Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
rollin' on dubs
$30 Billion energy, water spending bill passes House, 227-198
edited 11th Jul '13 4:41:02 AM by deviantbraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016That "all Americans are journalists" is... going to bring up a lot of trouble, I think. For one thing, having a blog does not, in fact, make you a journalist. Given how easy to start a blog it is these days on anything, there's literally nothing guaranteeing journalistic integrity, or stopping any "journalist" from spreading deliberate misinformation or pushing an agenda ala Fox and Friends.
There's a context in which a professional is trying to get a story out, and there's a context in which you're a person just sharing an opinion or story on the internet. One is subject to particular protections afforded specifically to journalists that are ensuring the privacy of informants and such, while the other just falls under the Second Amendment and is not subject to other particulars. Plus, without knowing more about what Durbin actually said I'm not at all sure what to think about his statement. We've had a de jur definition of a journalist for a long time, and in light of that Durbin's statement doesn't seem that bad.
(And frankly, some requirements to become a licensed journalist could stand to be revised anyway in order to be made more sensible; during Occupy there were stories of student journalists that essentially had to break the law in order to qualify under said law for journalists credentials in New York. That's kind of fucked up.)
Edit: And that article seems to buy into the "liberal media agenda" as well, so I'm taking the entire thing with a grain of salt.
edited 10th Jul '13 8:56:27 PM by AceofSpades
Well, the thing is is that journalists that work for things like newspapers have to qualify things like media passes, and generally got educated in the field of journalism and have a degree or other background in it. Neither of which you need to take photos and spread them over the internet.
I'm not saying people shouldn't freely disseminate information, particularly if you've got proof of wrongdoing. And I've never said we shouldn't be able to say what we want as we've been guaranteed by the first amendment. I'm just saying that spewing your opinion on the internet doesn't make you a journalist. We have some level of qualifications for that, and it comes with particular protections other than the first Amendment to ensure journalistic integrity and the privacy of the journalist's sources. That article about it is kind of unrealistic about what a journalist is, and doesn't even link to the actual statement it's disputing.
That... is very very odd. I'm also not sure that quite qualifies, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a judge.
edited 10th Jul '13 10:51:13 PM by AceofSpades
Case anyone was wondering the third amendment is this:
In other words the army can't just come into town and demand you give then housing. Which was common practice when the Constitution was written.
hashtagsarestupidDeath Valley Rangers are asking visitors to stop frying eggs on the ground.
BRING A SKILLET FOLKS
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love."
Same.
It'll be better for the US if it includes a UK-style enforcement of neutrality, too. Is there a Union of Journalists in the US?
...and there is: The Newspaper Guild
— the reason for its creation was rather interesting.
edited 11th Jul '13 3:45:45 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Seriously? The saving in the energy use would offset the cost... what the heck are they on about?
Who paid them to try blocking this? And, how much was it?
Alternately... did they just get bored with trying to block health reform, they're hitting any reform, just 'cos?
edited 11th Jul '13 5:14:00 AM by Euodiachloris
![]()
![]()
Its an easy target becasuse the average uninformed voter will be like "why do we need toi regulate ceiling fans? stupid gubmint and its silly rules herpderp"
IE, its just ludicrous sounding enough at first wheeze to fit the republican narrative of regulations being unneccesary.
edited 11th Jul '13 6:35:40 AM by midgetsnowman
rollin' on dubs
The "authorized journalist" thing: It's about the media protecting it's rice bowl and the politicians crying that bloggers are getting a story out.
3rd amendment: the line between police and military is getting waaay to blurry IMO. 'Bout time some people filed a case.
I tried to walk like an Egyptian and now I need to see a Cairo practor.......I fail to see what "the line between police and military getting blurry" has anything to do with the third amendment.
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.What are police if not a government-sponsored military force?
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.

On a similar note, isn't illegal immigration at it's lowest and deportation at its highest level ever?