Amish Beard-Cutting Trial: Jury finds leader Samuel Mullet, Sr. guilty of hate crime - CBS NewsThe jury on Thursday found Samuel Mullet Sr. guilty of planning the attacks last fall in eastern Ohiohttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57512191-504083/amish-beard-cutting-trial-jury-finds-leader-samuel-mullet-sr-guilty-of-hate-crime/
Also by VicZinc+59It's kind of ironic that the guy convicted of committing hate crimes by cutting people's hair is named “Mullet.” Amirite?
Also about Politics-150There's a reason why a great percentage of Gen Z'ers are sexually confused, amirite?
Also by VicZinc+61Technically, you cannot do anything you do not want to do. Consciously (or unconsciously) you have to will your body to physically move. So on some level you have to want to, or your body would simply remain limp. Amirite?
Also by VicZinc-10You used to wonder if butterflies were just escaped flowers. Amirite?
Also about Politics-41Biden acting like a senile old fool is actually an act. Its an act, amirite?
As Historic Climate Bill Heads to Biden's Desk, Young Activists Demand MoreWASHINGTON — For the septuagenarian lawmakers who wrote the historic climate bill that Congress passed Friday, and the 79-year-old president who is about to sign it into law, the measure represents a “once-in-a-generation” victory. But younger Democrats and climate activists crave more. They look at the bill as a down payment, and they worry a complacent electorate will believe Washington has at last solved climate change — when in fact scientists warn it has only taken the first necessary stepshttps://www.yahoo.com/news/historic-climate-bill-heads-bidens-143520110.html
Also about Politics+116The historic climate change bill heading to Biden's desk, is great, but only a first step, and we need to cut co2 emissions further, amirite?
Thank you for the warning. This is like an old western movie except both sides are wearing the black hats. Can't find the good guys to root for.
1) The government did not censor Inforwars, corporations made a business decision that will ultimately effect their profits one-way or another.
2) The government has active actively called for censorship of mass media outlets but the constitution forbids it.
3) Alex Jones is (self admittedly) not a journalist, by his own lawyer’s words he “ is performance artist and his on air persona is an act”.
4) When Clinton opposed sanction on Russia the conservatives claimed: “That Hillary Clinton opposed sanctions against Russia because of speaking fees her husband received from a Russian bank, and that the Clinton campaign used undue influence to kill a Bloomberg story about the incident.” But when the current administration refuses to enforce those sanction that it itself put in place – that’s suddenly called diplomacy – despite mountains of evidence showing profitable deals between Russia and administration-insiders including Sessions, Tillerson, Flynn, Page, Stone, Manafort, Sater, Don Jr., Ivanka, and Kushner.
So I have to wonder then which "private companies" have freedoms and which don't. When a private bakery denies service to homosexuals, conservatives cit the 1st Amendment, freedom of religion, freedom of business, but when a corporation like Apple decides to remove Alex Jones from their podcast inventory, suddenly they cry foul. Should Apple have the same freedom that a small bakery has? Is Apple so "public" that their freedom needs to be curtailed a bit? Or is this simply a suggestion: Apple SHOULD do this, we're not saying they should be legally forced to do it?
Ultimately I would rather see media platforms be as free as possible. But I acknowledge that a company like Apple has a right to remove whatever content they want to.
And yes, I do find it ironic that anyone on the right would praise Putin, given how he silences and censors any opposition.
Interesting point. If the baker choose not to offer chocolate cake anymore, I would be fine with that. If Apple refused to sell iPhone to gays, I would protest in the street.
I think a company can choose what it sells but not who it sells to.
I think a private company should be able to do whatever they want. If some really rotten person wants to do business it is the business owner who can decide. No matter what they are. For example a stinky person wants to sit in there looking at cakes, the owner can kick him out. gay or straight.
Agreed. But if the stinky person wanted to buy a cake, I don't think the owner should be allowed to say no. That just leads to the "NO ___ ALLOWED" discrimination signs we had in the first half of last century.
"I have to wonder then which "private companies" have freedoms and which don't. "
Well, currently companies expressing far left views have freedom.
Conservative companies, not so much.
Ever hear of Microsoft?
I know, those are tiny companies, hardly make a ripple.
If democrats have their way, we'll get there.
Not at all. I'm saying that you're right = "far left ideology states that those companies either shouldn't exist or should be nationalized." And, that if democrats have their way, it will eventually happen. Apple wants to ride the wave until then.
You're preachin to the choir my friend!
Of course, even if things were to go that way, the filthy rich can survive a truly socialist environment - because they are filthy rich. It's the pawns like you and I that would actually suffer.
Chick fil a seems to be doing very well, and they are a conservative company. Same with Hobby Lobby.
Same as waffle house
Yeah - sometimes those left wing attacks have tendency to backfire on the left. They were fortunate to be large enough to weather the storm.
The bakers you guys attacked weren't so lucky. Just small family businesses forced into bankruptcy.
Feel proud about that Flanders?
Chick fil a succeeds because they have decent food and the restaurants are clean.
I actually supported the Bakers who refused to bake a gay cake. I believe business owners can choose who they will and won't do work for.
Chick fil a was a target of LGBT because the ownership believes in God. If they lost a dime for their religious beliefs, I think that is wrong.
There is redress of course. Everybody just has to accept beatings they get from groups like LGBT, BLM, media, etc. Sort of like it must have been for persecuted Christians back in the day. Or the Jews in Germany. No one gives a shit - like you, they don't care unless it's about them.
You really are an asshole bud, what makes you think I don't care about issues?
I think the LGBT and BLM have an agenda and they keep pushing it. I have no problem with gays marrying, but I also have no problem with people not wanting to associate with them.
BLM has a legitimate issue with cops shooting them, but the majority of blacks shot were running from the police. Yes, many cops are harder on blacks than on whites, but running from them isn't the answer.
Wow, that was pretty convincing!
My comment is from left over sizzling over a question you posted the other day - "Why do you care bout such and so - it doesn't affect you kind of thing.
I'll retract that, and apologize.
But your open 'mindedness' kinda smells like my issue about you not caring if it doesn't affect you directly. You don't care about LGBT and you don't care about people that don't like LGBT.
BLM has point that cops shoot black people. But common sense says don't run from police.
And yet you are OK about busting my chops for taking a stand! Not cool IMO
I have worked at my local police station and most of the older guys know me, but hey if any cop stops me I do what they want. The guys who run seem to get shot so why don't they just sit still and go to the jail to get it straightened out?
Bud you got that right - LGBT, BLM, Any group that only identifies itself with initials is sketchy in my opinion. Sick of hearing about them, as nobody would even know unless they flaunt it.
Which bakers are you referring to?
The ones that went out of business after the phony law suits.
I'm not aware of any who were forced into bankruptcy.
We will see. A calculated risk at best.
Well, having a president who consistently calls most any media that or who dare disagree with or criticize him the "enemy of the American people" ....THAT is disturbing. It is to me, anyway.
I understand that corporations have the right to not allow people like Alex Jones a forum...one who says things as fact with no basis aside from speculation and rumors of rumors. Not a great idea though...I don't think. Denying people a place to sound off in public, including the internet...just makes people angrier, and more likely to feel victimized.
This post is about irony.
Trump can say whatever he wants as long as congress keeps its hand off the Bill of Rights.
Some people will choose to ignore the blatant hypocrisy showed because it works on their favour, and then when it's someone of the other side doing it, they'll shit bricks and be all caring, righteous and honourable again.
No thanks. I am an Amiriter through-and-through.
The MSM is not always right...and its clear we need relationships with adversaries like Russia...lets remember Obama wanted just that and bent over backwards with russia
I find your attempted defense of the media disheartening.
Journalism was at one time an honored and respected profession. Journalists would dig deep for leads on stories important to them, find multiple corroborating sources, and report the news. They worked independently, their goal was to report truthfully and accurately to the public. They had what was called - ethics. [I wonder if they even offer courses on ethics in college anymore.]
I'm not sure when journalism went off the rails exactly. I think media has always had some measure of bias. Newspapers were known to have a left or right leaning bent on things. But it's so much worse these days. I mean it's one thing to endorse candidate A over candidate B but it's full on misrepresenting the facts, suppressing facts or just lying anymore. And, they all sing the same song - there is no independent press anymore. They all seem to get their marching orders from the same place - they even often use the exact same words to describe an event.
The press for what ever reason has chosen to left - way left, and a heading the charge against the right - and Donald Trump specifically. I suspect he's an important target because he fights back - hard! That's unlike any republican before him.
Trump is doing the country a great service in fighting the media. Yes, he's unconventional and sometimes even crude. So what? He's getting stuff done and making all the other politicians look like pikers. Politics will never be the same again.
What was the rest of of Vic's belly aching about? Oh yeah - being nice to Lil Kim and Putin.
Well, Trump is opening a door to communicate. Tossing in a grenade before waling in tends to stifle communication. So, good on him again. A lot better and potentially productive than secretly sending pallets of small bills to the biggest state sponsor of terror I think.
And in typical journalistic fashion, Vic has lumped the public conservative view of Infowars and assigned it to government. The fact is, government hasn't spoken about the censorship going on right now.
1. They do still offer courses in ethics. There's a specific course at my college called "media ethics," and we learned a little in the intro class as well. And then there's a whole leadership and ethics major. But who cares about ethics anyway when you live in a country like America (<< that was a half-sarcastic comment in case you didn't catch it).
2. Journalism has not gone off the rails. It is simply in an evolutionary stage. Also, social media is a good place for citizen journalism (so if you think there's something missing, do something about it), and there are also plenty of independent media sources to be found if you know where to look.
3 & 4. Donald Trump is not a target. If anything, he created the current media climate. He has been in the entertainment industry long enough to know how to manipulate the press. And his war on the press is ridiculous. Media and press is one of the five estates, but today, government seeks to control that which was created to check the government.
I enjoyed your thoughtful reply.
I'm glad they still offer ethics classes in college. It still seems to me that much of it is blown to the wind when journalists hit the streets.
I don't know what you mean by journalism being in an evolutionary stage. I mean I can't excuse journalists that just make shit up or leave important facts out of a story in order to fit the narrative they want. They should be writing novels if that's the kind of writing they want to do.
Trump RESPONDED to the media climate. He didn't create it. The media 'climate' has been anti republican for decades. The media was able to control most republicans, they just ran away with their tail between their legs.
Trump didn't run. He bit back - hard. And you're right, he does play the press pretty well. The media bias is wide open now, they make no pretense of being fair or honest.
The whole fight could end in a matter of hours if the media would simply re-visit their ethics - IMO.
You can say that about many professions. People in general don't care about ethics these days. There are plenty of journalists outside of mainstream journalism that care about ethics and law, though.
I mean that journalism is in transition. The role of media in society is being redefined, and the future of journalism is being questioned as many news sources are going digital instead of print. With more digital media sources, readers want their news immediate, which can cause inaccuracies and not being thorough enough on the part of the journalist. At the same time, it's becoming easier and easier to access news and information on the part of both the average citizen journalist and the professional journalist. So the question many ask, is there even a need for the profession when people can easily do the same work and call themselves a journalist?
Also, people pick and choose what media they want to consume. They read the ones that confirm their viewpoints and blatantly ignore the ones that don't, so are the journalists really to blame, or are the readers who are too lazy or too stuck in their own viewpoints to be open to other points of view? We live in a world today where everyone wants a voice, but not everybody is given a voice.
Of course, journalists that just make stuff up (and we learned about journalists that have won top awards off of fake or fabricated stories) aren't true journalists. Research is a large part of what we do, and it's also important to feature both sides of the argument. But I wouldn't describe "making stuff up" as the majority of journalists.
I say Trump created it because he knew what he wanted to get out of the media. He knew what type of response he wanted to receive. What is the media supposed to do? If what he says and does is not reported on, then the media is criticized for not doing their jobs. If they report on what he says and does, then they're criticized for telling "fake news" when there's clearly a tape with Trump saying that exact phrase. So either way it goes, the media is blamed for everything. I have seen just as many "conservative media" as "liberal media." It's on both sides of the spectrum. There might be anti-Republican media, but there are also anti-Democratic media. Me, I'm neither Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative so I don't really care about those spectrums.
And I agree, Trump is a fighter, but his war on the media is stupid. To ban someone from doing their job is not democracy.
Ethics should work on both sides of the spectrum, and neither side employs ethics. But like I said, if you really want to, if you're really interested in unbiased media, there are sources out there that try to remain as impartial as possible. Here's a chart for your convenience. In general though, people are biased, and they flock to the media that agrees with their biases.
What causes inaccuracies is sloppy reporting BlindMist.
There is no excuse for reporting things without credible sources that have been corroborated at least by two other sources. The WHOLE Trump collusion thing is built on Undisclosed Sources, People Close To The Situation, Anonymous Sources, etc. And key 'evidence' literally made up - like a novel and paid for by the opposition. That's not evolution, tight schedules or inaccuracy - it's lying.
Journalism has a sacred trust to be like you said - a watchdog on behalf of the people. They have way crossed the line when they make up the news to the benefit of one side or the other.
You are disingenuous in your complaint about Trump and the media. If the media reports made up news or news lacking important facts which they have - then the press ought to knock it off! Just as when thieves are caught stealing, the fix is NOT to keep on stealing - you follow the straight and narrow.
That's a fun little chart. It does not include Comedy Central where sadly many get their news. Neither does it include other major news outlets like NBC, CBS, ABC, and interestingly, the ones touted as Great are the sources of most of the worst news stories of all!