Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

So much for tolerance of an opposing viewpoint....

Posted By: Observer on 2007-10-25
In Reply to: Sounds good to me - liberal democrat

talk the talk, don't walk the walk. Don't understand it, never will. Not trying to educate anyone; however, I am learning a good deal about liberals...and the differences among them. Very interesting indeed.

Have a good day....ignore away. :)


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

    The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
    To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


    Other related messages found in our database

    Just a little opposing view...
    Journalistsf Tell Howard Kurtz Why Good News from Iraq Shouldnft Get Reported (updated w/video)
    By Noel Sheppard | October 7, 2007 - 13:35 ET
    As CNN's Howard Kurtz accurately pointed out on Sunday's "Reliable Sources," few media outlets seemed at all interested in giving much attention to the great news out of Iraq last week regarding September's sharp decline in casualties.

    To Kurtz's obvious frustration, his guests - Robin Wright of the Washington Post and Barbara Starr of CNN - both supported the press burying this extremely positive announcement.

    I kid you not.

    *****Update: Wright responds to reader e-mail message at end of post.

    After introducing the subject, Kurtz asked, "Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?"

    This was Wright's amazing answer (video available here):

    Story Continues Below Ad «
    Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

    There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

    So the numbers themselves are tricky.

    Wow. Numbers shouldn't be reported because they're "tricky," "at the beginning of a trend," and there's "enormous dispute over how to count" them?

    No such moral conundrum existed last month when media predicted a looming recession after the Labor Department announced a surprising decline in non-farm payrolls that ended up being revised up four weeks later to show an increase.

    And, in the middle of a three and a half-year bull run in stocks, such "journalists" have no quandary predicting a bear market every time the Dow Jones Industrial Average falls a few hundred points.

    Yet, when good news regarding military casualties comes from the Defense Department, these same people show uncharacteristic restraint in not wanting to report what could end up being an a anomaly.

    Isn't that special?

    Alas, not seeing the stupidity in this position, Starr, with a straight-face nonetheless, agreed with Wright:

    But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

    Hmmm. So, I guess a "very positive step on that potential road to progress" isn't newsworthy, huh Barbara? Even Kurtz recognized the hypocrisy here, which led to the following:

    KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

    STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

    We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

    Hmmm. So, a shocking increase in deaths would have "certainly" been newsworthy. However, for a decrease to be reported, skeptical journalists have to be more convinced that it's a lasting improvement.

    Sadly, this is what makes today's reporters more like sports fans than real journalists.

    After all, it shouldn't be their position to decide when a comeback, rally, or winning streak is real enough for them to jump on the bandwagon and get excited about. News - be it good or bad - is to be reported.

    That's their job.

    And when folks like this make dissemination decisions to not share information on something as important as American casualties of war due to their own personal skepticism, they have indeed abdicated their solemn responsibility to the public whose interest they regularly claim to serve.

    What follows is a partial transcript of this segment.

    HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: The news from Iraq has been consistently depressing for several years now, a continuous tableau of death and destruction. But when the administration released more positive casualty figures this week, the media paid little attention. A couple of sentences on the "CBS EVENING NEWS" and NBC "NIGHTLY NEWS," The New York Times ran it on page 10, The Washington Post," page 14, USA Today page 16. The L.A. Times, a couple of paragraphs at the bottom of a page 4 story.

    One exception was Charlie Gibson, who made it the lead story on ABC's "WORLD NEWS."

    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

    CHARLES GIBSON, ABC ANCHOR: The U.S. military reports the fourth straight month of decline in troop deaths, 66 American troops died in September, each a terrible tragedy for a family, but the number far less than those who died in August. And the Iraqi government says civilian deaths across Iraq fell by half last month.

    (END VIDEO CLIP)

    KURTZ: Joining us now to put this into perspective, Robin Wright, who covers national security for The Washington Post. And CNN Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr.

    Robin Wright, should that decline in Iraq casualties have gotten more media attention?

    ROBIN WRIGHT, THE WASHINGTON POST: Not necessarily. The fact is we're at the beginning of a trend -- and it's not even sure that it is a trend yet. There is also an enormous dispute over how to count the numbers. There are different kinds of deaths in Iraq.

    There are combat deaths. There are sectarian deaths. And there are the deaths of criminal -- from criminal acts. There are also a lot of numbers that the U.S. frankly is not counting. For example, in southern Iraq, there is Shiite upon Shiite violence, which is not sectarian in the Shiite versus Sunni. And the U.S. also doesn't have much of a capability in the south.

    So the numbers themselves are tricky. Long-term, General Odierno, who was in town this week, said he is looking for irreversible momentum, and that, after two months, has not yet been reached.

    KURTZ: Barbara Starr, CNN did mostly quick reads by anchors of these numbers. There was a taped report on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT." Do you think this story deserved more attention? We don't know whether it is a trend or not but those are intriguing numbers.

    BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: But that's the problem, we don't know whether it is a trend about specifically the decline in the number of U.S. troops being killed in Iraq. This is not enduring progress. This is a very positive step on that potential road to progress.

    KURTZ: But let's say that the figures had shown that casualties were going up for U.S. soldiers and going up for Iraqi civilians. I think that would have made some front pages.

    STARR: Oh, I think inevitably it would have. I mean, that's certainly -- that, by any definition, is news. Look, nobody more than a Pentagon correspondent would like to stop reporting the number of deaths, interviewing grieving families, talking to soldiers who have lost their arms and their legs in the war. But, is this really enduring progress?

    We've had five years of the Pentagon telling us there is progress, there is progress. Forgive me for being skeptical, I need to see a little bit more than one month before I get too excited about all of this.

    *****Update: Susan Duclos of Wake up America sent an e-mail message to Robin Wright concerning this matter. Here was Wright's response:

    Ms. Duclos -
    Thanks for your comments. The point I was trying to make on CNN is that two months do not make a permanent trend. As Gen. Odierno said last week, when he came to the Post, the numbers have been good the last couple of months but the US military has not yet reached the point of "irreversible momentum." When they do, it will certainly mean a different kind of reporting about the war in general. Unfortunately, all it will take is one or two really bad incidents and the numbers will start going up again. The numbers aren't the whole story either. The progress in Anbar has been widely covered in the US media -- and that in many ways tells us far more about both the war and the future than the death tolls.
    I also think we're all a little nervous about declaring victories before we're fully confident that they represent a long-term and enduring trend and are not just a favorable blip on the screen.
    With regards,
    Robin Wright


    Diplomatic Correspondent
    The Washington Post
    Telephone: 202 334-7443
    Email: wrightr@washpost.com
    Fax: 202 496-3883

    Looks like anything good is being censored on this side by most of the major outlets here. Not surprising.
    Yep, that is real healthy...ignore opposing views.
    very UNlike the name you your party took...*democratic.* Very UNlike what your put yourselves off as, that being tolerant of ALL views (that is laughable), champion of the little guy (as long as that little guy is not a conservative)....and you prove it on this board every day. Thank you. If one ever has a doubt about the liberal agenda, one only need read your posts. Again...thank you for the reassurance to keep fighting the good fight. Have a good night now.
    Thank you so much for your viewpoint . . .

    You are right, we are not the greatest country in the world anymore.  Greed and selfishness have taken over this country, and it's starting to take its toll.  That's why we have one of the worst education systems in the world -- our kids are being taught it's better to have things than to be a good person.  I love Canada, have traveled there many, many times, and love the people.  I have thought for a long time about moving there -- that might become a reality if we yet again put greedy, hate-mongering fools in the White House!


    Another viewpoint
    There is no god and that is why he was chosen.

    The people chose - not some god.
    This viewpoint
    Shows how delusional some can be. Pompous to presume that because some "pray" and he was picked that God chose him. While otherws who prayed got a different outcome. If there is a God, there is good and evil. One does not know if Obama was chosen by good or evil. Evil things happen all the time, so to say that because you prayed and he was chosen that God chose him. Men chose who won - not God. Men voted and put money in his campaign - not God. There are evil men and there are good men. Now the questions is and we will be finding out soon - did the men who chose Obama to be president - are they good or evil.
    A different viewpoint from me

    I've come to realize during this election there is a battle going on.  Many people like to speak their minds, while others are more reluctant to do so for persecution of our feelings.


     


    I spoke with my dad tonight and he put a lot in perspective for me.  Dad’s always have a way of doing that (at least my dad does).  He told me tonight that things in life happen for a reason.  Sometimes we may not always see that reason until it has come to pass.  He said the ideas that you may have could possibly be wrong.  He said you may be right, but always leave the option open that you could be wrong. 


     


    He told me that there is nothing I can do personally to change the minds of others, so to save some “frazzled nerves”, just read and listen but keep your opinions to yourself, and don’t look on the bad side when the guy has not even been sworn into office.  He said if there are articles of interest you want to share that is one thing, but just keep your feelings to yourself.  He said just read, watch, and listen, and in time we will see whether we have elected a good man and I hope for the countries sake he is a good man. 


     


    He told me things are going to happen for a reason and you just have to learn to adapt otherwise you will just be in turmoil for things you cannot control.  Nobody knows what the future will bring.  So on those words of my dad I truly do hope President elect Obama becomes one of the greatest Presidents in history.    


    interesting viewpoint

    I heard a person say that if the constiutents of the republicans are rich, it is in their best interest to keep them rich; therefore, if the constituents of the democrats are the poor, is it not in their best interest to keep them poor?


     


    Not saying that I necessarily agree, just thought it was interesting.


    Because there's more than one church, one viewpoint?
    Until we all think and behave exactly like them, some Christians won't feel they got their way?
    Exactly - just as your viewpoint is being forced
    It works both ways, ya know.
    Yes...this would be the liberal viewpoint of the entire...sm
    Gov. Palin interview. Not surprising.

    Charlie Gibson did perform his role for the left well, didn't he? Entrapment journalism at its best.




    Another viewpoint - to be fair and truthful
    Seeing as your link is to a radical left-wing blog, wanted to state the fact is that 68% of veterans have voted for McCain and 23% have voted for Obama (so I guess your article is getting just the viewpoint of those 23% or less).

    To be balanced (and fair)here is a website that gives the other side.

    http://vets4mccain.com/

    another viewpoint - link inside
    Seeing as truthout.org is very liberal of course they will get the worst of the worst to render their viewpoint. If you go to a more conservative site you will get a different feel of how the soldiers really feel. My best friends husband and son are both over there and they say the military are still proud to serve and encourage all of us to support them and find the good in what they are doing. I found this article from a woman soldier who was in Afghanistan and lost both her legs. She states in the article...

    "My whole heart was into what I was doing. I love my people. I love my unit. I just love my job, and I'd go back and do it in a heartbeat."

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15038708

    I agree...and to bring a Christian viewpoint
    ..the Bible does state there is a time for peace and a time for war.
    Shouldn't that be "another" Christian viewpoint?
    nm
    by the way, backwards typist - I like hearing your viewpoint -
    I am not bashing anybody - I respond sometimes to comments with my own opinions, but I respect that you have the right to yours also.

    I never call anyone a liar on this board - but if I see something I think is incorrect, I will try to correct the information if I can...

    Also, I agree with the issues needing to be discussed and not bashing - for example, I asked who would vote for SP in 2012 and it turned into "she's better than him" or "he did this" below. I truly wanted to know who would vote for her in the primaries.

    But, I don't think it is just the dems tearing down the pubs - I am standing on the fence (neutral to party sides) and I see it going both ways...
    There is no tolerance
    .
    tolerance

    I have my own set of beliefs. I have studied various religions. I am familiar with the Bible. I did not solict your advice on what I should or should not believe. I spoke about my hope for the future of our country with the strong candidates running for our next president.  Please step off. What you think you know about all liberals is neither here nor there to me. I am here to discuss politics with liberals. How many times do I need to explain this? Now take your tamborine and move on,


     


     


    Tolerance is
    respectfully disagreeing with another person, not accepting everything a person believes.

    I'm so tired of being told that I am intolerant. If you knew the truth about something and someone else was spreading lies, you would correct them. Christians know the Truth and when a false religion tries to spread lies that will ultimately condemn people to h.e.l.l. they do everything they can to combat that.

    I've said this before: If you were about to walk out in front of a bus you would want me to stop you. I would be wrong for not at least trying to stop you. Well, you're about to get hit with the proverbial bus!
    Remarkable how a child's viewpoint can often offer wisdom
    nm
    Zero tolerance for liars
    Imagine how it would change the face of politics today if Republicans suddenly had TRUE "zero tolerance" for lying, cheating, stealing, vote fraud, false front groups, media shills, corporate malfeasance, crony capitalism, torture of innocents, war profiteering, oppressive foreign regimes and presidential dissembling.

    But nah...instead they seem to have very high tolerance levels for all of the above - hence the claim to "zero tolerance", using their favorite trick of naming a thing the exact opposite of what it really is.






    So much for the tolerance of the left. nm

    Fundamentalists have no tolerance for anyone but themselves.
    And for that reason, should not be running our country. They are simply self-serving right now saying they are doing it for the good of everyone else is a diseased excuse.

    If their agenda was righteous they would not have to hide it and pretend it's something else in order to sneak their way into positions of authority. The truth is they know that their values and agendas would not be supported by the vast majority of Americans - so they cheat, scheme, and plot to put one over on us.

    Is this the behavior of a moral group who sincerely believe in their gentle Jesus and his teachings? I don't think so.

    I think you should take your exclusive agenda back where it belongs - into your churches and homes, and let everyone else keep their religions in their own way. THAT would be the tolerance you seem to value so much, but actually don't seem to understand in the least.
    tolerance...........oh brother!!!
    Listen, I don't give a rat's butt about all this political PC garbage. Muslim countries hate us..... plain and simple. They so-called "religion" teaches hatred, not love, not tolerance, but pure hatred!! What about that don't you get?

    After 9/11 everyone got to PC about profiling. We're worried about profiling? H@ll with that.....I saw profile them to death. If I happen to be on a plane, you better believe I, just like everyone else, was watching them like a hawk. You can be PC about everything if you want, but this is my country, not the Muslims. They have a country. They do not teach tolerance of ANYONE but themselves.

    This has nothing to do with intolerance of those different than me. What an idiotic statement. I live in a community with people different than me in so many ways, it would take a while but one thing they all agree on.....they love this country more than they care about being PC. I posted a few days ago about a Muslim couple in our neighborhood. And, they said they would go back to their country any day if they felt safe. They feel no allegiance to this country. They will tell you they do not agree with bin Laden's hatred, but they do admit their sons are taught the Q'ran, which does not teach love of anyone but other Muslims. They fear their daughters could be stoned or raped and they know no one there will protect them. They take comlpete advantage of our schools to educate their children, but there is no allegiance to this country. You need to get off your PC pot because as you can see, that'll get us nowhere real fast!!!

    Tolerance, what a joke. Why don't we just tolerate them coming on over here and taking another 9/11 blow at us? Will that be enough tolerance for ya?
    Actually, no I don't believe in one-sided tolerance...sm
    This particular sign could have easily been displayed away from the creche, I feel, and it wouldn't have bothered me the least to see it.

    You see, I also celebrate Winter Solstice, and the earth and the animals.

    However, this particular sign seemed to be placed next to the creche to invoke upset from those who celebrate Christ's life and birth.

    I like to imagine that perhaps baby Jesus kicked the sign to the ditch myself. He could have if he wanted to.
    So, you only believe in one-sided tolerance? (sm)
    As in the ditch was well deserved?
    Thank you for your fairness and tolerance......nm
    nm
    Far left tolerance....(sm)

    Ummm, actually we have shown tolerance until we are blue in the face.  Let's see, we have tolerated an unjust war (oops, make that 2 wars) for how long?  We have tolerated having *in god we trust* on money, a church on every corner, a preacher on most channels, religious signs all over the place, a republican president who doesn't know his a$$ from a hole in the ground, ......  the list is actually quite extensive.  However, when it comes to something as simple as expecting equal rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the constitution, we get slammed for just bringing it up.  If an athiest sign is put up, it's all over the news (makes for good ratings, as Bill-O will attest to).  What isn't all over the news is the daily discrimination dished out by the opposition.


    Why don't I just answer my own question from below since noone else seems to be willing to give it a try.  People who are against gay marriage say they are sacrificing.  The only thing I see as them having to sacrifice is the joy they get from being able to hold a minority under thier collective thumbs.


    Abortion - tolerance?

    I ask this in the politest way possible and with all due respect.  I felt the need to say this after reading the posts below.


    Is it possible to be a little more sensitive to those who have undergone an abortion for whatever reason and to be careful on the words being chosen, such as "murder." I'm sure there are some reading these posts who have had an abortion. It can be a very traumatizing thing to go through, which you cannot take back. There are some of us who have become pregnant with very deformed babies that would be extremely difficult to raise, including the possibility of not surviving after birth, where the choice to abort was difficult but a personal decision. I'm not saying it's the right choice.  I'm just saying sometimes a woman feels there is no other.


    I say this from experience because I had to make that choice, and when I read that people think I'm a murderer and killed my baby, it makes it that much more hard to bear because I will always, always regret it.  I know I'm forgiven, but sometimes it's still hard to think---what if.


    Just please be sensitive with the words you choose, and know there are those of us out here who have made this choice and regret it and have to live with it for the rest of our lives.


    The key word is tolerance....(sm)

    not acceptance.  I'm not advocating that everyone should accept homosexuality.  To accept it would be to agree with it, which would obviously conflict with the personal interests of some.  What I am advocating is tolerance.  That would include restraining one's self from attacking verbally or physically simply on the basis of sexual orientation. 


    I think the point of the penguin story is to show that homosexuals are normal people who have feelings, goals, interests, families, etc. ---  the moral:  they may be homosexuals, but they are still people, no better and no worse than you or me.


    Your tolerance is only for those in agreement.nm
    nm
    Tolerance applies except to the Christian right
    then the gloves are off. Christians are not to be tolerated unless they are willing to *embrace* not just *tolerate* other views and/or lifestyles.
    Yeah, and you show SUCH Tolerance, don't you?
    Look, the Constitution of these United States says that the government shall have no part in establishing a religion, but it also will not prohibit the free exercise thereof. It is a constitutional right. So far, gay marriage is NOT. YOu want tolerance for gay marriage, fine. Show a little tolerance and less bullsh*t yourself, and someone might actually care about your point of view. :-)
    Tolerance is NOT what they're being taught......
    What they are doing is pushing crap down the throats of little children, undermining what their parents are teaching them at home. My children were not taught homosexuality is "okay" but neither were they taught to hate others just because they live a lifestyle that is different. There is a huge difference. Public education is paid for by the "taxpayers", not the federal govt, who is allowing this garbage in the first place. Obviously the federal govt forgot where they get their money from as well!!

    If tolerance is your ONLY argument, they why aren't they teaching tolerance of the Bible, prolife, etc. THe list could go on and on. We all know what is going on here..... PUSHING A GAY AGENDA in a public school.

    Children are sent to school to learn knowledge skills, not how John and Matt like to live together, which in case you don't get it, is morality. The last place I want my children learning morality is at school. They should be taught that at home in the first place. They see enough garbage in school as it is.
    Well, there's a healthy dose of liberal tolerance for ya
    You know your example was stupid...quoting porn stars. I think you're scraping the bottom of the barrell, and I can tell I hit a nerve..
    Just one more example of that TOLERANCE liberals claim to disply...
    they are very very tolerant, as long as everyone agrees with them. At least I am openly judgemental.
    Oh, I can beat that. A picture of liberal tolerance and love for the troops. SM