Fox News Cameraman Cuffed Tape Seized---Opinions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Burns
  • Start date Start date
There's a reason that this forum is suppose to be non political.
So this sort of nonsense doesn't become a part of Digital
Photography discussion.

I might make a suggestion though, look into the founding history of
the US of A. Check out the founding precepts/basis of this country
and what the founding fathers had to say about religion, the
creation of this country and what part they expected Christian
values to play in it's day to day existance. The short, they
expected Christianity to be at the forefront of every aspect of
this country's daily existence. Get use to it.
Thomas:

As we are very off topic, I hope I can make this short. It is a common misconception that the founding fathers of the USA intended a Christian based society. Many, today, employ a very creative history in order to try to tell us that this was the case.

As was correctly pointed out, most of the founding fathers considered themselves deists. Thomas Jefferson, for example, did not attend an organized church. He believed that worship (for those who believed in a supreme being) was a personal practice; and, he, therefore, performed his form of worship at home. He also wrote his own version of the Bible. I have never read it; however, I understand that it is based upon a christian translation of the Bible, but with all of the references to miracles removed.

The movement, in the United States, towards a heavily Christian biased society, actually began in th early 1800's and reached its zenith in the mid to late 1800's. It was largely during this time that the revisionist historians created the myth that the founding fathers wanted a Christian based society, and would be upset at our present day interpretation of the meaning of separation of church and state.

Instead of quoting historical texts or statements, I think we can see this in a very simple example. During Jefferson's preidency, there was a move to eliminate Sunday mail deliveries (yes, mail was delivered seven days per week, at that time). Jefferson blocked the move, complainting that such action wouldbe an illegal violation of the separation of church and state.

The revisionists would have us believe that our present day understanding of the meaning of separation of church and state is far too strict and an aboration of what was intended by the founding fathers. A look back to their own words and actions shows us that the opposite is actually the case.

Cliff
 
Well now Tom their might be a problem there. Almost without
exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist.
As an example I offer this letter from Thomas Jefferson to William
Short.
It's quite convenient to leave the whole story out of the conversation as the requirements to hold office included membership in a church for govornor on down.

This forum is not to be political, please keep it that way and get use to the fact that you're the obtuse thinker around the world, not the other way around.
 
Thomas, I respectfully dissent.
Which is quite okay but the decent is on deft ears because there's more to it than nothingness.

"Christian Values" are not
exactly limited to the Christian religion. Reviewing the 10
Commandments, (which I would assume are the fundemental
cornerstones of "Christian Values") ... er ... they are not
Christian ... they a Jewish.
Hence the term Judeo/Christian principals.

Seems to me, "Muslim Values" ... are
the same ... stricter in some regards.
How quick we forget our history and when things happened.

Our Founding Fathers were
free masons ... having "Journey'd to the East" myself ... I can
certainly appreciate the Masonic Symbels ... inhereent and an
intrigal part of our American culture. I think our Founding
Fathers believed that a relationship with God .. was a personal
thing ... something that the State had no business regulating,
probagating nor denigrating, (sorry if I sounded like Jesse Jackson
for a minute there :)
I didn't recognize the Jesse reference but I haven't a clue how the above ties into photography and or the true history of our country.
Americans are a spiritual people; secure in the knnowledge that
they can worship any way they wish; secure in the knowledge that
the State can not tithe, (tax the hell out of them ... but not
tithe) ... and secure in the knowledge that they can choose to
believe, or not, what they wish.
Nobody is forcing you to believe anyway you want but don't expect believers to be supporting of non believers because it conveniences those that don't believe.

The point, this is a digital photographic site, not a religious message board and second, get use to the fact that this country was founded on Judeo/Christian principals, not the hedonistic principals of non believers.
 
And, anyway, I do not care much about what dead guys from 200+
years ago had to say about what they thought our government should
be.
I care what those dead guys think and the further you get away from what those guys think, the more destrctive you become to the principals and ideals this country was founded on.
They were just men. Perfectly capapble of being in error and often
were. Just like the rest of us.
No, they were better men then you and I. The difference between the two of us, I recognize this, you don't.
The would have been more specific in the meaning of the 2nd
amendment if they knew what technological innovation would do to
guns.
Great, leftis tripe.
They left us with slavery.
Is that what they did. Boy, you really don't know your history and what was going on at the time in the WORLD and how a nation is founded on compromise. If slavery hadn't been allowed, this country wouldn't have been created. There's so little you understand about the slavery issue, such as it existed in Africa a thousand years before the first European set foot on the sub-Saharan part of Africa and slavery was an accepted part of doing business world wide at the time the US was created and is still in effect in Africa today. It was white Christican Englishmen in England that started the concept that slavery of anybody was wrong, not the black slavers of Africa or non-believers in modern day America.

Please try and keep your thoughs on photography and not these obtuse non photographic spins of yours.
They did not give women the right to vote.
Gee and women were allowed to vote in Europe, Middle East, South American, India or China at the same time?
They did not make the Turkey our national symbol. :)
Mike Roberts
No but there are those that are tring to, to this day.
 
There's a reason that this forum is suppose to be non political.
So this sort of nonsense doesn't become a part of Digital
Photography discussion.

I might make a suggestion though, look into the founding history of
the US of A. Check out the founding precepts/basis of this country
and what the founding fathers had to say about religion, the
creation of this country and what part they expected Christian
values to play in it's day to day existance. The short, they
expected Christianity to be at the forefront of every aspect of
this country's daily existence. Get use to it.
Thomas:

As we are very off topic,
That's why I suggested to keep it on topic.
I hope I can make this short. It is a
common misconception that the founding fathers of the USA intended
a Christian based society. Many, today, employ a very creative
history in order to try to tell us that this was the case.
There's no creativity to it. The historical documents are there to back up the requirements to hold political office. Not a myth but a truth that is being revised for convenience sake.
As was correctly pointed out, most of the founding fathers
considered themselves deists.
It was incorrectly pointed out as the quotes have been taken out of context because they left the whole story out and left in the parts that bolster their argument. It's called an argument of convenience.
The movement, in the United States, towards a heavily Christian
biased society, actually began in th early 1800's and reached its
zenith in the mid to late 1800's.
Go back in your histroy and see when the Constitution was ratified lastly by RI. Then do the math how many years it was to the early 1800's, you'll find only a few years in the middle.
It was largely during this time
that the revisionist historians created the myth that the founding
fathers wanted a Christian based society, and would be upset at our
present day interpretation of the meaning of separation of church
and state.
The only myth that has been created is the myth that they didn't want religion in our scociety's day to day affairs. The documentation is there for all to read and has been on the liks of cable historical channels in documentary form many times.
Instead of quoting historical texts or statements, I think we can
see this in a very simple example. During Jefferson's preidency,
there was a move to eliminate Sunday mail deliveries (yes, mail was
delivered seven days per week, at that time). Jefferson blocked
the move, complainting that such action wouldbe an illegal
violation of the separation of church and state.
I can't speak of what you write above but the founding fathers consisted of more than just one man.
The revisionists would have us believe that our present day
understanding of the meaning of separation of church and state is
far too strict and an aboration of what was intended by the
founding fathers. A look back to their own words and actions shows
us that the opposite is actually the case.
No they don't but that's what you want to believe because it conveniences you.

Try and get back to photography.
 
But there's a reason for your above axiom. What's that reason?
Simple. "Intellectual giants are not known for trying to get grunt
jobs with any government office."
I hope I remember this right.

Einstein worked at the patent office.
And Einstein was also well known for being limited in other necessary personal, intellectual and social skills, math being set aside. My how we lose sight of reality:-)
 
Hey Tommy-boy:

You keep insisting to keep topics related to photographic concerns within the forum (yes, I've read all the religious tripe you've posted since last night.....quite a rampage). The post of mine you are attacking me over is a humorous and ironic response to a previous post alluding to the possibility that not all persons associated with low end governmental jobs have high intellects.....something, by the way, with which I disagree.

Now, Tommy, I don't think it's very smart of YOU, or very nice, to be attacking and insulting people for posts that were'nt even directed at you. And you certainly are'nt keeping things relative to photography by doing so.

Want to know what is'nt very smart? The fact that you felt the need to refute every single poster on this thread who dissents from your smug and insulated opinion and view on political/religious concerns. What's even less intelligent, is the fact you kept insisting on keeping discussions on this thread within photography, yet you were only getting responses to your own non-relevancy of the topic at hand. Worse, you continued it by responding to each and every one. I personally don't see ANY of your posts on this thread referring to photography.

You additionally are not the sharpest tack yourself by not having an open mind to the opinions of others around you. And when it was pointed out to you that one of the major founding fathers to whom you seemed to enjoy using to back up your religious fanaticism dissented in fact from many of your twisted views, you needed to twist it around further by saying it was'nt only "one" founding father whose principles this country was built on. In other words, Tommy, you can't stand to be incorrect or corrected. Ego problem, or just insecurity?

Now take your own advice and stay on the topics of photography and cease your childish and inflammatory remarks, or at least save them for somebody who cares.
D.
So.....does this mean the sister who works for the corrections
department does'nt have an education, no skills to speak of and
is'nt the sharpest tack in the box?
LOL
You sir are not a very smart person.
 
Correction regarding my last post.

It WAS your post I was responding to about the sister who works for the corrections department. (See, I can admit when I'm in error.....it's not that hard Tommy). Anyway, I still stand by my original statement concerning my replying to your post in a humorous and ironic way. Obviously, your massive intellect could'nt see through to that, and you twisted it into a personal affront.

I've additionally wasted enough of my time with this on you as well, and wish also to get back to relevant topics, and "smart" people.
Good grief.
D.
So.....does this mean the sister who works for the corrections
department does'nt have an education, no skills to speak of and
is'nt the sharpest tack in the box?
LOL
You sir are not a very smart person.
 
Hey Tommy-boy:
You keep insisting to keep topics related to photographic concerns
within the forum (yes, I've read all the religious tripe you've
posted since last night.....quite a rampage).
Care to point out any religious tripe.
The post of mine you
are attacking me over is a humorous and ironic response to a
previous post alluding to the possibility that not all persons
associated with low end governmental jobs have high
intellects.....something, by the way, with which I disagree.
Now, Tommy, I don't think it's very smart of YOU, or very nice, to
be attacking and insulting people for posts that were'nt even
directed at you.
That was my post you were responding to about the family reference.

And you certainly are'nt keeping things relative
to photography by doing so.
I keep trying to keep politics out and digital photography in.
Want to know what is'nt very smart? The fact that you felt the
need to refute every single poster on this thread who dissents from
your smug and insulated opinion and view on political/religious
concerns.
Okay, according to you, response to decent isn't rational behavior. Okay.
What's even less intelligent, is the fact you kept
insisting on keeping discussions on this thread within photography,
yet you were only getting responses to your own non-relevancy of
the topic at hand. Worse, you continued it by responding to each
and every one. I personally don't see ANY of your posts on this
thread referring to photography.
That's why I keep my comments pithy and finish with this is not a political forum but a digital photography forum. Keep the argument going. I'll not respond as you need to get the last word in. Okay, you can have the last word.
You additionally are not the sharpest tack yourself by not having
an open mind to the opinions of others around you.
An closed mind to mistruths is a sign of a strong, able to make up their mind for themselves type of mind not a sign of a dull or ignaorant mind. There is a difference.
And when it was
pointed out to you that one of the major founding fathers to whom
you seemed to enjoy using to back up your religious fanaticism
"religious fanaticism" is it now. My but you do try to inflame. Let's see, if I agree, I'm cool and open minded and if I disagree, I'm a close minded religious fanatic. Gee, decisions, decisions.
dissented in fact from many of your twisted views,
Now I'm twisted. Maybe if I rush down and get counseling, I can be helped. Will you be my counselor to help me see the light?
you needed to
twist it around further by saying it was'nt only "one" founding
father whose principles this country was built on. In other words,
Tommy, you can't stand to be incorrect or corrected. Ego problem,
or just insecurity?
Now because your incomplete, out of context example was accepted as the final word, I can't stand to be incorrect and to be corrected is upsetting to me because I have an ego problem and I'm just insecure. O-kay.
Now take your own advice and stay on the topics of photography and
cease your childish and inflammatory remarks, or at least save them
for somebody who cares.
And as a parting shot, you say that I'm childish, my simple comments of fact are inflammatory and that you don't care.

Okay. I believe you.

My comments still stand. This is a photography forum, try to keep your comments in that vein.
 
Thomas, I respectfully dissent.
Which is quite okay but the decent is on deft ears because there's
more to it than nothingness.
Well Thomas ... thank you for sharing your views ... er ... and I hope your "deft" ears heal well. I certainly mean no ill will nor disrespect, but, as a personal observation, to quote you:
You sir are not a very smart person.
Since, from your "profile" you claim to be a "pest control" person from "Silicone Valley ... let me rephrase your post:

If we could convert your intellectual horsepower into gasoline ... there wouldn't be enough to power an ant's motorscooter around the inside of a cheerio :)
Warmest Regards
Karl

[email protected] (Karl H. Timmerman M.A.J.D.) http://www.ktimmerman.comhttp://www.pbase.com/heinzi
 
Hence the term Judeo/Christian principals.
In my own life experience, I have always found it interesting that the term "Judeo/Christian" seems to be employed only by Christians, and often in the context of evangelizing.
get use to the fact that this country was
founded on Judeo/Christian principals, not the hedonistic
principals of non believers.
Since only two of the original colonies welcomed Jews as citizens, I find it difficult to find it a "fact" that the United States "...was founded on Judeo/Christian principals...."

Cliff
 
Tom:
I think the biggest thing most folks on here are finding difficult is you sir.

Give it a rest already, eh? If you do truly need the last word in, then I'll even oblige you that. This'll be my last post about it. Now you are free to respond back (which I know you will) and have your final dig. Then all will be right again in the neighborhood.
Ok, have at it, and be a good boy now.
D.
Since only two of the original colonies welcomed Jews as citizens,
I find it difficult to find it a "fact" that the United States
"...was founded on Judeo/Christian principals...."

Cliff
Okay, you find it difficult. Cool.
 
Tom:
I think the biggest thing most folks on here are finding difficult
is you sir.
That's nice.
Give it a rest already, eh? If you do truly need the last word in,
then I'll even oblige you that. This'll be my last post about it.
It seems that tolerant is a one way word.
Now you are free to respond back (which I know you will) and have
your final dig.
What you're really saying is that you want to continue to insult people and for people to rationally respond is unacceptable to you.

Then all will be right again in the neighborhood.
Ok, have at it, and be a good boy now.
Now we're condesending in our comments. Wow! You're impressive.
 
Since you are the one that began all this and given the fact that most of my post was a quote from a letter of Thomas Jefferson I assume he is the one you are calling an "obtuse thinker". Not nice to call a founding father names. Especially as you originally used all of them in your erroneous claims concerning the founding of the United States.

I'd be glad to debate the points you made in your original post however I am not going to get in a name calling exchange with you.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

James Madison
Well now Tom their might be a problem there. Almost without
exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist.
As an example I offer this letter from Thomas Jefferson to William
Short.
It's quite convenient to leave the whole story out of the
conversation as the requirements to hold office included membership
in a church for govornor on down.

This forum is not to be political, please keep it that way and get
use to the fact that you're the obtuse thinker around the world,
not the other way around.
--John
 
But there's a reason for your above axiom. What's that reason?
Simple. "Intellectual giants are not known for trying to get grunt
jobs with any government office."
I hope I remember this right.

Einstein worked at the patent office.
And Einstein was also well known for being limited in other
necessary personal, intellectual and social skills, math being set
aside.
What does that have to with my example? Social skills? Like fashion. Not many intellectual giants care about fashion. His math abilities, while not perfect, were far better than 99% of educated folks. In his youth his intelligence led him to be somewhat remote (to the point that moronic educators thought he was retarded). In his middle years he was known for being a very fun guy. As an old man he had spent 30+ years being told how great he was which would affect anyone.
My how we lose sight of reality:-)
Exactly what do you mean and how does it apply to this discussion? And while your at it, define reality.

Mike Roberts
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top