My issue is with the implication that the differences between rape and marital sex are somehow outweighed by the fact that they are both “methods of conception.”
[/quote]
If someone identifies the nature of your question as a method of conception type of question…
Come now, the questioner knows Ryan believes life begins at conception. He knows that doesn’t change depending on circumstance. That question is asked to try and shame the pro-lifer. Doesn’t work. But, my point is, if you’re going to play a scenario/method game, reaching for the hardest of cases, then don’t be surprised when we point out that the choice of ‘methods’ you’re throwing at us doesn’t change conception. Ryan seems to be doing well enough with women, I think they understood both where his heart was and his point, even if they disagree with him
The editors choose what does and what doesn’t get printed, and where the stories are or aren’t buried.
The fact they control the narrative is the point, and more and more people are fed up with it. As can be evidenced by Fox’s ratings, even though most people know Fox plays it fast and loose and leans right, they are starved for the POV from the “other side”. Fox reports things other people don’t, and to ignore them makes one a self selected ignoramus. [/quote]
Well, I’d say you’d be smart to ignore Fox along with all of the other TV news outlets.
But that aside, you’re right that Fox is just one side of a coin that damn both liberals and conservatives.
My only point is that I know for a fact that the people at Fox start their day with the NYT just like everybody else. iIt’s on O’Reilly’s and Scarborough’s and Hume’s doorsteps every morning, along with the doorsteps of all of their producers, and not just for them to get worked up about liberal bias.
The editors choose what does and what doesn’t get printed, and where the stories are or aren’t buried.
The fact they control the narrative is the point, and more and more people are fed up with it. As can be evidenced by Fox’s ratings, even though most people know Fox plays it fast and loose and leans right, they are starved for the POV from the “other side”. Fox reports things other people don’t, and to ignore them makes one a self selected ignoramus. [/quote]
Well, I’d say you’d be smart to ignore Fox along with all of the other TV news outlets.
But that aside, you’re right that Fox is just one side of a coin that damn both liberals and conservatives.
My only point is that I know for a fact that the people at Fox start their day with the NYT just like everybody else. iIt’s on O’Reilly’s and Scarborough’s and Hume’s doorsteps every morning, along with the doorsteps of all of their producers, and not just for them to get worked up about liberal bias.[/quote]
First of all you DON’T “know” that they start their day with the NYT so I really wish you’d stop saying that.
None of us KNOW who how any of the news people start their day.
News has changed a great deal over the past 10 years. Independent journalism died in 2008 when the MSLM stood there drooling over Obama instead of vetting him like they would any other candidate. So from that point forward there was a game change.
And the NYT has fallen considerably from where they were. There are many other papers that are far more respected than the NYT. They are now just another liberal rag.
My issue is with the implication that the differences between rape and marital sex are somehow outweighed by the fact that they are both “methods of conception.”
[/quote]
If someone identifies the nature of your question as a method of conception type of question…
Come now, the questioner knows Ryan believes life begins at conception. He knows that doesn’t change depending on circumstance. That question is asked to try and shame the pro-lifer. Doesn’t work. But, my point is, if you’re going to play a scenario/method game, reaching for the hardest of cases, then don’t be surprised when we point out that the choice of ‘methods’ you’re throwing at us doesn’t change conception. Ryan seems to be doing well enough with women, I think they understood both where his heart was and his point, even if they disagree with him
[/quote]
The rest of my previous post on the topic was probably a better expression of my point than this part that you quoted. The “method of conception” line was Ryan’s, not his interviewers. As I’ve said, I find that to be a laughable sterilization of a pretty extreme position. Again–rape is a “method of conception” in the same way that suicide is a method of coping or fratricide is a method of dealing with family issues or cannibalism is a method of getting enough protein on a bulk.
This isn’t a scenario game, by the way. According to the CDC, 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year.
The editors choose what does and what doesn’t get printed, and where the stories are or aren’t buried.
The fact they control the narrative is the point, and more and more people are fed up with it. As can be evidenced by Fox’s ratings, even though most people know Fox plays it fast and loose and leans right, they are starved for the POV from the “other side”. Fox reports things other people don’t, and to ignore them makes one a self selected ignoramus. [/quote]
Well, I’d say you’d be smart to ignore Fox along with all of the other TV news outlets.
But that aside, you’re right that Fox is just one side of a coin that damn both liberals and conservatives.
My only point is that I know for a fact that the people at Fox start their day with the NYT just like everybody else. iIt’s on O’Reilly’s and Scarborough’s and Hume’s doorsteps every morning, along with the doorsteps of all of their producers, and not just for them to get worked up about liberal bias.[/quote]
First of all you DON’T “know” that they start their day with the NYT so I really wish you’d stop saying that.
Simple.[/quote]
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, at the same time that I was a graduate student in journalism school and consequently very curious about the inner workings of the network, so I do pretty much know that.
And the NYT has fallen considerably from where they were. There are many other papers that are far more respected than the NYT. They are now just another liberal rag.
[/quote]
Name one of these papers.
More respected? By you, sure. Or your friends or the people at a conservative rally. But more respected in the industry, or in the beltway? Absolutely not.
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, [/quote]
Well we know why you guys broke up then. ;)[/quote]
hahaha.
yep, because Conservatives are terrible in bed.
Just kidding. She was actually sorta politically agnostic. But these days, if you get a job somewhere, you take it. A job at the WSJ is just as enviable as one at the Times, regardless of political slant.
The editors choose what does and what doesn’t get printed, and where the stories are or aren’t buried.
The fact they control the narrative is the point, and more and more people are fed up with it. As can be evidenced by Fox’s ratings, even though most people know Fox plays it fast and loose and leans right, they are starved for the POV from the “other side”. Fox reports things other people don’t, and to ignore them makes one a self selected ignoramus. [/quote]
Well, I’d say you’d be smart to ignore Fox along with all of the other TV news outlets.
But that aside, you’re right that Fox is just one side of a coin that damn both liberals and conservatives.
My only point is that I know for a fact that the people at Fox start their day with the NYT just like everybody else. iIt’s on O’Reilly’s and Scarborough’s and Hume’s doorsteps every morning, along with the doorsteps of all of their producers, and not just for them to get worked up about liberal bias.[/quote]
First of all you DON’T “know” that they start their day with the NYT so I really wish you’d stop saying that.
Simple.[/quote]
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, at the same time that I was a graduate student in journalism school and consequently very curious about the inner workings of the network, so I do pretty much know that.[/quote]
Well, that’s not what she told me…WHOA WHOA…got you!
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, [/quote]
Well we know why you guys broke up then. ;)[/quote]
hahaha.
yep, because Conservatives are terrible in bed.
Just kidding. She was actually sorta politically agnostic. But these days, if you get a job somewhere, you take it. A job at the WSJ is just as enviable as one at the Times, regardless of political slant.[/quote]
The editors choose what does and what doesn’t get printed, and where the stories are or aren’t buried.
The fact they control the narrative is the point, and more and more people are fed up with it. As can be evidenced by Fox’s ratings, even though most people know Fox plays it fast and loose and leans right, they are starved for the POV from the “other side”. Fox reports things other people don’t, and to ignore them makes one a self selected ignoramus. [/quote]
Well, I’d say you’d be smart to ignore Fox along with all of the other TV news outlets.
But that aside, you’re right that Fox is just one side of a coin that damn both liberals and conservatives.
My only point is that I know for a fact that the people at Fox start their day with the NYT just like everybody else. iIt’s on O’Reilly’s and Scarborough’s and Hume’s doorsteps every morning, along with the doorsteps of all of their producers, and not just for them to get worked up about liberal bias.[/quote]
First of all you DON’T “know” that they start their day with the NYT so I really wish you’d stop saying that.
Simple.[/quote]
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, at the same time that I was a graduate student in journalism school and consequently very curious about the inner workings of the network, so I do pretty much know that.[/quote]
Well, that’s not what she told me…WHOA WHOA…got you![/quote]
My issue is with the implication that the differences between rape and marital sex are somehow outweighed by the fact that they are both “methods of conception.”
[/quote]
If someone identifies the nature of your question as a method of conception type of question…
Come now, the questioner knows Ryan believes life begins at conception. He knows that doesn’t change depending on circumstance. That question is asked to try and shame the pro-lifer. Doesn’t work. But, my point is, if you’re going to play a scenario/method game, reaching for the hardest of cases, then don’t be surprised when we point out that the choice of ‘methods’ you’re throwing at us doesn’t change conception. Ryan seems to be doing well enough with women, I think they understood both where his heart was and his point, even if they disagree with him
[/quote]
The rest of my previous post on the topic was probably a better expression of my point than this part that you quoted. The “method of conception” line was Ryan’s, not his interviewers. As I’ve said, I find that to be a laughable sterilization of a pretty extreme position. Again–rape is a “method of conception” in the same way that suicide is a method of coping or fratricide is a method of dealing with family issues or cannibalism is a method of getting enough protein on a bulk.
This isn’t a scenario game, by the way. According to the CDC, 32,000 pregnancies result from rape each year.[/quote]
No, it is a game. The interviewer, and everyone at home, knows that conception suddenly isn’t conception, regardless of the method presented by the questioner. You’re talking about decisions. Conception, and a new human life, is simply a brute fact of nature.
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, [/quote]
Well we know why you guys broke up then. ;)[/quote]
hahaha.
yep, because Conservatives are terrible in bed.
Just kidding. She was actually sorta politically agnostic. But these days, if you get a job somewhere, you take it. A job at the WSJ is just as enviable as one at the Times, regardless of political slant.[/quote]
I wonder what those types of jobs pay?[/quote]
Top tier writers and editors get paid very well. Average Joes get by as well: I believe that a couple years at the Times as a reporter lands you somewhere around 90-100K. I don’t know about the WSJ but I would assume it’s pretty comparable.
My ex-girlfriend was an intern for O’Reilly and is now an associate producer at Fox, [/quote]
Well we know why you guys broke up then. ;)[/quote]
hahaha.
yep, because Conservatives are terrible in bed.
Just kidding. She was actually sorta politically agnostic. But these days, if you get a job somewhere, you take it. A job at the WSJ is just as enviable as one at the Times, regardless of political slant.[/quote]
I wonder what those types of jobs pay?[/quote]
Top tier writers and editors get paid very well. Average Joes get by as well: I believe that a couple years at the Times as a reporter lands you somewhere around 90-100K. I don’t know about the WSJ but I would assume it’s pretty comparable.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
I can tell this is getting bad for Obama, by the articles in the very Left Los Angeles Times.
Any time Obama is doing well, there are numerous articles about it. Not a single one, and hasn’t been one for at least a week now. [/quote]
If the election were held today and the rcp poll average correctly predicted the winner of each swing state, Obama would take Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania and therefore the election. There is every reason to believe that Mitt Romney can win this election, but there is also every reason for Republicans to be worried about him losing and every reason to call him, at this point in time, a modest underdog.
