NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

[12Footer]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

Polls can be anything you like. If this abortion poll was taken at a university campus, then you'll get a "yes" majority for abortion.<br />If, however, the poll was taken outside of a church, the result would reflect that.<br /><br /><br />The only poll worth my attention, is the national poll that will be held in November.

 

[POINTER94]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

You missed the meat of my post and dealt with the FYI but here you go.....<br /><br /><br />Pro-life women shift to majority<br /><br />By Grant Schulte<br />THE WASHINGTON TIMES<br /><br /><br /> The balance between pro-choice women and women who say abortion should be outlawed or severely restricted is shifting toward the pro-life side, bumping that group into the majority in the debate over reproductive rights, according to a new national poll. <br /> Fifty-one percent of women surveyed by the Center for the Advancement of Women said the government should prohibit abortion or limit it to extreme cases, such as rape, incest, or life-threatening complications. <br /> The findings, with a 3 percent margin of error for the 1,000 women surveyed, tips the scale from the last sampling in 2001, when 45 percent of women sided against making abortion readily available or imposing only mild restrictions. Only 30 percent support making it generally available, down from 34 percent in 2001, the survey found. <br /> The New York-based center that sponsored the survey is a nonpartisan advocacy group for pro-choice women's rights. The center's president, Faye Wattleton, headed the Planned Parenthood Federation of America for 14 years. <br /> "While we do have a certain point of view on women's issues, we don't believe we should suppress information," Mrs. Wattleton said in an interview yesterday with The Washington Times. "You don't want to create false or artificial data." <br /> The results, announced with a series of women's responses to issues such as domestic violence and affirmative action, found that fewer women — 41 percent — consider protecting abortion a top priority, an 8 percent drop from 2001. Of the 12 top priorities, keeping abortion legal was second to last, beating only the percentage of women who want to increase the number of girls participating in organized sports. <br /> Eighty percent of women also reported having no second thoughts about their views on abortion.

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

Originally posted by POINTER94:<br /> You missed the meat of my post

Then I will address it. The media is equally partisan. Some reporters lean left, some lean right. But even they have the right to voice their opinions on the facts. Voicing their opinion one way or the other doesn't change the facts, and the facts are whats being reported from both sides. Each just has a different spin to it. By calling them partisan hacks, you are being the same thing, as you obviously lean right, and just don't like the things being said about our beloved President, just as I obviously lean left and think it's about time somebody said something. Until the media flat out lies about what they claim is fact, then they are entitled to their opinions, as long as the facts stay the same. Look at fox and look at abc. Fox is more to the right, while abc is more left. Now go to their homepages and read the news. The facts are the same on both sites, but the opinions about the facts are quite different. It's called being "fair and balanced". <br /><br />And I'll tell ya what....the media should apologize over the uranium story when the President apologizes for sending the country to war when there was obviously no imminent threat from Iraq. Neither have done so, and I don't expect them to.<br /><br />And as far as the pro-life article, they're only talking about women. You said the majority of Americans were against abortion, not women. Next time post something that actually backs your claims.

 

[PW2]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

SCO,<br /><br />Whether what the NAACP is doing for their base is the most effective action is not the point. The question was raised whether it was hate speech, and it is clearly not.<br /><br />And in Bond's speech, he documented two major events: The Brown vs board of education and the civil rights act of 1964. These were fought long and hard by conservatives, and to some degree, are still being fought today, by conservatives.<br /><br />From a practical standpoint, you are correct in this one thing. Government, and regulation, alone, will not solve this problem. But it is a start, and without it it would be impossible.<br /><br />My own experience is with a disabled daughter, and of course regulations like the ADA (also fought by conservatives)<br />Now we are not so naive to think that somehow the ADA is going to solve all her problems--but it has given the force of law to the notion that they have to make education, and the workplace, accessible to her. Without that, all else would be impossible.<br />We also knew that if we left it up to public education alone, she would be selling pencils on a streetcorner today.<br /><br />It is a combination of individual responsibility, hard work, as well as government regulation that will grease the skids a bit.<br /><br />But for me, it is difficult to imagine how a member of an oppressed minority could possibly choose to be aligned with conservatives. We have fought conservative initiatives constantly, and lately mostly unsuccessfully, just to protect was thought to be a given--such as the cutting of vocation rehab funding--public transportation, and other necessary services that conservatives always seem to want to eliminate in their cost cutting zeal--just to have the opportunity to work harder than anyone else has to just to have the opportunity to succeed.<br /><br />Or do you really think this is a society based solely on merit?<br /><br />Maybe you think Bush was accepted by Yale on the basis of his grades alone, without regard to his family's ties to the school?

 

[POINTER94]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

mrbscott,<br /><br />You missed the point again. I didn't say that left leaning journalists are hacks, I SAID JOURNALISTS ARE HACKS. You seem to have a problem with the left leaning one's or at least know that most journalists are left leaning, (80+% identify themselves as democrats/socialists)<br /><br />Case in point: The journalistic community chose to believe ambassador Wilson with his bias report, he clearly had an axe to grind, on the Urainium to Iraq story. Opinions printed as truths, and blame assessed without so much as a week's research. How about Sandy Burgler's being identified in the news as a Clinton aide, when up until yesterday he was a Kerry aid. (Wonder why)It isn't always what you write it is what you omit and they omit anything that doesn't meet their specific agendas. LEFT OR RIGHT!!!!!!!!! The NEW YORK TIMES, you know the one called the paper of record for the US, had a reporter they knew was making up stories and the lied, hid the fact, and kept him on the paper. Honest Journalism? Gone in this country.<br /><br />

And I'll tell ya what....the media should apologize over the uranium story when the President apologizes for sending the country to war when there was obviously no imminent threat from Iraq.

FALSE, as the information is disseminated over time, the President, with the approval of congress (all but one goof) approved action after reading the same reports as the president, is being proved correct as the FACTS are sifted through and not your opinion that consistant opinions constitute facts theory falls down. Your response is what children do, adults admit when they are wrong.<br /><br /><br />

Look at fox and look at abc. Fox is more to the right, while abc is more left. Now go to their homepages and read the news. The facts are the same on both sites, but the opinions about the facts are quite different. It's called being "fair and balanced". <br />

Nice try but you forgot, MSNBC, CNN, CBS PBS, HN, NBC, MTV, LOCAL NEWS, AP, REUTERS, BBC...... on the left, but you are right there is FOX NEWS on the right.<br /><br />

Until the media flat out lies about what they claim is fact, then they are entitled to their opinions, as long as the facts stay the same.

False, that is not journalism, that is why we have the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS. If you want to be a schill for one side or the other, identify yourself as such. By pretending to be balance you give the impression of presenting FACTS, all the FACTS. Interpreting the facts belongs on the opinion page. Because they are opinions at that point.<br /><br />Again you focused on something outside the core issue of the discussion. I will be posting additional data to help you gain further perspective on abortion and the public view of it at some time in the future, but again missed the meat. We live in a representative republic. What the masses think is irrelavent in the short term. We vote in a person to represent the best interest of the constituancy, not always what the masses want. To go against popular opinion to do the right thing takes guts and courage, something our current crop of elected officials seem to lack. We are a busy people and don't have time to tear apart every issue and determine the correct course of action, we elect people to do that and make the RIGHT decision not the popular one. The founding fathers made changing the laws a slow and difficult process for a reason.<br /><br />If I linked you to a murder I would be kicked off this site cuz it would be considered HATEFUL. Calling someone a hilter would do the same, identifing you as a racist would do the same. This is what the NAACP does. Therefor, by the definitions used by this site they are a hate group.

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

I guess Alec Baldwin shouting on the set of some eavening talk show that Ken Star and his wife and children should be drug out into the street and killed is "clearly" not hate speech either. Can you try to make some freaking sense?

 

[POINTER94]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

It's OK SW, Alec moved to France after GW won the election. Alec is a man of his word and convictions.

 

[PW2]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

So how did we get to Alec Baldwin, and what he supposedly said? And who exactly cares what Alec Balwin said, anyway.<br />to quote that famous thinker "Can you try to make some freaking sense?

 

[SoulWinner]

Re: NAACP - Liable for hate speech?

I'm talking about the double standerd liberals have. Nothing you guys say is hate speech, anything a conservative says that you don't agree with is hate speech. So, can you follow that, or am I moving to fast for you? <br /><br />And as far as "what he supposedly said", I saw it....on tv......live........please GFY....