A Place for Conservatives

[Gameface]

Too good not to post.

Nolte: Move to Hudson Yards Proves CNN Knows Global Warming’s a Hoax

Even CNN does not believe their own climate change catastrophe predictions...

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media...ards-proves-cnn-knows-global-warmings-a-hoax/

CNN does not make climate change predictions.

Once again you post things from people who don't understand what journalism is. Like they have no idea what it means to REPORT something vs ADMIT something. Or REPORT something vs PREDICT something.

We speak English here. You need to learn English.

 

[Ron Mexico]

CNN does not make climate change predictions.

Once again you post things from people who don't understand what journalism is. Like they have no idea what it means to REPORT something vs ADMIT something. Or REPORT something vs PREDICT something.

It is a little hard to take someone serious that doesnt understand how news works. It does give you some idea of where they come from though...

 

[Gameface]

It is a little hard to take someone serious that doesnt understand how news works. It does give you some idea of where they come from though...

I'm sorry you had to exclude the part of my post where I talk about speaking English. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that, as I intend to continue to say that to Trump supporters who rather astonishingly seem to not understand the only human language they can communicate in.

 

[Ron Mexico]

I'm sorry you had to exclude the part of my post where I talk about speaking English. I hope you understand what I mean when I say that, as I intend to continue to say that to Trump supporters who rather astonishingly seem to not understand the only human language they can communicate in.

I get what you are saying. It is kind of funny to see people who dont really understand some basic things about media or language. I dont think people need to speak English to live here though, which is why I cut it out. But it is ironic that many people who actually feel that way dont understand their own language, or what/how basic media works. Or what media even is...

 

[Gameface]

I get what you are saying. It is kind of funny to see people who dont really understand some basic things about media or language. I dont think people need to speak English to live here though, which is why I cut it out. But it is ironic that many people who actually feel that way dont understand their own language, or what/how basic media works. Or what media even is...

I don't think so either. It's an attempt to throw one of the more ugly things that has come out of the Trump era back in his supporters' faces.

 

[Getting Traded]

The media is supposed to report the news, the facts from all sides, as objectively as possible, but it also has taken the responsibility to editorialize the news, and these interpretations or commentaries are supposed to be separate from the factual reporting of the news. The problem is that the media often editorializes their factual reporting which interferes with objectivity and accuracy. The reason is usually because of financial or political considerations. This is another way the capitalist system impinges of the workings of democracy and the freedom of information that is its foundation. When the media is controlled by a small number of megacorporations, our news is filtered (censored) to support their profits. As a result, we get propaganda rather than news.

 

[Gameface]

The media is supposed to report the news, the facts from all sides, as objectively as possible, but it also has taken the responsibility to editorialize the news, and these interpretations or commentaries are supposed to be separate from the factual reporting of the news. The problem is that the media often editorializes their factual reporting which interferes with objectivity and accuracy. The reason is usually because of financial or political considerations. This is another way the capitalist system impinges of the workings of democracy and the freedom of information that is its foundation. When the media is controlled by a small number of megacorporations, our news is filtered (censored) to support their profits. As a result, we get propaganda rather than news.

View attachment 7296

And from this we learn...

Vaccines are a conspiracy, not only by the media, but also by all the doctors and other scientists in the world. Literally MILLIONS of people who all have an interest in lying to you.

 

[Getting Traded]

And from this we learn...

Vaccines are a conspiracy, not only by the media, but also by all the doctors and other scientists in the world. Literally MILLIONS of people who all have an interest in lying to you.

What does this have to do with my post?

But since you brought it up, I never said that vaccines are a conspiracy.

While vaccines can save lives, it's not a black and white issue. There are problems that need to be addressed, and people have died from vaccines. One report I read said that people aren't dying from measles but some have died from the measles vaccine. In other words, while more people get measles if they don't get vaccinated, they don't die from it, but a small percentage of people who get the vaccine do die from it, granted a very small percentage, but they aren't dying from getting the measles, which suggests there are some problems and unless they are addressed, then some people are going to die. So while vaccines have a purpose and are useful, they aren't perfect and in some cases need to fixed. And when it comes to the measles, if you get it, you will develop 100 percent immunity and never get it again. Not so with the vaccine. You can look this up yourself if you don't believe me.

 

[Gameface]

What does this have to do with my post?

But since you brought it up, I never said that vaccines are a conspiracy.

While vaccines can save lives, it's not a black and white issue. There are problems that need to be addressed, and people have died from vaccines. One report I read said that people aren't dying from measles but some have died from the measles vaccine. In other words, while more people get measles if they don't get vaccinated, they don't die from it, but a small percentage of people who get the vaccine do die from it, granted a very small percentage, but they aren't dying from getting the measles, which suggests there are some problems and unless they are addressed, then some people are going to die. So while vaccines have a purpose and are useful, they aren't perfect and in some cases need to fixed. And when it comes to the measles, if you get it, you will develop 100 percent immunity and never get it again. Not so with the vaccine. You can look this up yourself if you don't believe me.

You're so ****ed up.

Funny ****, bro.

 

[fishonjazz]

Depends on your definition of Rights. As I said at the beginning it all comes down to those things. Is an unborn child a human being with rights (remember the Constitution talks of all men having "inalienable rights", such as a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and our rule of law is built on that). You answered that question as no, it doesn't have any rights.

By the way, the vast majority of our laws center on people's rights and the fact that you cannot just willy-nilly impose your whims on the rights of others. You really cannot separate the 2.

I don't think living is a right. I don't think I have the right to live. I have to actively do things to keep myself alive. I have to provide myself with food and water and housing etc. I have to take care of my health. If I don't then I die regardless of my rights.

On the other hand I have the right to own a gun. My guns just sit there in my house. I don't actively do anything. They are my right to have.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Stoked]

CNN does not make climate change predictions.

Once again you post things from people who don't understand what journalism is. Like they have no idea what it means to REPORT something vs ADMIT something. Or REPORT something vs PREDICT something.

We speak English here. You need to learn English.

Lmfao

 

[LogGrad98]

I don't think living is a right. I don't think I have the right to live. I have to actively do things to keep myself alive. I have to provide myself with food and water and housing etc. I have to take care of my health. If I don't then I die regardless of my rights.

On the other hand I have the right to own a gun. My guns just sit there in my house. I don't actively do anything. They are my right to have.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Well we have very different definitions of "rights" then. And your definition is different than the definition of the founding fathers.

But this very conversation shows the differences driving the debates around things like abortion. If 2 people have a hard time agreeing on if there is even a right to life in the first place then, then there is no wonder that is such a divisive issue.

 

[Heathme]

CNN does not make climate change predictions.

Once again you post things from people who don't understand what journalism is. Like they have no idea what it means to REPORT something vs ADMIT something. Or REPORT something vs PREDICT something.

We speak English here. You need to learn English.

Aaah Bulletproof. You're just so smart. How does it feel to be humorless, d-bag all the time?

I will keep pointing out media hypocrisy and the ridiculousness of the left's doomsday predictions as long as I want.

 

[fishonjazz]

Well we have very different definitions of "rights" then. And your definition is different than the definition of the founding fathers.

But this very conversation shows the differences driving the debates around things like abortion. If 2 people have a hard time agreeing on if there is even a right to life in the first place then, then there is no wonder that is such a divisive issue.

Well I mean what does this right to life do for me and you? If you suddenly removed that right would we all be breaking the law and be arrested for living without the right to live? I don't think so. Would murder suddenly become legal? Certainly not.

And if I have the right to life then I should also have the right to not live yet if I'm about to jump from a bridge the cops would try to stop me. Assisted suicide is illegal.

I have the right to own a gun. Doesn't mean I'm forced to own one. I can opt to not own one.

What does the right to live actually do? It seems like a rather pointless, arbitrary, meaningless right.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[LogGrad98]

Well I mean what does this right to life do for me and you? If you suddenly removed that right would we all be breaking the law and be arrested for living without the right to live? I don't think so. Would murder suddenly become legal? Certainly not.

And if I have the right to life then I should also have the right to not live yet if I'm about to jump from a bridge the cops would try to stop me. Assisted suicide is illegal.

I have the right to own a gun. Doesn't mean I'm forced to own one. I can opt to not own one.

What does the right to live actually do? It seems like a rather pointless, arbitrary, meaningless right.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

As I said before, these rights are the foundation of our laws. Attempted suicide is illegal in most states. Murder is illegal. Why? It infringes on someone's right to life. Also the founding fathers were trying to build a framework based on universal rights that would apply equally to everyone. If you don't establish they everyone has a right to life then those laws are arbitrary and can be argued against. Why does murder matter if you don't have a right to live your life?

So when the founding fathers wrote that what do you think it means? If it's arbitrary and meaningless why did they find it so important to base our constitution on these inalienable rights? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I mean, I'm not just making this up, those are the words they wrote as part of the document our entire way of life is based on. What did they intend by that in your opinion?


Edit: also even the laws around assisted suicide are slowly changing, giving people more control over their own right to life.

 

[fishonjazz]

As I said before, these rights are the foundation of our laws. Attempted suicide is illegal in most states. Murder is illegal. Why? It infringes on someone's right to life. Also the founding fathers were trying to build a framework based on universal rights that would apply equally to everyone. If you don't establish they everyone has a right to life then those laws are arbitrary and can be argued against. Why does murder matter if you don't have a right to live your life?

So when the founding fathers wrote that what do you think it means? If it's arbitrary and meaningless why did they find it so important to base our constitution on these inalienable rights? Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I mean, I'm not just making this up, those are the words they wrote as part of the document our entire way of life is based on. What did they intend by that in your opinion?


Edit: also even the laws around assisted suicide are slowly changing, giving people more control over their own right to life.

Are you saying that if there was no right to life then murder would have to be legal? Why?

There are other things that are illegal that are not tied to any rights. Rights and laws don't have to coincide with each other.

Are there countries without a constitution the same as ours who still have murder as being illegal?

The right to life does absolutely nothing. If you took that from the Constitution but continued to have a law against murder then nothing would change.

And like I said, if I have a right to life then I also have the right to not live and therefore suicide should be legal. But it's not legal cause the right to life does nothing at all.


I have no idea why the founding fathers wrote things the way they did. I also don't consider them to be gods or infallible. I also think there have been amendments to the things they wrote. I also think they could have wrote "murder shall be illegal" and that would work the same way as right to life. Or they could have not even written that part of the Constitution at all and I'm quite certain that we, as a society, could have figured out that murder would be illegal without the founding fathers instructions.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

I mean I guess it says in the Constitution that you have the right to life. But it doesn't mean anything in practice. It doesn't do anything or prevent anything.

It's not like another country without that sentence in their constitution means that in that country you can just go around killing whoever you want.

Just cause the Constitution says I have the right to life doesn't mean I can't die. I still have to take care of myself. I have to get food and water and air, etc to live. Whether that sentence is in the Constitution or not. It would change nothing without that sentence. Someone tell me how things might be different without that sentence and why.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[LogGrad98]

I mean I guess it says in the Constitution that you have the right to life. But it doesn't mean anything in practice. It doesn't do anything or prevent anything.

It's not like another country without that sentence in their constitution means that in that country you can just go around killing whoever you want.

Just cause the Constitution says I have the right to life doesn't mean I can't die. I still have to take care of myself. I have to get food and water and air, etc to live. Whether that sentence is in the Constitution or not. It would change nothing without that sentence. Someone tell me how things might be different without that sentence and why.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

The reason it matters to the founding fathers, imo, was because those rights always belonged to the monarchy, not to the individual, and to them it was important to specify that they belonged to the individual because of their experience with tyranny.

But I guess in the end you and I disagree about what those rights mean. Again, that's a basic part of these kinds of arguments. If we can't agree on definitions and relative value it gets very hard to find any kind of consensus.

 

[fishonjazz]

The reason it matters to the founding fathers, imo, was because those rights always belonged to the monarchy, not to the individual, and to them it was important to specify that they belonged to the inevitable because of their experience with tyranny.

But I guess in the end you and I disagree about what those rights mean. Again, that's a basic part of these kinds of arguments. If we can't agree on definitions and relative value it gets very hard to find any kind of consensus.

Well I'm trying to ask you what that particular sentence means. You or anyone.
I will ask again.
If the Constitution didn't say right to life then do you think we would all be arrested for living without it saying we have the right to? Do you think murder would be legalized?

In terms of the original discussion which was about abortion, it currently says right to life in the Constitution yet the supreme Court said it's ok to terminate life via abortion. Which is my point. That sentence in the Constitution doesn't mean anything. If it didn't exist then what would change? (That's another question I asked that you and no one else has answered)

You and I haven't really disagreed on anything yet since you haven't told me what the right to life actually means/does to/for you.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

Rights don't matter much. It's the laws that matter. If it said in the Constitution that you have the right to life but there was no law against murder then it wouldn't matter.
Also if it didn't say anything in the Constitution about the right to life but there were still laws against murder then it wouldn't matter.

The laws are what dictate things. Laws aren't always tied to rights (sometimes they are but they don't need to be) either.

I could be wrong but I don't think it says anything in the Constitution like thou shalt not smoke weed. Yet there is/was a law against it.

You can have a law against murder without a right to life

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app