A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Planned Parenthood Perversity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 6th 05, 06:36 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Planned Parenthood Perversity

Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction

The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms. On
the other, there's the question of if teens are
emotionally ready, and they certainly aren't
ready for the stigma of pregnancy. Or the
economic realities of having children. When
you're talking about girls who recently got their
period, they're most likely not physically ready
for pregnancy either.

Of course, part of the reason they might not be
emotionally ready is cultural, and I've met
people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s
or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14. But that still
leaves the harsh economic realities.

  #2  
Old June 8th 05, 10:08 PM
Gray Shockley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:12:56 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

wrote in
oups.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction


I LOL'ed when I read this; I said, "MIB prolly thinks I
go around tilting at this particular windmill given half
a chance--and to some extent, he's right." ;-)

The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.


The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media,



Faux News doesn't "lead" anybody. It's reenforcement for
the

Don't try to change my mind;
It's already been made up for me.

crowd.


doesn't see it as
a complicated issue at all. People who transgress the
line and who give a 13-yo boy a blowjob are simply worse
than murderers. Yeah, as absurd as that sounds, I've
heard quite literally it said that way.


When I was a teenager, I used to hitchhike a lot. I can
remember jumping from the cab of a semi going about 25mph
because the guy was fixin' to charge me for the ride.


Voltai "When we believe in absurdities, we will
commit actrocities".


Ooohhh, I love it! [stolen, {of course} after verification]

That pretty much sums up what's
happening today.

On
the other, there's the question of if teens are
emotionally ready, and they certainly aren't
ready for the stigma of pregnancy. Or the
economic realities of having children. When
you're talking about girls who recently got their
period, they're most likely not physically ready
for pregnancy either.



Hell, they're not ready for "french-kissing"!


Of course, part of the reason they might not be
emotionally ready is cultural,


Of course, it's "cultural"; but for us'n livin' in the US,
that's going to be the over-riding factor in
"relationships" - for good or for ill.

and I've met
people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s
or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14.


I sure wasn't. Just out of curiosity, were you raised -
more or less - in an urban environment?

But that still
leaves the harsh economic realities.


Oh, I agree, I agree with the last part. Raising kids
requires financial resources that 14-year olds won't have in
current society. However, preventing teenagers from having kids,
and preventing STDs, both very legitimate objectives,


agreed

is not
quite the same as preventing them from having orgasms


Durn right! I can't help think that my parents - given any
wish - would have gotten a second bathroom!


or having
sex


I just don't buy into "if you're old enough to , then
you're old enough to .

I really like the idea of letting children be children. A
child uncomfortable with his/her body is jus' liable to be
uncomfortable with her/his body when an adult.

In my opinion, when people try to "collapse" children's
"growing up", those people are responsible for children who
will never "grow up".

Dealing with a second person is a /tremendous/ jolt for a
child/child growing and one I prefer being put off until
the child feels somewhat comfortable ("somewhat" because
many [most?] people /never/ feel /totally/ comfortable
initiating a "relationship" or even responding to that
"initiation").


---not anymore than preventing unwanted pregnancies
and STDs
among adults requires them to forgo orgasms and sex. Nor are the
ages of the particular participants especially important in
achieving those objectives. I personally would tell any teenaged
girl to get an abortion, and aid her in being able to get one.


I, also, but I would suffer anguish at a child having a
child - aborted or not. [As a matter of fact, among "my"
group in college, there were a couple of times when the
"hat was passed" and no one - except the person holding the
hat - knew who was getting the abortion.

[A reminder to /everyone/: the legal choice of abortion or
not is /not/ the choice between abortion and no abortion
but between /legal/ abortion and /illegal/ abortion.]

My example above was in the middle 1960's and, obviously,
they were /illegal/ abortions not being performed by
doctors.

It's wrongheaded, I think, to conflate preganancy avoidance
and disease prevention with notions of chastity,


Agreed and I hate to see those combined.

though that's
exactly the card that the Religious Reich wants to seed played.


In all liklihood, my views are generally considered the
same as the wackie righties and the result is the same but
with the intention - if nothing else - of not wanting to
rush children into non-child relationships or even
child-child relationships that go too "fast".

I would be against "sex education" in school except for one
thing: it's the only "sex education" that most children
get. School has to do it because the parents (Shame on
Them) aren't doing it and the churches most /certainly/
aren't doing it.

Notice that (the last time I saw the figures, anyway) the
"Bible Belt" has the most teen (unmarried) pregnancies of
any area in the United States.

If these parents and these religionists continue to tie
"intimacy" to "sin", we're going to continue having unhappy
people and people who "tie" sexual arousal with
non-consensual and violent sex that has nothing whatsoever
to do with "making love".


Allow children their childhood.


Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.







Secret Squirrel



  #3  
Old June 8th 05, 10:32 PM
Gray Shockley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 16:08:58 -0500, Gray Shockley wrote


Hell, they're not ready for "french-kissing"!


Hm,m,m, should that be - instead of "french-kissing" -
"freedom kissing"?



Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is inevitable but suffering is optional.



  #4  
Old June 8th 05, 10:42 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Secret Squirrel wrote:
The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.


The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media, doesn't see it as
a complicated issue at all. People who transgress the
line and who give a 13-yo boy a blowjob are simply worse
than murderers. Yeah, as absurd as that sounds, I've
heard quite literally it said that way.

Voltai "When we believe in absurdities, we will
commit actrocities". That pretty much sums up what's
happening today.


People always want simplified issues. People don't
like to think. Wait . . . Worse than murder?

On
the other, there's the question of if teens are
emotionally ready, and they certainly aren't
ready for the stigma of pregnancy. Or the
economic realities of having children. When
you're talking about girls who recently got their
period, they're most likely not physically ready
for pregnancy either.

Of course, part of the reason they might not be
emotionally ready is cultural, and I've met
people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s
or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14. But that still
leaves the harsh economic realities.


Oh, I agree, I agree with the last part. Raising kids
requires financial resources that 14-year olds won't have in
current society. However, preventing teenagers from having kids,
and preventing STDs, both very legitimate objectives, is not
quite the same as preventing them from having orgasms or having
sex---not anymore than preventing unwanted pregnancies and STDs
among adults requires them to forgo orgasms and sex. Nor are the
ages of the particular participants especially important in
achieving those objectives. I personally would tell any teenaged
girl to get an abortion, and aid her in being able to get one.


Then we get into the ethics of abortion. That's why I
always use condoms, even if there IS still a 3% chance
she'll get pregnant in a typical year. (Which gets
worse because I'm not sure what "typical couple"
means.)

  #5  
Old June 8th 05, 11:15 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Gray Shockley wrote:
The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.


The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media,



Faux News doesn't "lead" anybody. It's reenforcement for
the

Don't try to change my mind;
It's already been made up for me.

crowd.


Unfortunately, while they're not the majority,
they're the ones who get the best press. Better
to be strong than right.

On
the other, there's the question of if teens are
emotionally ready, and they certainly aren't
ready for the stigma of pregnancy. Or the
economic realities of having children. When
you're talking about girls who recently got their
period, they're most likely not physically ready
for pregnancy either.



Hell, they're not ready for "french-kissing"!


Too true. A lot of reasons to be protective of a
daughter. I know that if I were to find out a
daughter of mine was pregnant at 14, I'd tell her
"Damn right there's a double standard!" Then I'd
get her boyfriend and make sure he never gets
another girl pregnant again.

and I've met
people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s
or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14.


I sure wasn't. Just out of curiosity, were you raised -
more or less - in an urban environment?


This is me talking, not Secret. Rural actually.
Pine Rdige.

  #6  
Old June 9th 05, 08:28 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Secret Squirrel wrote:
People always want simplified issues. People don't
like to think. Wait . . . Worse than murder?


Absolutely, I've heard that remark with my own ears, when
listening to people comment on a molestation case on TV or
in the papers (and not necessarily a horrific, or violent
one to boot). "The child would have been better off if they
had been murdered", or something to that effect. Not once,
but more than a few times.


More than a little goth with that one, init?

This could be simply a brain fart on their part, but I think
that--going back to my point about AOC laws and the notion
of childhood 'sexual innocence' in our society being largely
the result of Christianity (which would make AOC laws
unconstitutional, btw)--that if you really think that a boy is
better off dead than getting a blowjob, what does that really
say about the assumptions being made? I think that said
underlying assumption is that the murdered child would
still 'exist', in heaven, with Jesus. This underscores to
what extend this is a religious taboo of sorts being maintained
by the state. It also makes since that despite the hypocrisy
you've pointed out, the Religious Right plays the anti-pedo
card more frequently than anyone.


Too true. Of course, the anti-pedo card is rarely played
against actual pedophiles. More often than not, it's
played against homosexuals who prefer a partner roughly
the same age as themselves.

Of course, hysteria has to be maintained, IMHO, to keep
the current system in place, as any rational discussion
causes a 'WTF is going on?' reaction. That's why studies
like the Rind et. al one draw such immediate flak from the
Dr. Lauras. The hysteria is necessary to squelch opposition
and to *prevent* any rational examination of the emperor's
new clothes.


Or even studies which show that the pedophile isn't the
stereotype. I mean, Lewis Carroll was into little girls, but
a world where male virginity is more closely guarded than
female virginity is definitely through the looking-glass.

I guess I have less of a problem with abortion, as I really
do believe that the medical evidence says that a fetus, at
least early on, doesn't have brain activity and hence no
consciousness. And that's as good a definition of 'human
life' as we have, drawing a correspondence with those brain
dead but kept alive-by-machines not really being 'alive',
either.


The brain starts developing by the third week. It's most
rapid in the seventh month, though.

At least abortion actually IS a legitimate bioethical
issue, unlike (say) contraception or euthanasia.

But hell, if you get a woman pregnant, you probably
planned to anyway.

  #7  
Old June 10th 05, 08:29 AM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Secret Squirrel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Gray Shockley wrote in
.com:

A very quick reply, Gray. Don't have much time now.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:12:56 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

wrote in
oups.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction

I LOL'ed when I read this; I said, "MIB prolly thinks I
go around tilting at this particular windmill given half
a chance--and to some extent, he's right." ;-)

The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.

The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media,



Faux News doesn't "lead" anybody. It's reenforcement for
the

Don't try to change my mind;
It's already been made up for me.

crowd.


I think that Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda
arm of the Republican Party.

You *do* realize that Faux News has been sued by some of
its former reporters, who said that they were fired when
they refused to knowingly air false information---and that
Faux News won the case. But did you know what Faux News's
defense was? Not that the reporters were factually incorrect
at all, oh no! It was: "We have every right to lie to the
public".

I think that this very admission should be enough to have
the FCC pull the plug on them. The public owns the airwaves,
and it shouldn't be licensed out to a propaganda machine
that by its own admission deliberately has spread falsehoods.
Good news reporting, good public service, should cause people
to *question* their own beliefs, not reinforce them.

I can post the link to the story mentioned, but not today.


Do you have this much of a problem with 80% of the domestic media being
far-left, or is media bias only bad when it doesn't reflect your own
personal feelings?

doesn't see it as
a complicated issue at all. People who transgress the
line and who give a 13-yo boy a blowjob are simply worse
than murderers. Yeah, as absurd as that sounds, I've
heard quite literally it said that way.


When I was a teenager, I used to hitchhike a lot. I can
remember jumping from the cab of a semi going about 25mph
because the guy was fixin' to charge me for the ride.


I can well believe that.

Voltai "When we believe in absurdities, we will
commit actrocities".


Ooohhh, I love it! [stolen, {of course} after verification]


It's one of my favorites too. I think it applies here, we're
quite literally throwing perfectly decent and productive people
in jail who aren't tangibly harming (in the vast majority of
cases) anyone, for long lengths of time. I think that the
correspondence to the former witch hysteria fits, and for
similar reasons. I believe that there is a very evil social
agenda at the back of this new witch craze, just like there
was for the former one.

Of course, part of the reason they might not be
emotionally ready is cultural,


Of course, it's "cultural"; but for us'n livin' in the US,
that's going to be the over-riding factor in
"relationships" - for good or for ill.


Mostly for ill, but I acknowledge the point.

and I've met
people who weren't emotionally ready in their 20s
or 30s, whereas I was ready at 14.


I sure wasn't. Just out of curiosity, were you raised -
more or less - in an urban environment?


Me? A mix of both. One of my first encounters with
homosexuality was during a sleepover with some friends as
a preteen, and the friends were practicing *anal sex* together!
(They also volunteered this bit of misinformation: "don't let
anyone give you a blowjob, that'll mean that you were 'queer'").

I know one of those boys today: heterosexual, and married.

But that still
leaves the harsh economic realities.

Oh, I agree, I agree with the last part. Raising kids
requires financial resources that 14-year olds won't have
in current society. However, preventing teenagers from
having kids, and preventing STDs, both very legitimate
objectives,


agreed

is not
quite the same as preventing them from having orgasms


Durn right! I can't help think that my parents - given any
wish - would have gotten a second bathroom!


Hahaha! That was the place if you had to sleep with siblings!

or having
sex


I just don't buy into "if you're old enough to , then
you're old enough to .

I really like the idea of letting children be children. A
child uncomfortable with his/her body is jus' liable to be
uncomfortable with her/his body when an adult.

In my opinion, when people try to "collapse" children's
"growing up", those people are responsible for children who
will never "grow up".


To me, that's the whole point behind the new witch craze--
it's an attempt, by the Religious Right, to take over
*everyone's* child-raising. The Right has lost battle after
battle in the sexual revolution, but now has stumbled on
this 'magic bullet' of pedophilia in the battle. This allows
them to mandate to every boy and girl in America receive a
"sex is 'bad touching'" sex education. If you're a liberal
parent who believes that occasional sex play is harmless and
just part of growing up, you'd better watch out and hoe the
line. Because your child too might be hauled before juvenile
court as a 'sex offender' for a mere game of "doctor and
nurse" played with a younger boy or girl. (I can post a horror
story example of this, of an 11-year old boy in Colorado who's
a 'sex offender' for a mere game of 'doctor' with an 8 year
old girl, if you want).

And of course, if your kid gets a childhood of "sex is bad
touching"-mandated education drummed into him or her, what
type of adult will he or she be?

I have to give the Right credit, this was a brillant stroke
on their part to achieve their objectives. Sadly, too many
so-called 'progressives' fell for it, they somehow believe
that you can teach kids that 'sex is bad touching' then--
poof!--they'll grow up to be sexually mature, comfortable,
adults. They also seem to suffer under the illusion that
sex can be advertised as wonderful, fulfilling, beautiful on
the TeeVee for adults and then teens will meekly submit to
a "but not for YOU" answer.

I think that the Right's objectives, though evil, are
logically consistent.

Dealing with a second person is a /tremendous/ jolt for a
child/child growing and one I prefer being put off until
the child feels somewhat comfortable ("somewhat" because
many [most?] people /never/ feel /totally/ comfortable
initiating a "relationship" or even responding to that
"initiation").


I agree with much of this. I suspect that in adult-juvenile
cases in this society, that you would find the cases where
the youngster initiated the activity would have better
outcomes than where the opposite was true.

However, the fact is, that in this culture, we've made
sex into a huge friggin' "deal", blown it all out of
proportion to its tangible and material consequences. Why?
Because the Religious Right makes sex into a huge friggin'
deal. They largely write the laws, and so-called 'progressives'
meekly go along with them.

If sex was a much smaller 'deal' the comfort level would
be far greater. It's sad to say, but most people have to
try to *un*-learn the conditioning they get as kids to be
able to function sexually as adults.

---not anymore than preventing unwanted pregnancies
and STDs
among adults requires them to forgo orgasms and sex. Nor
are the ages of the particular participants especially
important in achieving those objectives. I personally
would tell any teenaged girl to get an abortion, and aid
her in being able to get one.


I, also, but I would suffer anguish at a child having a
child - aborted or not. [As a matter of fact, among "my"
group in college, there were a couple of times when the
"hat was passed" and no one - except the person holding the
hat - knew who was getting the abortion.

[A reminder to /everyone/: the legal choice of abortion or
not is /not/ the choice between abortion and no abortion
but between /legal/ abortion and /illegal/ abortion.]

My example above was in the middle 1960's and, obviously,
they were /illegal/ abortions not being performed by
doctors.

It's wrongheaded, I think, to conflate preganancy
avoidance and disease prevention with notions of chastity,


Agreed and I hate to see those combined.

though that's
exactly the card that the Religious Reich wants to seed
played.


In all liklihood, my views are generally considered the
same as the wackie righties and the result is the same but
with the intention - if nothing else - of not wanting to
rush children into non-child relationships or even
child-child relationships that go too "fast".

I would be against "sex education" in school except for one
thing: it's the only "sex education" that most children
get. School has to do it because the parents (Shame on
Them) aren't doing it and the churches most /certainly/
aren't doing it.


Because when sex is a huge 'deal', when it's 'bad touching',
then--well, what do you expect? Parents can't talk about sex
because they're not comfortable doing so, because it's a
'sinful', 'bad touching', etc.

But if sex is a small deal, of small importance--then why are
we throwing people in jail for 20 years for acts which are,
by themselves, materially harmless? Even if one thought that
they still in many cases might be illegal, the penalties are
waayy out of whack with the consequences of the 'crime'.

Notice that (the last time I saw the figures, anyway) the
"Bible Belt" has the most teen (unmarried) pregnancies of
any area in the United States.

If these parents and these religionists continue to tie
"intimacy" to "sin", we're going to continue having unhappy
people and people who "tie" sexual arousal with
non-consensual and violent sex that has nothing whatsoever
to do with "making love".


I believe that we have high rates of rape because we make sex
a huge deal. Getting laid is an obstacle course. And some men
get angry over this, wrongly turn their anger against women,
and rape is the result. We as a society pay a price for this.

Apologies for this poor response, I don't have time to post
anything more today. Your post deserved a better response;
thank you for your insights.

Secret Squirrel




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A

iQEVAwUBQqeGgT/rA6+b3AyhAQGClgf9Fw2gLaj8d2BeL8SORfIGsVb9QlIUGA95
2f/DkxqN612BjPm68L0PIbvbFhF9y0PCgj9Z1eTRhhVPVB3AkYqV9 BuTJDRtG6jy
x7Tci+dO+V573UkUBFGkI1I0Y/zYzP9KZn+43uMz5OcKn1vPiMWzq+xxWW+oGFMb
ZeNgSZ9jRF8wVzjUY9lpzTVCo05U22N0zO+y5R3sAxK7Dg1Mf3 edTCHnd5KkTAKb
BK1hraHUbSTNyWUpbCDQ4BfKrq41OHLfUPhYKBpFYfCQ+9PZHa Za29j3XJT4dw4W
AYUmDkpFgWdFepvYmbm7zwdj0EgHAZ+WaI1mQMlBfWeFxc+f6t m/2g==
=umb+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  #8  
Old June 10th 05, 08:37 AM
Gray Shockley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 02:29, anonymous poster wrote:

[chomp]

Do you have this much of a problem with 80% of the domestic media being
far-left, or is media bias only bad when it doesn't reflect your own
personal feelings?


I haven't looked in years; how many of the networks are
owned by defense contractors?


[chomp]


Gray Shockley
------------------------------------------------------
If there's two trillion dollars to
privatize Social Security, then there
is /no/ Social Security problem.





  #9  
Old June 10th 05, 03:07 PM
Cary Kittrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .com writes:


Secret Squirrel wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Gray Shockley wrote in
.com:

A very quick reply, Gray. Don't have much time now.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:12:56 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

wrote in
oups.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction

I LOL'ed when I read this; I said, "MIB prolly thinks I
go around tilting at this particular windmill given half
a chance--and to some extent, he's right." ;-)

The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.

The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media,


Faux News doesn't "lead" anybody. It's reenforcement for
the

Don't try to change my mind;
It's already been made up for me.

crowd.


I think that Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda
arm of the Republican Party.

You *do* realize that Faux News has been sued by some of
its former reporters, who said that they were fired when
they refused to knowingly air false information---and that
Faux News won the case. But did you know what Faux News's
defense was? Not that the reporters were factually incorrect
at all, oh no! It was: "We have every right to lie to the
public".

I think that this very admission should be enough to have
the FCC pull the plug on them. The public owns the airwaves,
and it shouldn't be licensed out to a propaganda machine
that by its own admission deliberately has spread falsehoods.
Good news reporting, good public service, should cause people
to *question* their own beliefs, not reinforce them.

I can post the link to the story mentioned, but not today.


Do you have this much of a problem with 80% of the domestic media being
far-left, or is media bias only bad when it doesn't reflect your own
personal feelings?


No way; I would most DEFINITELY have a problem with that. That
would be utterly unacceptable.

Which makes me grateful that nothing like it is the case.


-- cry


  #10  
Old June 10th 05, 03:49 PM
Cary Kittrell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Squirrel:

Gray Shockley wrote in
.com:

A very quick reply, Gray. Don't have much time now.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 13:12:56 -0500, Secret Squirrel wrote:

wrote in
oups.com:

Secret Squirrel wrote:
snippage of mass destruction

I LOL'ed when I read this; I said, "MIB prolly thinks I
go around tilting at this particular windmill given half
a chance--and to some extent, he's right." ;-)

The age of consent is probably one of the most
complicated sexual issues. On the one hand, teens
are physically capable of becoming parents, and
even small children are capable of orgasms.

The problem is, or course, is that the society at
large, led by the Fox-y News Media,



Faux News doesn't "lead" anybody. It's reenforcement for
the

Don't try to change my mind;
It's already been made up for me.

crowd.


I think that Faux News is nothing more than a propaganda
arm of the Republican Party.

You *do* realize that Faux News has been sued by some of
its former reporters, who said that they were fired when
they refused to knowingly air false information---and that
Faux News won the case. But did you know what Faux News's
defense was? Not that the reporters were factually incorrect
at all, oh no! It was: "We have every right to lie to the
public".

I think that this very admission should be enough to have
the FCC pull the plug on them. The public owns the airwaves,
and it shouldn't be licensed out to a propaganda machine
that by its own admission deliberately has spread falsehoods.
Good news reporting, good public service, should cause people
to *question* their own beliefs, not reinforce them.

I can post the link to the story mentioned, but not today.



I would be most interested in that, if you can get around to
it. Thanks.


-- cary

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
caesarean ops 'no help for blues' Anna Pregnancy 8 April 19th 05 12:33 AM
Sad story Plissken Pregnancy 181 July 20th 04 12:14 AM
Question about planned c-section Ollie Pregnancy 37 October 13th 03 02:48 AM
Midwives & Home birth vs. an OB & hospital ? LSU Grad of '89 Pregnancy 54 October 12th 03 09:26 PM
Question about planned c-section phill Pregnancy 0 October 7th 03 03:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2017 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.