed by the State government. However, money will be withheld, if the state does not follow suggestions.

    Perfect example. On the first of this year, Illinois' new seatbelt law took effect. It requires rear passengers to wear seatbelts. This year, Illinois will receive Federal money for the I294-I57 project.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I NO LONGER give the liberal idiots a forum to air their BS. Why bother? They're idiots and they always will be.

    I encourage all of my fellow bloggers to delete their crap.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The Feds have been plaing the same bullshit game with helmet laws for years...force the helmets or, lose funding.
    Seems like extortion to me.

    Michigan...with the shittiest stretch of I-75 in America refuses to amend it's helmet law in order to keep sucking up federal dollars regardless of the fact that most riders have been demanding the right to choose for themselves.

    If your state is strapped for cash, the feds holding the purse strings can coerce your state into restricting whatever they want to.

    They do it with helmet laws, speed limits, drug laws, liquor laws and on and on.

    Another case of the alphabet nimrod not wanting to believe something...and declaring it untrue.

    We have freedom to travel too but, it can be restricted if the government makes it unpleaseant enough for the traveler via invasive searches, roadside checkpoints, forcing you to divulge your private itinerary to scrutiny, adding you to a database, etc.

    Coercion has become the government's tool of choice for everything now.

    Enact "our" seatbelt law or, we'll cut off funding for your bridge repairs!
    Enact our marijuana law or, we'll cut off equipment funding for your police!
    Tell our poorly trained security guy not to touch your junk and we'll force you to miss the flight you paid for!

    Oh yeah...and we've been collecting data from your facebook page illegally for 9 months, have copies of all your pictures and know who all your friends are...have a nice day!

    ReplyDelete
  24. http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservative-beliefs-linked-prejudice-180403506.html

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Oh yeah...and we've been collecting data from your facebook page illegally for 9 months, have copies of all your pictures and know who all your friends are...have a nice day!"


    Why, yes, we have. You deleted all your past posts, but thank "God" we've already copied them for prosperity. You are the perfect example of an Anti-American strumming up support with lies, but now that you've been exposed, you're running back into your cave.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous/Alpahabet/NWON/Jeff/Gio,

    You are one sick puppy.

    Seriously, you should be under the care of a psychiatrist.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sepp- It basically is extortion, and Obama did it on national T.V. he said that if college tuition is not made affordable, then Federal money would be withheld from those school. I understand the point of the Fed trying to control the "States" by using extortion tactics. However, states do it too. You don't need to look any further than my state.

    Illinois passed a bill a couple years ago that would allow slot machines in bars and OTB (off track betting) establishments. So, municipalities started passing laws making slot machines illegal. In return, the State told these Municipalities that they would no longer receive state money, unless they repealed the laws.

    In closing, the States are just as guilty of this practice as the Fed.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous,

    If I was your daddy, you would have turned out better, maybe even worth a shit.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anon-
    1- I read the link you left. I only found one set of numbers.
    "In another study, this one in the United States, Hodson and Busseri compared 254 people with the same amount of education but different levels of ability in abstract reasoning."
    254 people? out of 300,000,000. I read the article twice. I really think it's horseshit. I could do a post about it if you would like. But first, you need to let me know what your point is.
    2- What is your problem with Sepp? I don't believe he has ever posted wrong info purposely. But if you want to play these "I know who you are, and you can't hide" type games, you may not like how it ends. So chill Dawg.
    3- I have one rule on my blog, just ONE. Leave families out of it. Say whatever you want about TGP. You will not be moderated for that, but you will not come here and make presumptions about his parenting abilities, or his childrens' thoughts of the same. Your comment is deleted, and I will ask you 1 time. Please do not do that again.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Johnny, the "report" that the Alpha-bat referred to is a laughable waste of tenure money. Alpha-bat's "point" is that a moonbat professor "proved" that everyone who isn't also a moonbat liberal are all just "dumb racists".
    I've also read a report which stated that people who exhibit odd mental health symptoms are usually nuts and, after reading some of the Alpha-bat's ramblings, I'd have to concur.

    The thinly veiled "I'm stalking you" crap, I could care less about. Certainly not the first time some moonbat tried to act tough through the safety cushion of coax cable. If the nut knows where I live and is determined to come visit me, so be it.

    I must have missed Alpha-bat's digs at TGP's kids but, it's not surprising since a few of the moonbats over at muddy's are known for saying vile shit about people's wives and kids...once again the safey of the internet allows them to spout off things that they'd never dare say in person.
    The internet doesent award a medal for bravery.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sepp- I found the report(?) to be just plain retarded, but whatever.

    His comment to TGP was along the lines of, I feel sorry for your kids. You can think whatever you want about the commenters here, or even myself. But do not come here and pretend to know what kind of Father/Mother a person is. I'm not diggin' that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Liberals consider everything and anyone who doesent blindly subscribe to their lunacy as either dumb, racist or, both so, it's no surprise that a moonbat wrote a paper to support his own beliefs.

    As far as I'm concerned, liberals have no business commenting on anyone's parenting abilities.
    When I read the story about the lesbians who waited 5 years to "reveal" the gender of their kid or, the other moonbats who wanted a girl, ended up with a boy and just decided to raise him as a girl or, the moonbats who raise kids "gender neutral" while the left cheers them on is as I see it, not only insane but, just plain sickening.
    At it's base, it's experimentation with a live human subject with no regard given to the far reaching mental issues that could follow later in life.

    I used to live down the street from two moonbats who had a kid and, were devastated to find out that their boy was down the street with the other kids playing with a...*gasp*...capgun!
    Yeah, God forbid their little boy would sneak away down the street behind their backs and act like...a little boy!

    Better get him to a doctor!

    ReplyDelete