Spineless Newspapers

[jinjuku]

Understand that Dave has capitulated: the editor has a right to decide what gets printed and what does not in his paper. And the editor's motivations are generally going to be economic and socio-political based.

I understand that. I even posted directly to his comment about editorial over site. My point being is that as a 'Free' people, we have to be ever vigilant. It does concern me that as the years go on and power of the media consolidates into just a few hands.

It concerns me that an article that is of great public benefit may be 'over sited' to the extent of not being published by just a few individuals due to $$. I would hope it would concern you also... Yes the government has very much helped to enable this.

 

[Johnd]

I understand that. I even posted directly to his comment about editorial over site. My point being is that as a 'Free' people, we have to be ever vigilant. It does concern me that as the years go on and power of the media consolidates into just a few hands.

It concerns me that an article that is of great public benefit may be 'over sited' to the extent of not being published by just a few individuals due to $$. I would hope it would concern you also... Yes the government has very much helped to enable this.

It does not concern me greatly that one little comic is not printed in a couple of papers. It can still be had in a plethora of places if someone wants to read it.

But you make it sound like "censorship", more accurately "editorial discretion" is a rare thing.

Wake up and smell the coffee jinjuku. Betty Crocker will not print nudey pictures any more than the National Review will be endorsing Obama.

 

[jinjuku]

I really don't understand that comment. No entity can have personal rights. Are you referring to the tax code? Because in that respect corporations have more "rights", actually, a more forgiving, lenient structure than individuals. This is most evident in the 15% vs. 18% start rate (corp. vs. personal).

Link
......

 

[Johnd]

Link
......

That's your source? Of credible information? You are kidding, right?

I got as far as "corporations are persons in law." This nitwit apparently received his Juris Doctorate degree from where? The North Pole?

 

[Tomorrow]

We cannot know who is right or who is wrong, John. This is all speculative.

Understand that Dave has capitulated:
That is the simple message that I"ve been relaying. All this other "stuff" is just poppycock.

We got your point, alright. (Your bold highlighting.)

 

[Johnd]

We cannot know who is right or who is wrong, John. This is all speculative.

I wholly disagree. I, if you have not noticed, do not see the world in so many convenient shades of grey. That is the lazy man's excuse (no personal reference to you) to refrain from thought, deliberation, argumentation, and hopefully...more thought.

As you too have capitulated, I will not belabor the point. At least not with you. But understand...I win!

 

[jinjuku]

That's your source? Of credible information? You are kidding, right?

I got as far as "corporations are persons in law." This nitwit apparently received his Juris Doctorate degree from where? The North Pole?

What do you want me to say? There are TONS of resources out there that speak to the fact the corporations have the rights of citizens. One usually doesn't have to prove something that is commonly understood and known to be fact. You should watch the Walmart documentary.

Actually Mr. Behan is quite credible. Maybe you should do a little research before making accusations that he is a 'nitwit'. It helps prevent 'foot in mouth' disease.

 

[Johnd]

What do you want me to say? There are TONS of resources out there that speak to the fact the corporations have the rights of citizens. One usually doesn't have to prove something that is commonly understood and known to be fact. You should watch the Walmart documentary.

Yes. But this is simply an op-ed page. Realize it as such.

Actually Mr. Behan is quite credible. Maybe you should do a little research before making accusations that he is a 'nitwit'. It helps prevent 'foot in mouth' disease.

He may be...and maybe I ought to. But I can see a nitwit from a mile away when he starts writing of the law. In was in that vein that my reference was used. He's entitled to his opinion...but he's dead wrong on a corporation having the legal status of a person. He should stick to things he knows.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I'm ok with religion (whatever denomination) as a personal belief but when it becomes dogma and pits man against man, we can do without it.

Agreed. Religious types are entirely wecome to believe as they wish, but I do not accept those beliefs being imposed on others, especially by being turned into law. It is bad enough when religion-based laws violate individual rights (as is the case with laws banning abortion or gay marriage), but even worse when they interfere with science that could benefit everyone (eg banning stem-cell research) or actively cause harm (as do laws preventing easy access to bith control in a severely overpopulated world.)

 

[jinjuku]

He may be...and maybe I ought to. But I can see a nitwit from a mile away when he starts writing of the law. In was in that vein that my reference was used. He's entitled to his opinion...but he's dead wrong on a corporation having the legal status of a person. He should stick to things he knows.

I never said it wasn't an op-ed piece. Could you instead of stating that corporations don't have the legal status of person, post something to the contrary?

Again it is common knowledge that in 1886 that corporations were let off the leash and given the rights of the average citizen.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...laws preventing easy access to bith control in a severely overpopulated world.

Abstinence is the best contraceptive.

 

[Johnd]

I never said it wasn't an op-ed piece. Could you instead of stating that corporations don't have the legal status of person, post something to the contrary?

Again it is common knowledge that in 1886 that corporations were let off the leash and given the rights of the average citizen.

Well...the simple fact of the matter is that a corporation is an entity. It has the tax structure as such, and "it" cannot be criminally or civilly prosecuted as such. Unless a nitwit blurs the line, thereby allowing the "corporate veil" to be pierced. What's not to understand?

 

[Johnd]

Abstinence is the best contraceptive.

And the least fun Robbie!

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Abstinence is the best contraceptive.

Sure. Now get billions of people to voluntarily practice it.

 

[Johnd]

Sure. Now get billions of people to voluntarily practice it.

Well, some cultures turn to eunuchs!

 

[Buckle-meister]

Sure. Now get billions of people to voluntarily practice it.

I don't speak for the weak.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

I don't speak for the weak.

"Weakness" would apply to someone who chooses abstinence, but lacks the willpower to stick to that choice. Those who never chose abstinence in the first place are not being weak.
Also, many of those who have unprotected sex do so out of ignorance. Sadly, a lot of adults in the world still do not know what causes pregnancy (and this lack of basic knowledge is often the result of an educational system controlled by religion.)

 

[Buckle-meister]

Those who never chose abstinence in the first place are not being weak.

Those who cannot control their natural urges are weak. In principle, the problem of overpopulation is easily solved through absitinence. The 'solution' of birth control simply panders to human weakness.

Let's not dress it up.

...many of those who have unprotected sex do so out of ignorance. Sadly, a lot of adults in the world still do not know what causes pregnancy...

Please explain how a couple just happen to find themselves in a compromising position if both have no knowledge as to where their 'equipment' goes.

 

[Johnd]

Sadly, a lot of adults in the world still do not know what causes pregnancy (and this lack of basic knowledge is often the result of an educational system controlled by religion.)

Really? Do you blame teacher and priest for all your shortcomings? (no pun intended).

I always thought it the parents responsibility to teach these things. You really do not need a doctorate to understand that "the weenie goes in the bun."

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Please explain how a couple just happen to find themselves in a compromising position if both have no knowledge as to where their 'equipment' goes.

People instinctively know where their 'equipment' goes. That is part of those natural urges (which they know of no reason that they should try to control, and their parents don't know either.) What they often do not know is the cause and effect relationship between this behavior and pregnancy (or STDs for that matter.)