Hmmm... I would call that a responsible action on the part of the fourth estate.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
For real?
- Thread starter NaasPreacher (C4K)
- Start date
Hmmm... I would call that a responsible action on the part of the fourth estate.
I wouldn't. I prefer for journalists to be journalists and to leave the political engineering alone.
The fourth estate left off their responsibilities years ago- just about the time Cronkite retired. Instead of reporting the news, they ARE the news.
glfredrick
New Member
Not when that "action" pretends to be "news" but is in fact "commentary." I presume that you understand the differences and the ramifications of misleading the public in this regard. If not, I suggest a study in the "Marxist dialectic" and the coinciding topic "propaganda."
I'm all for a news media (4th estate) that digs into stories, reports the facts, etc., but our current sound bite media is all too good at PR and not real good at actual news these days. They spend more time in psych opps than in speaking truth.
dwmoeller1
New Member
Nah, she makes clear that the "British" are the ones coming to take the guns. Which means the redcoats and not the patriots. She confirms this again in her subsequent explanation. This British=the Patriots in her statement just doesnt fly.
dwmoeller1
New Member
1. She did not say the ride served as a warned but
a. That he warned the British (by ringing bells and giving warning shots no less) "He who warned the, the British that they weren't gonna be taking away our arms, uh, by ringing those bells and, um, by making sure that as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that, uh, we were gonna be secure and we were gonna be free, and we were gonna be armed,"
b. And that his ride was to warn the British: “Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms.”
She may have meant to say that the ride merely served as a warning but it's not what she did say.
2. And the idea that his ride served as a warning to the British is an obtuse statement at best. It makes no sense on several counts (which I spell out in an earlier post). Now the actual fighting might be reasonably said to have served as a warning, but not a secret ride where any contact with the British was avoided.
dwmoeller1
New Member
No, your take on her statement is wrong because you parsed it poorly. You are saying that by British she meant British rebels, ie the Patriots. I am saying that her statement makes clear that she meant simply the British, ie the ones who were coming to take the guns. And if her original statement doesn't make this clear, her followup explanation certainly does.
You are misunderstanding my intentions DW.
Both my posts were tongue in cheek and an attempt at humor.
My own take is - she made a gaffe.
HankD
That's true, she did say that those things served as a warning to the British, just as I said.
I agree, his ride did serve as a warning to the British who were already there.
Actually, that's exactly what she said.
No, a warning is a sign or message given of a coming event. "Fighting" would be the event.
It amazes me that anyone cares what Palin said about Paul Revere when we have Obama going around saying that the economy is in recovery - when we and he both know that it is not - and that the auto companies have paid back the bail out with interest - when we and be both know that they have not.
Palin was simply wrong about a nothing issue - while Obama is lying about real issues that effect all of us.
Palin was simply wrong about a nothing issue - while Obama is lying about real issues that effect all of us.
Agreed. Oba-Mao and Palin's detractors are both lying in order to distract from what a dismal job this regime is doing.
Yep. Sometimes I wonder about all those emails hoaxes about Obama that make the rounds weren't cooked up by liberals to keep conservatives seething about non-issues. You know the ones--
Obama doesn't put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.
Obama doesn't wear a flag pin.
Obama didn't fly the American flag at the Port Au Prince airport after the earthquake.
Chinese flag to be hoisted at the White House on September 20, 2009.
Obama doesn't attend or address Tea Party rallies.
No one who attended Columbia in the early 1980's remembers Obama attending there.
Obama gave Britain's Prime Minister a set of classic American movie DVD's.
Obama removed a bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office.
ETC. ETC.
She may or may not have misspoke, but she got it right.
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us...right_experts_back_palins_historical_account/
When we minor on the majors and major on the minors, that's when we fail.
And then there are those from the other side who peddle non-issues about Palin, you know the ones:
Joke that Sarah’s 14-year-old daughter had sex in a dugout with a professional baseball player. (Letterman)
Dream up conspiracy theories about how her daughter, not Sarah, really was the mother of Trig. (Sullivan) and others saying that either way, Todd was the father.
Wished for Sarah to be gang-raped by large A-A men from New York City (Bernhard)
Huffington Post writer who jokes about her son's disability.
Or numerous politicians and journalists who said that Sarah was responsible for the shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Giffords.
ETC ETC
Yep it gets nasty doesn't it.