Israeli Ambassador: "That particular clip is taken out of context"

[EnglishLady]

Then in my opinion, those that use those tactics have no integrity. Say what you mean, mean what you say. If you can't do that, then why even comment? Another cop out in my opinion.

Sorry I have to disagree with you on that one .....

In a forum such as the soapbox, yes there are many diversified opinions, occasionally there is a topic that mostly everyone agree's upon ...... so to spark a debate, as has been said, some ppl will throw off their usual colours.

Debating is not only fun it is educational - you learn how to make an argument in a professional way.

Because you debate "for the other side" does not mean you have no integrity - else why would they teach it in schools

As always IMO

 

[dieseldiva]

Maybe one of the far left's own comments on the subject of bias would ring true to the OP.......of course O'Donnell will be the first to tell you that he's not a lefty....he's a socialist!

Now if this dyed-in-the-wool socialist understands and accepts how all news agencies work....why can't you??

 

[greg334]

I don't like the kind of reporting that goes on today. Like pointing out a weakness on our HUMVEES that lead our enemies to change how they used their IED's. The incident that led to my nephew getting his bronze star was made far worse by the use of that information. That change in tactics, based on US news reports, contributed to the deaths of two US troops and the severe wounding of another.

But Layout what about this idea that they have a right to be embedded into units to report back based on the first amendment?

Is it something that may be construed that the first amendment may have some limitations or should be actually defined?

Or is it that the journalism in general has taken it upon themselves to be just another group that has to judge within who is a journalist and who isn't?

IMHO the post was about trying to make fox and the conservative media look bad. That is what you do.

The problem is there is no conservative media. It seems, like Fox as one example, they are feeding specific demographics in order to produce revenue and nothing more - point in case Fox's chasing of the royal wedding when other more important things went on.

 

[layoutshooter]

"But Layout what about this idea that they have a right to be embedded into units to report back based on the first amendment?

Is it something that may be construed that the first amendment may have some limitations or should be actually defined?

Or is it that the journalism in general has taken it upon themselves to be just another group that has to judge within who is a journalist and who isn't?"


Greg, you and I both know that there was a time that a reporter would NEVER report something that would lead to the death or maiming of US soldiers IN COMBAT.

Some of the reporting of our so called "new reporters" have done EXACTLY that. IF anyone in here wishes to talk to those who have fallen victim to this "reporting" I can arrange it, assuming they are still alive.

There are few vocations more important than being a part of a FREE PRESS. Free does not ONLY mean writing what one choses too, it also means, FREE OF BIAS.

I can PROVE, and you already know of what I speak, that OUR PRESS, has aided our enemies in the killing and maiming our troops, for nothing more than political gain.

 

[greg334]

Greg, you and I both know that there was a time that a reporter would NEVER report something that would lead to the death or maiming of US soldiers IN COMBAT.

When?

It was a general rule in WW2 not to report things but I think the Chicago Times did a very bad thing by publishing information that was damaging and FDR actually moved to shut the paper down. The press as you would agree does not have the right, never did because ... at that time, they were working with the press to move their agendas forward.

Some of the reporting of our so called "new reporters" have done EXACTLY that. IF anyone in here wishes to talk to those who have fallen victim to this "reporting" I can arrange it, assuming they are still alive.

I don't know what the "new reporter" thing is all about, but outside of Murrow, and the kind of his era, we have dealt with people like rather and Cronkite and so on who set the tone of what we now call the press. Pretty disgusting when you have people like Dan Rather who not once but twice within a forty year period lied to make the news.

There are few vocations more important than being a part of a FREE PRESS. Free does not ONLY mean writing what one choses too, it also means, FREE OF BIAS.

Well the ONLY one is being a citizen. No other thing is more important than that, no other vocation is to be so protected as being a citizen.

Free press means the citizen is free to report and publish the news, not a special class of people who fit either a political view point or gone through some special training to later be judged as a journalist by their peers. The present media - blogs - are one example of citizen journalism.

IT doesn't mean free of bias, if that was the case then the freedom would be worthless. It means free of government influence.

I can PROVE, and you already know of what I speak, that OUR PRESS, has aided our enemies in the killing and maiming our troops, for nothing more than political gain.

Yep but it takes the citizens to bring them to task, no one else can do it and when I mean citizens, I mean a large majority who are not afraid to admit that they can do without the modern media.

So after all of this, I surmise that you are willing to restrict some first amendment rights without letting it evolve to limit the damage that the modern press does to the country, is this right?

 

[layoutshooter]

When?

It was a general rule in WW2 not to report things but I think the Chicago Times did a very bad thing by publishing information that was damaging and FDR actually moved to shut the paper down. The press as you would agree does not have the right, never did because ... at that time, they were working with the press to move their agendas forward.



I don't know what the "new reporter" thing is all about, but outside of Murrow, and the kind of his era, we have dealt with people like rather and Cronkite and so on who set the tone of what we now call the press. Pretty disgusting when you have people like Dan Rather who not once but twice within a forty year period lied to make the news.



Well the ONLY one is being a citizen. No other thing is more important than that, no other vocation is to be so protected as being a citizen.

Free press means the citizen is free to report and publish the news, not a special class of people who fit either a political view point or gone through some special training to later be judged as a journalist by their peers. The present media - blogs - are one example of citizen journalism.

IT doesn't mean free of bias, if that was the case then the freedom would be worthless. It means free of government influence.



Yep but it takes the citizens to bring them to task, no one else can do it and when I mean citizens, I mean a large majority who are not afraid to admit that they can do without the modern media.

So after all of this, I surmise that you are willing to restrict some first amendment rights without letting it evolve to limit the damage that the modern press does to the country, is this right?

What would YOU say if it were YOUR life on the line?

Is it RIGHT to report something, that does nothing to enhance our freedom and put lives in risk? Does that enhance or degrade the profession? Does it enhance or degrade the Constitution? Does it enhance or degrade freedom?

How many must die to allow for the "freedom of the press" ? Most of whom did NOT have the stones to put their OWN useless lives on the line? Like Obama?

 

[greg334]

What would YOU say if it were YOUR life on the line?

What does that have to do with anything?

My life is on the line every time I step out of my house, it is when I am driving my truck and so on.

Is it RIGHT to report something, that does nothing to enhance our freedom and put lives in risk?

Well the right is there for a reason, and it is not for a government nor a group to judge who is or isn't a journalist and what they can or can't report. It is the responsibility of the person to have integrity in how they used their rights. BUT I am curious how your limitation can be applied to other rights, so let's see ... if I say we need background checks for people who are purchasing a firearm because they may be felons, that isn't alright to you but the right to be limited for a person to report something that may or may not be important to the public is alright?

Enhancing something that exists already that can't be enhanced is kind of saying we need to improve the sun's effectiveness in a desert because it is too wet.

Does that enhance or degrade the profession?

What profession?

Journalism?

I want to know where in the constitution that defines the press or the profession called journalism.

ANYONE?

No one can answer that because it doesn't define it. There is a reason for that, the citizen has that right or freedom, not an institution or a group of people. This means that no one is above a citizen when reporting any news to the public - no one.

Does it enhance or degrade the Constitution?

Well the freedom to report within limits set forth by the person's values doesn't degrade the constitution one bit but again enhance? there is no enhancing it.

Does it enhance or degrade freedom?

Neither, it maintains it.

How many must die to allow for the "freedom of the press" ?

Well here it is again and here I will offend people

...

again

...

there has not been a time since 1945 that we have had people die to defend this country, hence our freedoms. No one in the armed forces can defend my freedoms because they are not allowed to do so, except when we are attacked from the outside. THIS MEANS that if we apply this twisted logic, we would see scenarios played out just like the movie "Five Days In May" and the military marching on Washington. Before 1941, the only other time when external forces attacked OUR country was in 1812 (by the way the Germans were sinking ships off of our eastern sea board and we would not declare war against them and we surely didn't have a 'police action' happen). SO between those two wars, our military defended our rights and freedoms.

Most of whom did NOT have the stones to put their OWN useless lives on the line? Like Obama?

Obama doesn't have to, he is the president for God's sake but on the other hand I don't think a number in the military would either. You would be surprised the number of people who don't put on a uniform and who don't subscribe to an oath actually do in life. Many go through life after sacrificing for others, even protecting our country in some cases without rewards or even thinking about being rewards.

 

[layoutshooter]

Greg, you are wrong on most parts. There is NOT point in going on.

Those who served, those who put their lives on the line for other than personal gain, would and do, disagree with you.


Pointing out a weakness in body armor or HUMVEE armor serves NOTHING or no one but our enemies or the grim reaper.

I will not comment beyond that. It may be incriminating.

That is how it is.

 

[greg334]

I am absolutely right on every point and here's why;

NO ONE is above a citizen - period.

Once this concept gets through to those who think that there is a bigger cause that we must strive for or protect, then things will work out.

The other part of that is the inability for a lot of people to understand that the unfettered press that is in this country does a very important thing - keeps those who think they are more important than the citizens in check and prevents a take over by those in the military and/or government to the point of a real suspension of our rights.

DO you actually want a military that controls the country?

IF you do, than I can understand your desire to limit the first amendment.

BUT if you don't, take a serious listen to those in the military RIGHT now who are justifying their actions, existence and cost to the country based on what should be defined only by the citizens who are supposed to control them. This includes the BS line that we have to protect others who are in our national interest, like the Libyan rebels

Eisenhower made a speech before his 1960 Military speech where he warned the country that unless there are controls maintained without limitation on the military, they will control their own destiny.

It comes down to this simple formula, if you limit what is published based on any reasoning to protect the country (outside actual secrets), than you limit the country's ability to govern by the people. With the limitations comes dictatorship and slavery - your choice of what you want.

 

[layoutshooter]

I am absolutely right on every point and here's why;

NO ONE is above a citizen - period.

Once this concept gets through to those who think that there is a bigger cause that we must strive for or protect, then things will work out.

The other part of that is the inability for a lot of people to understand that the unfettered press that is in this country does a very important thing - keeps those who think they are more important than the citizens in check and prevents a take over by those in the military and/or government to the point of a real suspension of our rights.

DO you actually want a military that controls the country?

IF you do, than I can understand your desire to limit the first amendment.

BUT if you don't, take a serious listen to those in the military RIGHT now who are justifying their actions, existence and cost to the country based on what should be defined only by the citizens who are supposed to control them. This includes the BS line that we have to protect others who are in our national interest, like the Libyan rebels

Eisenhower made a speech before his 1960 Military speech where he warned the country that unless there are controls maintained without limitation on the military, they will control their own destiny.

It comes down to this simple formula, if you limit what is published based on any reasoning to protect the country (outside actual secrets), than you limit the country's ability to govern by the people. With the limitations comes dictatorship and slavery - your choice of what you want.

YEAH YEAH YEAH. I have heard it all before.

Name ONE time when I said that the military should run the country. JUST ONE!

When did I EVER say that there should NOT be civilian control over the military.

YOUR life was NEVER under threat because some putz printed an article about where an enemy could get around your body armor and kill you.

It makes NO difference if YOU, or any one else believes that those who are willing do DIE for you, and our way of life, are REALLY protecting your way of life. It only matter what those who DO THAT believe.

It is NOT justification, it is how it is. There are those who do or did. Those who don't or did not and those who would kill those who did.

That has NOTHING to do what making your guess. I guess that you have NO idea and wish not to try or spread your wings beyond the norm. Thats OK. It is hard.

 

[witness23]

Update:

Link: Binyamin Netanyahu's congressional love-in | World news | guardian.co.uk

Quote from Netanyahu's address to Congress:

We'll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967.

From the author:
Netanyahu even went so far as to say explicitly that "some settlements will end up beyond Israel's borders".

About the security of Israel:

Thank you all, and thank you, President Obama, for your steadfast commitment to Israel's security. I know economic times are tough. I deeply appreciate this.

And this about terrorism:

Israel has no better friend than America, and America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism. Congratulations, America. Congratulations, Mr President: You got Bin Laden. Good riddance!

Also, the entire transcript can be found here:

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress - The Washington Post

 

[Pilgrim]

Update:

Link: Binyamin Netanyahu's congressional love-in | World news | guardian.co.uk

Quote from Netanyahu's address to Congress:
"We'll be generous about the size of the future Palestinian state. But as President Obama said, the border will be different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967. "

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress - The Washington Post

Netanyahu played Obama like a grand master with that ploy, because Obama never actually said it that way. By giving Obama an exit route from the gaffe, he eliminates the issue after having made it clear that going back to the 1967 borders was a non-starter. Having been excoriated and ridiculed just hours after making the absurd '67 borders statement, there was no way Obama was going to disagree with Netanyahu's "re-interpretation". To even suggest that Israel go back to anything like the 1967 borders in order to appease the Palestinians shows the world that Obama is either incompetent in foreign affairs, seriously biased toward muslims, or perhaps both. "Perhaps both" is probably correct, given his pathetic results over the past 2+ years.

 

[witness23]

Someone needs to do some research on this particular issue.