PDA

View Full Version : The odious stench of TIME magazine



KvHagedorn
20th October 2003, 09:55
.. has fully infected AOL, I see. Today, millions of impressionable stupid people who vote were treated to a pic of the DC sniper with an innocent look on his face, and the headline: "He's on trial for his life" with the ever-leading question-to-click-on below: "Was Mohammed the sniper?"

A couple of days ago there was a picture of the ailing Pope. The headline then was: "As Pope celebrates 25th anniversary" and click on: "Many ask if religion still matters."

I cancelled my subscription to this leftist, anti-Christian magazine several years ago, when they published an article about separation of church and state. Apparently, some Jewish group had gotten permission to erect a menorah on courthouse grounds in a certain town. Some locals tried to get it removed because they believed it violated separation of church and state. When this request was refused, more people in the community got upset about it, and some KKK members erected a big, makeshift cross on the grounds in protest. Because it was the Klan that did this, some angry leftist folks who think with their emotions (trained by the likes of TIME to react this way) tore down the cross, which was replaced and then torn down again. TIME referred to the cross in question as a "Klan symbol." :mad: :mad: :mad:

The problem is, this company controls such a huge proportion of all media in this country.. Warner Bros. movies and recordings, Time-Warner cable, Roadrunner cable internet, AOL, etc. The suits who approve of this type of reporting also control what movies get made and what type of music gets released. They decide what news story greets you on your home page when you get online. There are serious problems with a society in which such an arrogant group clearly has an agenda to twist the thinking of the masses in such a way, and controls such a huge spectrum of the media that people get bombarded with their views from all sides on a daily basis. It is a different type of propaganda, a subtle message delivered by selective revelation to the public of what (the TW people believe) constitutes something important, and delivering it with a twist which will subtly make you "feel" a certain way about the subject. This company is evil. It makes me ill.

cjolley
20th October 2003, 11:28
You know, it's funny, that's exactly what I think of FOX.
On the other hand, to show you how out of touch we are with tv:
Our paper listed the top 20 shows for OKC and we had never seen a single episode of any of them.:p

chuck

PS Why would anyone spend money on a news magazine of any kind in this day & time?

Gurm
20th October 2003, 12:19
Actually, I enjoy reading Time.

I then follow it with the corresponding Newsweek.

And perhaps U.S. News.

Between the three I get a FAIRLY balanced look at things. ;)

- Gurm

cjolley
20th October 2003, 12:24
Originally posted by Gurm
Actually, I enjoy reading Time.

I then follow it with the corresponding Newsweek.

And perhaps U.S. News.

Between the three I get a FAIRLY balanced look at things. ;)

- Gurm

Well sure, but you don't PAY for them do you?
I mean you can get all that stuff on line for free now.
chuck

KvHagedorn
20th October 2003, 12:44
Ahh.. I forgot they own CNN too! :eek:

Anyhow, they have a far longer reach than Fox does, and more people (liberal news media types and lefty politicos) are always bellowing about Fox being biased, while the Time-Warner monster goes relatively uncriticised.

Gurm, are you an impressionable 13 year old girl with an IQ of 95, who is having the way she thinks formed for life right now? Didn't think so.. it's amazing how many intelligent people recount their own experience in this type of case when these media people realize that they won't really be fooling this 99th percentile type fellow.. why should they care about us? We account for 1% of the votes in this country, which is insignificant to them.. their aim is to brainwash the MASSES. I would be willing to bet that far fewer than 1% of folks actually read all news sources to get a "balanced" view.. they are too busy getting emotional about the source they usually read, and viewing news as "entertainment." Their votes count the same as yours or mine, and they outnumber us 99 to 1..

Wulfman
20th October 2003, 13:14
KvH: you are not the only one thinking this way, according to gallup ~45% think the same, only ~14% would say the networks are too liberal. poll (http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr031008.asp?Version=p)

however, another analysis shows the following:
Looking at two weeks of coverage (1/30/03-2/12/03), FAIR examined the 393 on-camera sources who appeared in nightly news stories about Iraq on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The study began one week before and ended one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation at the U.N., a time that saw particularly intense debate about the idea of a war against Iraq on the national and international level.

More than two-thirds (267 out of 393) of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official U.S. sources-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.)-- expressed skepticism or opposition to the war. Even this was couched in vague term:link (http://www.fair.org/activism/iraq-sources-networks.html)

doesn't seem to be "liberal" coverage.

and to finish this post, let me quote guru:
According to the latest official figures, 43% of all statistics are totally worthless... I had to post that after your "30% german youth"-posting elsewhere. ;)

wulfman

Victorian
20th October 2003, 18:03
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KvHagedorn
.. snip...

I cancelled my subscription to this leftist, anti-Christian magazine several years ago, when they published an article about separation of church and state. Apparently, some Jewish group had gotten permission to erect a menorah on courthouse grounds in a certain town. Some locals tried to get it removed because they believed it violated separation of church and state. When this request was refused, more people in the community got upset about it, and some KKK members erected a big, makeshift cross on the grounds in protest. Because it was the Klan that did this, some angry leftist folks who think with their emotions (trained by the likes of TIME to react this way) tore down the cross,

(insert comment)
What, being against the KKK means that you're an "angry leftist"? Guess that makes every Catholic, Black, Jew, and everyone else the Klan hates an "angry leftist"
(end of insert comment)

which was replaced and then torn down again. TIME referred to the cross in question as a [b]"Klan symbol." :mad: :mad: :mad:

And the problem with this characterization is? Was not the cross in question being used as a KKK 'symbol'?

(rest of stupid rant snipped out)

KvHagedorn
20th October 2003, 19:25
I knew one of you would scurry out of the woodwork.. (looks for can of RAID) ;)

The cross is a Christian symbol. It was quite obviously placed there as a protest and a counterbalance against the use of public grounds as a host for symbols of other religions. The Klan is pro-Christian and always has been. Are you saying that because of this, Christianity is evil? You are saying that, and so were the mind-controlled masses who tore down the cross. It is because of this attitude (in large part instilled by the leftist media) that so few would have the balls to respond to an attempt to define society by a minority religion, which was the original transgression in this case.

rylan
20th October 2003, 19:29
Well I can't argue with the fact that Time and Newsweek are pretty blatently liberal, and the way CNN slants all their news is apalling. I think its funny how people say that FOX news is so right winged, when its actually just moderate and more unbiased (as news should be), but looks extreme right when compared to the rest of the commie tv and print media.

KvHagedorn
20th October 2003, 19:41
You know, "liberals" used to be people who were concerned for the rights of the common working class man. Now they are increasingly haters of white people, Christianity, and western civilization in general.

Dilitante1
20th October 2003, 19:52
I remember right after 9/11/01 the media kept mentioning Iraq as a possible culprit for the terrorists

a search on AP and reuters showed activity levels over the no fly zone were substantial (many iraqi planes shot down) yet it NEVER hit the tv over here

Just goes to show you how sheltered the American people are due to the media's choice in what will get attention/ratings for them.

KRSESQ
20th October 2003, 22:16
The Klan is pro-Christian and always has been.

I'd sure like to know what you're smoking. There is no way I'd ever describe the KKK's agenda as anything even remotely resembling what any intelligent person would call "Christian."

The KKK preaches a perverted abomination that has very little (if anything) to do with Christ's true teachings. Whatever polish they put on it these days, it still boils down to the fact that the Klan is just a bunch of empty-headed violent redneck losers.

I'll thank you never to refer to them as "Christian" again.

Kevin

MultimediaMan
20th October 2003, 23:26
The Klan uses the Cross as it's symbol - only after adding Kerosene and a match.

I am a Christian, and these dudes are not Christians...they are evil incarnate. They can't even quantify why they hate other people. The whole movement is quite facist-leaning, neo nazis and clans men seem to go hand in hand... When I first moved out here 12 years ago there was a Klan rally and from the newpapers characterized it as a big picnic... but last year when they had their annual "picnic" more protesters showed up than Klansmen. They didn't have a public picnic this year. Things have come a long way since the Clinton Years (the Jerk was Governer here back then).

Now, there is some truth to corruption in the various Church Denominations, and to be sure, it bothers me to see some ministers driving Cadillacs and SUVs towing 20+ cabin cruisers that cost upwards of $40,000.

Some of them had the money to start with, but some of them accept far too much for their salaries and pay. Voluntary Tithes are one thing, spiritual extortion is another.

It is wrong to demonize an entire faith because of how some exploit it for personal gain, yet the Liberal Media chants that all religions are merely money-making operations when this is simply not true.

I submit that if Ted Turner had given a Billion Dollars to the Habitat for Humanity, rather than the U.N., the world would have been far better off.

The media is pushing for the abolishment of all Churches leaving only the State, yet all of the federalist papers show Faith as the moral foundation of the Constitution...and God is referred to several times in the Delcaration of Independance and the Constitution. Separation of Church and State meant that there was no State Church.

All Churches were free to do as they pleased within the law, and the law protected all Faiths equally. But now the Faithless are standing up and saying they want a say in something that they do not believe in. Right there should have been enough jurisprudence to find that the Faithless have no standing... simply because they do not believe. Liberal Courts have erred badly in not recognizing this, so now we are set for a showdown.

And the outcome will be predictable with the current Supreme Court Bench...We have a separation of Church and State. But Separation does not mean Ignorance nor does it mean there should be no intercourse between the State and Churches.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact, and I doubt seriously the Supreme court would ever allow it to be.

Victorian
21st October 2003, 01:02
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
I knew one of you would scurry out of the woodwork.. (looks for can of RAID) ;)

One of 'you'? You mean someone who despises the KKK and everything that scum like that stand for? Yep, and proud of it!

The only use I can see for that can of RAID is on those 'right thinking' KKK cockroaches that you're so eager to defend.


The cross is a Christian symbol. It was quite obviously placed there as a protest and a counterbalance against the use of public grounds as a host for symbols of other religions. The Klan is pro-Christian and always has been.[/B]

If you truly think that the KKK is 'pro-Christian' you're either incredibly ignorant or you're telling us something about yourself that maybe you should have kept private.


[i]Are you saying that because of this, Christianity is evil? You [i]are saying that, and so were the mind-controlled masses who tore down the cross.[/B]

And that is a truly offensive statement. And incredibly stupid to boot. You realize that you're acting in the role of a Klan apologist don't you?

Upon reflection, You can remove the question mark as it seems pretty obvious that you know exactly what you're saying.


[i]It is because of this attitude (in large part instilled by the leftist media) that so few would have the balls to respond to an attempt to define society by a minority religion, which was the original transgression in this case. [/B]

And Sig ****ING Heil to you. The dry cleaners called, your sheets are ready to pick up....

Dilitante1
21st October 2003, 03:19
Play nice in the sandbox boys :D


no personal attacks plz

KvHagedorn
21st October 2003, 03:57
The cross is a Christian symbol, not a Klan symbol. That the rag in question associated it as such was what offended me so greatly. So now I'm a Klan apologist, and all this other crap? Victorian, you are very lucky you did not say these things to my face. Actually, I doubt you would have the balls to.

By the way, you don't have any room to call anyone stupid. You are the very image of the liberal who thinks with his emotions, and have proven so by your statements. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with reality.. it is just a product of your overheated emotions. The light is on.. why don't you scurry back into the wall?

Brian Ellis
21st October 2003, 04:55
Originally posted by KvHagedorn
The cross is a Christian symbol, not a Klan symbol. That the rag in question associated it as such was what offended me so greatly. So now I'm a Klan apologist, and all this other crap? Victorian, you are very lucky you did not say these things to my face. Actually, I doubt you would have the balls to.

By the way, you don't have any room to call anyone stupid. You are the very image of the liberal who thinks with his emotions, and have proven so by your statements. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with reality.. it is just a product of your overheated emotions. The light is on.. why don't you scurry back into the wall?

Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brotherís eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
St Matthew ch. 7, v. 3

ZokesPro
21st October 2003, 05:26
Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brotherís eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
St Matthew ch. 7, v. 3 Damn that St Matthew is hard to understand with his thee thy thow's! :p

KvHagedorn
21st October 2003, 05:45
Originally posted by KRSESQ
I'd sure like to know what you're smoking. There is no way I'd ever describe the KKK's agenda as anything even remotely resembling what any intelligent person would call "Christian."

The KKK preaches a perverted abomination that has very little (if anything) to do with Christ's true teachings. Whatever polish they put on it these days, it still boils down to the fact that the Klan is just a bunch of empty-headed violent redneck losers.

I'll thank you never to refer to them as "Christian" again.

Kevin

I didn't refer to them as Christian. They identify themselves as such, but that doesn't mean they live by the tenets of Christianity. There have been a lot of barbarous people throughout history that thought of themselves as pro-Christian, but the crusaders, the Spanish inquisitors, and the people who burned "witches" and "heretics," no matter how misguided their actions were, believed in their own twisted way that they were defending their faith. The cross of Christ does not deserve to suffer infamy because of its use by the KKK any more than it does because of these individuals.

The people who erected that cross thought they were defending their faith, and they weren't perpetrating any violence to make that statement. The thing that angered me was that TIME and the brainwashed, mindless liberals who tore it down chose, for the sake of sensationalism and their own hatred, to associate the cross in question with the KKK rather than with Christ. It was not the Klan that defamed Christianity on that particular day.

KvHagedorn
21st October 2003, 06:04
Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother?s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
St Matthew ch. 7, v. 3

And you claim to be the only non-PITA here.. :p

That you said this to me and not him just reveals your own particular bias.

Umfriend
21st October 2003, 06:15
I haven't read the article in question, but KvH, you did say that it was KKK people that put that cross there. Indeed, I'd view a cross put anywhere by the KKK diferently than another one just like it by other people. I assume the non-KKK christian community over there didn't mind the menorah?

Don't know why a menorah would have to be set there either mind you.

Umfriend
21st October 2003, 06:23
In fact, any decent christian (by my own non-existent definition) should be outrageously upset at the KKK for misappropriation of their symbol (which is what I think is happening here with some). National-socialists have "stolen" symbols repeatedly in history and it is for them to be taken back. You seem to be defending the placing of such a stolen symbol by the KKK, hence you get accused of being a KKK apologist. The fact that you deem their cross equal to your own could support such a sucpicion.

Having said that, I still don't know why a menorah was allowed there (can anyone tell me?)

BTW, what's this BS about burning crosses anyway, what's the symbolism behind it? To me, it seems to make more sense to use it for heating or something....

Jammrock
21st October 2003, 06:35
*sigh*

Here we go again.

The KKK does claim to be a christian group. So did the pilgrams that burned the 'witched' in Salem, Mass. So did the Crusaders. And so and so forth.

However, in the name of 'freeing the world of religion's bonds' (i.e. the Communist movement), more people have been massacred in less than 100 years than all the 'so-called-christian' groups have killed in 2000 years.

In fact, no group has clean hands. Buddists, Hindus, Muslims, Atheists, super powers, 3rd world nobodies ... all large groups are guilty of some crime or an other, and all in the name of their 'righteous cause'.

What does this teach us? People are like cattle. Harmless by themselves, but dangerous as hell in large groups when some screaming lunatic stampedes them.

Jammrock

Brian Ellis
21st October 2003, 06:50
Originally posted by KvHagedorn

That you said this to me and not him just reveals your own particular bias.

Unlike some I can name, I try to be as open-minded and bias-free as possible. However, you do piss me off when you step beyond the norms of common decency with your rants.

Gurm
21st October 2003, 07:16
Jamm,

I'd like to point out that in recent recorded history (past several thousand years), Jews haven't committed genocide against anyone. ;)

- Gurm

KvHagedorn
21st October 2003, 08:35
Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Unlike some I can name, I try to be as open-minded and bias-free as possible. However, you do piss me off when you step beyond the norms of common decency with your rants.

I do apologize for stepping beyond the norms of common decency in that other time and place we are both aware of.. Truly, I am as guilty as others of letting emotion get the best of me sometimes. If I twisted and amplified what you were saying on that occasion even remotely as much as Victorian twisted what I was saying here, I'm very sorry.

Jammrock
21st October 2003, 08:39
Originally posted by Gurm
Jamm,

I'd like to point out that in recent recorded history (past several thousand years), Jews haven't committed genocide against anyone. ;)

- Gurm
Not for a lack of trying though ;) But I guess you could call it 'self defense' ... most of the time.

Jammrock

Joel
21st October 2003, 11:32
In fact, any decent christian (by my own non-existent definition) should be outrageously upset at the KKK for misappropriation of their symbol (which is what I think is happening here with some). National-socialists have "stolen" symbols repeatedly in history and it is for them to be taken back.

Yeah!!! The Confederate Flag is another one of those victims.

Joel

Brian R.
21st October 2003, 11:43
Joel is right on the money. A Confederate battle flag has seen more hate because of the use it has been put to, post-war, than any other flag I can name. By itself with no modern connotations, it is a truly valiant flag.

Joel
21st October 2003, 11:47
Now they are increasingly haters of white people, Christianity, and western civilization in general.

Alot of that has to do with the fact that those groups are increasingly being seen as groups majoraly comprised of racist. But the fact is that anyone who subscribes to this view is in fact a racist themselves.

Joel

GT98
21st October 2003, 11:57
Originally posted by Brian R.
Joel is right on the money. A Confederate battle flag has seen more hate because of the use it has been put to, post-war, than any other flag I can name. By itself with no modern connotations, it is a truly valiant flag.

What about the Nazi Flag with Swatisias? Thats another symbol (swatisa) thats been totally twisted out of its orginal meaning.

Joel
21st October 2003, 12:05
A Confederate Battle flag has seen more hate because of the use it has been put to, post-war, than any other flag I can name.

They say it's because it is seen as a symbol of slavery in the US. The fact is that not a single ship that brought slaves to the US ever flew a Confederate Battle Flag or a Confederate States flag for that matter. In fact the major of the ships that did bring slaves to the US either sailed under the Old Glory (our current US flag minus a few stars) or the British flag.

The Confederate Battle flag was designed for use during the Civil War because the Union 'Federalist' flag and the Confederate States flag were easily confused during that time on the battle field from a distance.

Joel

Brian R.
21st October 2003, 12:17
Symbols that are used for other purposes are not what I was referring to. Only flags. The Nazi flag has not been used for anything but hate for its entire existance, as far as I know. The Confederate battle flag should not be put in the same league as that.

My interpretation of the battle flag's misrepresentation is that is it associated with the institution of slavery as previously practiced in the South (pretty much as Joel said). This is because one modern (not exclusive) use of the flag is to proclaim the concept of white supremacy.

As most know, the Civil War was not fought by the South to defend the institution of slavery, but to enforce the Southern states' rebellion that was necessary to gain back their states' rights to self-determination. That was their goal and their weakness. I think one of the major factors in their failure was their inability to come together for mutual protection. This would have required a strong central government which was against their desires.

(Sorry for the digression)