PDA

View Full Version : Couple Told Not to have Bible Study...in CA



Jooser
05-29-2009, 01:10 PM
Here we go, so much for religious tolerance in the good 'ol USA. This is taking place in San Diego right now, and it could have an impact on everyone who wishes to worship God at home. Isn't this close to you out there, DJ? It's scary folks, just scary.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,522637,00.html


Couple Ordered to Stop Holding Bible Study at Home Without Permit

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Pastor David Jones and his wife Mary have been told that they cannot invite friends to their San Diego, Calif. home for a Bible study — unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands of dollars to San Diego County.

"On Good Friday we had an employee from San Diego County come to our house, and inform us that the Bible study that we were having was a religious assembly, and in violation of the code in the county." David Jones told FOX News.

"We told them this is not really a religious assembly — this is just a Bible study with friends. We have a meal, we pray, that was all," Jones said.

A few days later, the couple received a written warning that cited "unlawful use of land," ordering them to either "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit," the couple's attorney Dean Broyles told San Diego news station 10News.

But the major use permit could cost the Jones' thousands of dollars just to have a few friends over.

For David and Mary Jones, it's about more than a question of money.

"The government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion," Broyles told FOX News. "I believe that our Founding Fathers would roll over in their grave if they saw that here in the year 2009, a pastor and his wife are being told that they cannot hold a simple Bible study in their own home."

"The implications are great because it’s not only us that’s involved," Mary Jones said. "There are thousands and thousands of Bible studies that are held all across the country. What we’re interested in is setting a precedent here — before it goes any further — and that we have it settled for the future."

The couple is planning to dispute the county's order this week.

If San Diego County refuses to allow the pastor and his wife to continue gathering without acquiring a permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

snarky
05-29-2009, 02:40 PM
Outrageous. No different than a book club. (Except there's only one book).

stlrz d
05-29-2009, 07:21 PM
I saw this story a while back. It appears some neighbor complained about the lack of parking spaces and traffic that's really what the dispute is about.

The major use permit is the guy's way of getting them to stop legally...unless they pay.

Just keep in mind, things aren't always what they seem on the surface. I don't think the neighbor who complained gives a flying fig that they were having a bible study...he just wanted a parking space and didn't want the traffic effed up in his neighborhood.

http://www.10news.com/news/19585458/detail.html


BONITA, Calif. -- A local pastor said the County has cited him for hosting a weekly Bible study in his home. The County said visitors who drive to those meetings are affecting traffic in the neighborhood.

Pastor David Jones has been hosting weekly Bible studies at his Bonita home during the past five years. About 15 people attend the meetings, he told 10News.

Jones said a visitor to a neighbor's house called the County after a Bible study member hit the visitor’s car while leaving. Shortly after, a county code enforcement officer gave him a citation that said he needed a permit to host the weekly Bible study meetings, he said.

Jones and his attorneys sid he shouldn't have to get a permit for what he does inside his house. "We think it is clearly permissible. We think this is a violation of our constitutional rights," Jones told 10News.

A County spokeswoman says the County is concerned with parking and its impact on the neighborhood.

The two sides met Wednesday but resolved nothing.

Jones said they're scheduled to meet again on June 9.

Anytime you see a story on Fox's website you should always google the topic and check other sources. ;)

Jooser
05-29-2009, 07:58 PM
I have neighbors who party all the time. They have their drunken friends parked all over the neighborhood. When we complain to the police, they say everything's fine as long as they allow room for traffic to flow through here. So, I guess my point is, how constitutional is it for a county to demand a permit for people to gather socially, no matter what the circumstance? The fact of the matter is, these people aren't really breaking any rules. They have the right to assemble peacefully and worship the God of their choosing. If they are parking in someone's driveway or blocking the way, why can't they just be told to move out of the way. See, problem solved. Or, does their neighbor have it out for them because they are having a bible study? It's anybody's guess. The county, though, is over stepping it's bounds here. It's like dropping a nuke on an ant hill. It's a minor annoyance to someone, and it all needs to be shot down?

Fox News, by the way, is no more agenda driven than CNN or any other news network. :wink:

stlrz d
05-29-2009, 08:42 PM
I have neighbors who party all the time. They have their drunken friends parked all over the neighborhood. When we complain to the police, they say everything's fine as long as they allow room for traffic to flow through here. So, I guess my point is, how constitutional is it for a county to demand a permit for people to gather socially, no matter what the circumstance? The fact of the matter is, these people aren't really breaking any rules. They have the right to assemble peacefully and worship the God of their choosing. If they are parking in someone's driveway or blocking the way, why can't they just be told to move out of the way. See, problem solved. Or, does their neighbor have it out for them because they are having a bible study? It's anybody's guess. The county, though, is over stepping it's bounds here. It's like dropping a nuke on an ant hill. It's a minor annoyance to someone, and it all needs to be shot down?

Fox News, by the way, is no more agenda driven than CNN or any other news network. :wink:

Dude, Faux News is the absolute worst. I'm not saying other sources don't resort to only telling part of the story either, but Faux News takes the cake. Did you ever see the story on them altering photos of a reporter and editor who published an unfavorable story about their ratings trend? http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2 ... 215049866/ (http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/2008/07/02/Report-Fox-News-altered-photos/UPI-86461215049866/) Here are the images: http://photoshopnews.com/wp-content/upl ... inberg.jpg (http://photoshopnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/fox-20080702-steinberg.jpg)

Name me another reliable news source that does something like that.

As to your point, perhaps your area doesn't have the same type of permit requirements for regular gatherings? I agree with you that it's a crappy thing to do and a crappy way to do it, but my point is I highly doubt it has anything to do with religion.

The guy's been having the bible study for 5 years and this just happened now...that tells me someone is just fed up with not having a place to park, and a car being hit by one member of the bible study group was the final straw.

Jooser
05-30-2009, 09:44 AM
Two Words: Dan Rather

The other liberal news organizations are very guilty of doctoring news. Did you see the way the CNN reporter treated the Tea Party people? CNN's true colors have been properly exposed for what they really are. On a day when literally hundreds of thousands of citizens took to the streets in peaceful demonstrations against this out of control spending in D.C., Fox news was the only ones giving it any coverage. If 50 people from PETA had been picketing for the fair treatment of otters in a zoo somewhere, CNN would have made it the story of the hour. MSNBC isn't any better. I guess it just depends on what side of the political spectrum that you're standing on, but why then does Fox News literally pummell to death the other news shows in the ratings EVERY DAY? I mean, Fox and Friends has a higher rating than MSNBC's prime time lineup! So, if they are the worst at news, why such high viewership?

snarky
05-30-2009, 09:46 AM
D, I understand that Fox carves their stories a little bit to present them in a certain light. But I still say this is a violation of freedom of assembly. If there was a problem with code (regarding parking) why not issue a warning on the parking thing and give the guy a chance ot have people carpool (which would cut down on the parking consumed).

For me, it doesn't matter if it is a party, a book club, a bible study or a bunch of swingers: they are all entitled to freedom of assembly. And as far as I am concerned the first amendment comes first and parking comes somewhere other than first.

snarky
05-30-2009, 12:03 PM
but why then does Fox News literally pummell to death the other news shows in the ratings EVERY DAY? I mean, Fox and Friends has a higher rating than MSNBC's prime time lineup! So, if they are the worst at news, why such high viewership?

argumentum ad populum

Jooser
05-30-2009, 12:10 PM
but why then does Fox News literally pummell to death the other news shows in the ratings EVERY DAY? I mean, Fox and Friends has a higher rating than MSNBC's prime time lineup! So, if they are the worst at news, why such high viewership?

argumentum ad populum

Perhaps the ad populum is simply tired of liberally carved news coverage?

snarky
05-30-2009, 12:28 PM
My point remains, the viewership/readership/listenership of a news outlet does not necessarily have an inverse correlation with its bias. If five more people tune in to fox today the news does not become five viewers less biased.

Jooser
05-30-2009, 03:39 PM
My point is that viewership will gravitate towards the news that they feel is being reported the best; i.e. Fox News being the only cable news channel not biased so much in a liberal way. You can tune into Fox and CNN they will both report a story in the way that they want to present it. My point is that people in America are tired of the same old liberal story lines that cast the good 'ol USA and it's conservative citizens in a negative light. Religion (Christians especially) is one conservative aspect that gets NO love from the liberal leaning news networks. I applaud Fox for pointing out the rights that are being stepped on here.

snarky
05-30-2009, 05:13 PM
If you want to play that game then I have to ask, why are there five 'liberal' media outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) and only one conservative outlet? I mean, these are businesses. Wouldn't they respond to market pressure?

As to the rest, you've made some assertions about non-fox media outlets having some desire to portray the US and/or conservatives in a specific light. Without examples, there is really no way to respond other than to say that I don't share this opinion.

Jooser
05-30-2009, 06:59 PM
I think that stlrsd has already given an example of two different ways the same story has been reported. Also, see my response about the way that the Tea Parties were covered.

As to the other networks and the way they report, well they are businesses. They are owned by individuals who have a liberal bias. For example, one of the major share holders for CNN is an Arab who is very sympathetic to the Palestinian and other Islamic causes. Thus, CNN coverage is usually much more anti-Israel than say....Fox News. :wink:

Also, I think that it's been well documented that the majority of journalists working for other news networks (not to mention most newspapers, i.e. NY Times) are registered Democrats. (I know that you'll want a source on that too, so I'll try to find it).

By the way, you made the assertion that Fox wasn't news worthy, so what are your specific reasons you make your claim on?

stlrz d
05-30-2009, 09:40 PM
1) I didn't say I agreed with it. I just presented the whole story as well as my opinion that it wasn't about religious persecution.

2) The shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al are not news programs. They are news and opinion or more likely, entertainment. News is an anchor sitting in front of a camera reporting facts without offering up any type of opinion. Some blowhard (regardless of political affiliation) "reporting" on a partial quote taken out of context and then ranting and raving about it is not news. That is opinion. Big difference.

Jooser
05-30-2009, 10:35 PM
1) I didn't say I agreed with it. I just presented the whole story as well as my opinion that it wasn't about religious persecution.

2) The shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al are not news programs. They are news and opinion or more likely, entertainment. News is an anchor sitting in front of a camera reporting facts without offering up any type of opinion. Some blowhard (regardless of political affiliation) "reporting" on a partial quote taken out of context and then ranting and raving about it is not news. That is opinion. Big difference.

:Clap :Clap Your number 2 point I fully agree with d, and thanks for not calling me a retard. :wink: :lol:

stlrz d
05-30-2009, 10:54 PM
1) I didn't say I agreed with it. I just presented the whole story as well as my opinion that it wasn't about religious persecution.

2) The shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al are not news programs. They are news and opinion or more likely, entertainment. News is an anchor sitting in front of a camera reporting facts without offering up any type of opinion. Some blowhard (regardless of political affiliation) "reporting" on a partial quote taken out of context and then ranting and raving about it is not news. That is opinion. Big difference.

:Clap :Clap Your number 2 point I fully agree with d, and thanks for not calling me a retard. :wink: :lol:

No problem man!

http://www.myteespot.com/images/Images_d/DSCF2730.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:

snarky
05-31-2009, 11:38 AM
I think that stlrsd has already given an example of two different ways the same story has been reported. Also, see my response about the way that the Tea Parties were covered.

Right. Did you notice how the non-fox source quoted both county officials and the people holding the bible study. But the fox piece only quoted one side because it is fair and balanced.


As to the other networks and the way they report, well they are businesses. They are owned by individuals who have a liberal bias. For example, one of the major share holders for CNN is an Arab who is very sympathetic to the Palestinian and other Islamic causes. Thus, CNN coverage is usually much more anti-Israel than say....Fox News. :wink:

Presenting the news differently from the way fox does does not, by definition, imply bias. You are certainly entitled to the opinion that CNN is biased. But opinion is not evidence. So if you are saying that's your opinion I have no problem with it. If your implication is that your opinion should be accepted as fact by others, I'm not convinced.


Also, I think that it's been well documented that the majority of journalists working for other news networks (not to mention most newspapers, i.e. NY Times) are registered Democrats. (I know that you'll want a source on that too, so I'll try to find it).

Actually I don't need a source. This is true and everyone knows it. But it is simply not evidence of anything other than the fact that people who go into journalism tend to be liberals. Their reporting stands or falls on its own merits.


By the way, you made the assertion that Fox wasn't news worthy, so what are your specific reasons you make your claim on?

I did? Where?

Djfan
05-31-2009, 11:56 AM
Funny thing is that I posted this story on two other sites, but didn't here. Reason? Not telling.

My issue with this is the seeming lack of "work it out" that the county (city?) used in this case. If it's parking, talk with the pastor and tell him what is needed. From a legal point of view, this is no different from a Friday night poker party with the guys each week, IMO.

We live in a power hungry, threaten others, "My dad can beat up your dad" culture, it seems. Which of you would not work with the city if they called and said, "Hey, can we talk about your parking the cars on Fridays, at your Bible study?" It's called respect.

As for the media, both sides present the issues as they want them known, or ignore the issues if they want them to not get people's dander up. You have to look at both sides, and other sources as well, if you want to be honest about your knowledge.

We live in an imperfect world, folks. Be respectful and kind in it!

snarky
05-31-2009, 11:59 AM
Funny thing is that I posted this story on two other sites, but didn't here. Reason? Not telling.

My issue with this is the seeming lack of "work it out" that the county (city?) used in this case. If it's parking, talk with the pastor and tell him what is needed. From a legal point of view, this is no different from a Friday night poker party with the guys each week, IMO.

We live in a power hungry, threaten others, "My dad can beat up your dad" culture, it seems. Which of you would not work with the city if they called and said, "Hey, can we talk about your parking the cars on Fridays, at your Bible study?" It's called respect.

As for the media, both sides present the issues as they want them known, or ignore the issues if they want them to not get people's dander up. You have to look at both sides, and other sources as well, if you want to be honest about your knowledge.

We live in an imperfect world, folks. Be respectful and kind in it!

Bang on.

EDIT: The fact that county officials seem to gleefully put parking above freedom of assembly is myopic in the extreme. If parking is the concern then just work it out. Tell the guy his friends have to carpool and that he needs to have as many as possible park on his driveway (if he has one) or maybe a few park the next block over and walk. Whatever it is there is a way to work it out in a win-win way.

stlrz d
05-31-2009, 12:45 PM
The more I think about it, the more I see it like this:

Someone is complaining about parking and traffic. The city got tired of the complaints and came up with what they saw as a win/win for them. If they demand the permit and the bible study group pays up then they get the revenue and the neighbors can't complain anymore.

If they don't pay up the parking/traffic problem for the neighbors goes away and the city doesn't have to hear their complaints anymore.

Whether or not they tried to work something out was not presented, from what I saw, so who knows what happened there.

And just to reiterate, the reason I said to check other sources primarily when the source is Fox News is because they have a proven track record of telling one side of the story. In this case they left out the other side of the story. A simple google search brought up the story from a local news source that presented BOTH sides of the story. That's the way it should be. Present both sides and let people formulate an opinion based on all the information.

I'm sorry Fox News fans, but I consider them to be one of the least trusted news sources of all since it has been shown time and time again that they present only the facts that tell their side of the story.

I don't believe this story is about religious persecution, however it's quite possible that it is. The local source allowed people to make that decision for themselves once they had the whole story. Fox presented it in a way that all but guaranteed that folks would see it as religious persecution. That's just wrong.

stlrz d
05-31-2009, 12:51 PM
And DJ, I'm just curious...on the other sites did you post the Fox story or another story that told both sides? And what has been the reaction?

My guess is if you posted the story that only told one side then the reaction is overwhelmingly "religious persecution". If you posted a story that told both sides then I'd guess (unless they are religious websites) that the reaction has been more of a mixed bag.

Also, I'm not saying that if you did post a source that only told one side that you purposely did that. If you didn't check for other sources then you had no way of knowing there was another side to the story...so please don't take this post as an indictment of you in any way. I'm just curious is all.

snarky
05-31-2009, 01:28 PM
I don't believe this story is about religious persecution, however it's quite possible that it is. The local source allowed people to make that decision for themselves once they had the whole story. Fox presented it in a way that all but guaranteed that folks would see it as religious persecution. That's just wrong.

This pretty much boils it down to my opinion about fox. I think if you change some of the details here Fox's reporting would be very different. For instance, say it was a bunch of homosexual men getting together for weekly orgies (who knows how the neighbors would know this but just for argument's sake let's assume they do). I don't think Fox would present this as a legal targeting/legal persecution case. Instead I think they would cast it as concerned neighbors trying to protect their children or something along those lines. Just my opinion.

And for me this is not religious persecution (unless there are cases wehre such complaints are ignored where the gathering was not religious). But it is a matter of freedom of assembly. The specifics of what is happening in that house is a private matter and should be of no concern to the govt. (particularly if no money is changing hands - in which case there would be a business/non-profit concern). So I am very uncomfortable with a citation/warning that tells people to stop having a religious gathering.

RuthlessBurgher
05-31-2009, 02:58 PM
[quote="stlrz d":22lauzt3]1) I didn't say I agreed with it. I just presented the whole story as well as my opinion that it wasn't about religious persecution.

2) The shows on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al are not news programs. They are news and opinion or more likely, entertainment. News is an anchor sitting in front of a camera reporting facts without offering up any type of opinion. Some blowhard (regardless of political affiliation) "reporting" on a partial quote taken out of context and then ranting and raving about it is not news. That is opinion. Big difference.

:Clap :Clap Your number 2 point I fully agree with d, and thanks for not calling me a retard. :wink: :lol:

No problem man!

http://www.myteespot.com/images/Images_d/DSCF2730.jpg

:lol: :lol: :lol:[/quote:22lauzt3]

Redd Foxx is exempt from the name-calling stipulations of the Code of Conduct. :lol:

Djfan
05-31-2009, 06:32 PM
I loved Red Foxx!

D, I posted it on Cali fishing sites. Strong mix of people on both sites. I only posted the one above. I didn't look for others for no reason in particular. Funny, because that is my usual MO.

I disagree with your take on Fox, but don't get to watch it much. Too busy. I like the fact that they are willing to ask questions that other media outlets don't. Honestly, it has been 3 + years since I have watched any news. Maybe it has changed. But, if it's true, you have to be honest and admit that the big 3 also do the same thing. They also tend to ignore news items that they don't want to discuss.

Millions to ACCORN? Fox broke that story.

$20 million to resettle Hamas people here? Pretty sure Matt Drudge broke that story.

Those are both news worthy issues that the big 3 didn't see? I can't believe that.

We can probably agree that all the news is slanted.

snarky
05-31-2009, 10:54 PM
$20 million for Hamas members to move to the US would definitely be newsworthy if it happened.

As for ACORN. I'm personally not a fan of that move. I know that it is for community recovery or whatever and that ACORN does that in addition to its voter drives. But I'm not a fan of them getting govt money just as I am not a fan of the Bush's faith-based initiatives.

stlrz d
06-01-2009, 12:31 AM
I would agree there is slant to the news, but from what I've seen Fox is the worst.

Just as an example, ACORN. Fox went on and on about ACORN having phony voter registrations, but what they never once mentioned is that it was ACORN themselves who reported having those phony registrations. They are required to do so by law. The people at the bottom made up fake registrations and the people at the top reported it as they were required to do.

But Fox only told part of the story knowing that doing it that way would cause their viewers to have exactly the reaction they wanted.

That kind of thing is just wrong, imo.

Tell the whole story and let people draw their own conclusions.

RuthlessBurgher
06-01-2009, 03:03 AM
I loved Red Foxx!

D, I posted it on Cali fishing sites. Strong mix of people on both sites. I only posted the one above. I didn't look for others for no reason in particular. Funny, because that is my usual MO.

I disagree with your take on Fox, but don't get to watch it much. Too busy. I like the fact that they are willing to ask questions that other media outlets don't. Honestly, it has been 3 + years since I have watched any news. Maybe it has changed. But, if it's true, you have to be honest and admit that the big 3 also do the same thing. They also tend to ignore news items that they don't want to discuss.

Millions to ACCORN? Fox broke that story.

$20 million to resettle Hamas people here? Pretty sure Matt Drudge broke that story.

Those are both news worthy issues that the big 3 didn't see? I can't believe that.

We can probably agree that all the news is slanted.

I think it is funny that you disagreed with stlrz_d's take on Fox, but didn't disagree with stlrz_d's take on Foxx.
:mrgreen:

Jooser
06-01-2009, 08:48 AM
I loved Red Foxx!

D, I posted it on Cali fishing sites. Strong mix of people on both sites. I only posted the one above. I didn't look for others for no reason in particular. Funny, because that is my usual MO.

I disagree with your take on Fox, but don't get to watch it much. Too busy. I like the fact that they are willing to ask questions that other media outlets don't. Honestly, it has been 3 + years since I have watched any news. Maybe it has changed. But, if it's true, you have to be honest and admit that the big 3 also do the same thing. They also tend to ignore news items that they don't want to discuss.

Millions to ACCORN? Fox broke that story.

$20 million to resettle Hamas people here? Pretty sure Matt Drudge broke that story.

Those are both news worthy issues that the big 3 didn't see? I can't believe that.

We can probably agree that all the news is slanted.

I think it is funny that you disagreed with stlrz_d's take on Fox, but didn't disagree with stlrz_d's take on Foxx.
:mrgreen:

http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q233/zillamack/Clint-Eastwood.jpg

You think you're some kind of wise guy? Well do ya, Punk?

Djfan
06-01-2009, 01:28 PM
I think it is funny that you disagreed with stlrz_d's take on Fox, but didn't disagree with stlrz_d's take on Foxx.
:mrgreen:

I bet we can all agree that D isn't a fox.

D, do you think that other news outlets get the same scrutiny that Fox does? I don't. I quit watching news because of all of this. In other countries I have heard it is worse. I just have no desire to hear all the "you guys suck and here's an example" stuff. I want the news fully reported so that I can judge, too. I just don't see it.

So, I read on the internet.

Here's a link on the Hamas money:

http://politicalzonenet.blogspot.com/2009/05/obama-orders-hama-refugees-into-us-hr.html

I love sports because it doesn't have this deep importance in reality. That is why the cheating issue with the *Pats bugs me so much. Leave your #$% corrupt hands the @#$^$^ off of football, you slimy &@#$ Bellycheat!!

OK, rant over.

Jooser
06-01-2009, 03:43 PM
Fox is eating ACORN for lunch because the voter fraud isn't just a few rogues doing it here and there. In fact, there are ACORN employees being indicted for thousands of fraudulent voter registrations from New Mexico to Pennsylvania. Fox has interviewed employees of ACORN who have gone on record as saying this behavior was not only condoned, but expected by their bosses. The reports from the other guys? Mum's the word, because Obama's their man.

snarky
06-01-2009, 04:09 PM
Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs Related To Gaza
Memorandum for the Secretary of State
By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2(c)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.
You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.


(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
Washington, January 27, 2009
[FR Doc. E9-2488
Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P

migration =/= immigration
gaza resident =/= Hamas member

BTW, Bush signed similar orders to give refugee aid in Iraq and Sri Lanka (and another country, I think).

stlrz d
06-01-2009, 06:26 PM
DJ - you've got to be careful with blogs too. Again, that's someone injecting their opinion and slanting the facts to say what they want them to say and to get the reaction they want to get.

Fox comes under so much scrutiny because no matter how many times they are busted for reporting only part of the story they keep on doing it.

The only safe way, imo, to trust the news is to check multiple sources for any news story one takes an interest in. Google comes in handy for that!

Jooser - ACORN does have widespread issues because they were paying those people to get voter registrations...so the people started cheating to get easy money. There's no word to the public from the very top of ACORN because there is no need for them to say anything...they're doing what they are federally mandated to do and they're not federally mandated to issue any statements to the public. As long as they're doing what the gov't tells them they have to do then they don't have to answer to the public.

Jooser
06-01-2009, 09:53 PM
DJ - you've got to be careful with blogs too. Again, that's someone injecting their opinion and slanting the facts to say what they want them to say and to get the reaction they want to get.

Fox comes under so much scrutiny because no matter how many times they are busted for reporting only part of the story they keep on doing it.

The only safe way, imo, to trust the news is to check multiple sources for any news story one takes an interest in. Google comes in handy for that!

Jooser - ACORN does have widespread issues because they were paying those people to get voter registrations...so the people started cheating to get easy money. There's no word to the public from the very top of ACORN because there is no need for them to say anything...they're doing what they are federally mandated to do and they're not federally mandated to issue any statements to the public. As long as they're doing what the gov't tells them they have to do then they don't have to answer to the public.

You mean as long as they're getting fraudulent votes for democrats, right?

snarky
06-01-2009, 10:12 PM
Any cases of fradulent votes being cast? Last year, II looked for cases of voter fraud in the 2004 and 2006 election. I think in the 2004 cycle there were a grand total of six fradulent votes identified. But carry on with the mountain/molehill thing.

stlrz d
06-01-2009, 11:01 PM
Any cases of fradulent votes being cast? Last year, II looked for cases of voter fraud in the 2004 and 2006 election. I think in the 2004 cycle there were a grand total of six fradulent votes identified. But carry on with the mountain/molehill thing.

Exactly. There were thousands of fraudulent registrations because that was an attempt at a cash grab by the folks who were supposed to be getting the registrations. The folks doing the registering just sat at home filling out form after form themselves.

Those registrations didn't translate to votes because no one showed up at the polls to vote using those names.

If a person sits at home and creates 500 false registrations the only way they translate to votes is if that person can go out and find 500 people to show up claiming to be the person on their respective registration. Assuming the fraudulent registrations are not identified ahead of time. Pretty monumental task if you ask me.

Djfan
06-02-2009, 01:01 AM
DJ - you've got to be careful with blogs too. Again, that's someone injecting their opinion and slanting the facts to say what they want them to say and to get the reaction they want to get.

The only safe way, imo, to trust the news is to check multiple sources for any news story one takes an interest in. Google comes in handy for that!

I agree on both accounts. The problem is that the otherside is not rebutting the claims, and there are more than just this one blog. Silence about an issue is just as telling as rogue comments on issues, IMO.

I google issues a lot. I also check out snopes.com a lot.

A real question I have (I swear that I'm not trying to be funny, eventhough it could be stand up material somehow) is who checks out Snopes.com? I would love to have the anti-snopes.com crowd get busy. Just a thought.

stlrz d
06-02-2009, 01:03 AM
Sometimes responding to something gives it the credibility the person making the accusations seeks.

Kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nice thought on the anti-snopes people! :P

I think the anti-snopes people are the reason why snopes exists though. :D Get any email forwards? There's your anti-snopes people! :P

Djfan
06-02-2009, 02:46 AM
This was posted on one of the sites I put this article up on. I haven't looked for the link yet. I HIGHLY trust this guy. I have verified his stuff many times. Search it out if you want to.
I think this issue has been put to rest now!

Two things I will comment on now,

#1. the citation was for religious assembly in violation of Ordinance 1320 not for parking.

#2. 1320 was placed to limit regligious assembly in technological, and industrial zones which doesn't happen to be where the Pastors neighborhood was located (how do I know this? because residential housing is not allowed to be built in industrial or technological zones!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
County reverses order, allows home Bible study to continue


by Lori Arnold



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SAN DIEGO, Calif. — A suburban California couple who has been hosting a weekly Bible study in their home has been given the green light to continue the meetings after earlier being ordered by San Diego County officials to stop the gatherings or seek a costly conditional use permit.

Walt Ekard, the chief administrative officer for the county of San Diego, released a statement May 29 denying published reports that code enforcement officers were trying to squash religious liberties.

“I have received dozens of e-mails and calls from people concerned about reports that the county is attempting to muzzle religious expression by shutting down a neighborhood Bible study,” Ekard’s statement read. “As the chief administrative officer for San Diego County, I want to say in the most direct terms: the county has never tried to stifle religious expression and never will.”

His statement went on to say that his officers went to the home of Pastor David and Mary Jones to solely address a complaint about parking and traffic problems associated the Bible study.

“This is a land use issue; it’s not an issue of religious expression,” the administrator said.

The couple’s attorney, Dean Broyles, founder of Escondido-based Western Center for Law & Policy, said he received notice from the county counsel’s office just before the end of business on May 29 that the Joneses’ Bible study will not be considered a “religious assembly,” meaning a conditional use permit will not be needed.

“It’s a huge step in the right direction and I’m hopeful, but how it’s going to turnout, we’ll have to see,” Broyles said, adding that a follow-up meeting with county officials was planned in a few days.


Complaint investigated
The issue flared, Broyles said, when a county code enforcement officer visited the couple’s home on Good Friday after receiving a complaint from a non-resident visiting in the neighborhood. The code officer began taking pictures of the home’s exterior and later began questioning the wife, who was home alone.

Broyles said the officer asked Mary Jones several questions, including if the group prays or uses the words “amen” and “praise the Lord.” Jones answered yes.

A few days later a formal letter, dated April 14, was sent to the couple warning them they were in violation of county ordinances and to cease and desist with the “religious assembly” or file for formal permitting through a CPU. Noncompliance would result in escalating fines of $100 to $1,000.

Broyles said he believes the county’s allegation that issue centered on parking and traffic, not religious use, was fabricated in light of the international response to the story.

“It’s revisionist history,” he said.

In addition to Ekard, county Supervisor Greg Cox told a local newspaper that he had received at least 400 e-mails regarding the issue. Broyles has had a similar response from around the world and spent much of a full week addressing media inquires. Even the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union drafted a letter of support for his clients, Broyles said.


Change of focus
He added that the scope of questioning from the code enforcement officer, coupled with the wording on the citation made it clear the concern was over the religious meeting, not parking. If the county had concerns over traffic and public safety issues for the neighborhood, Broyles said, other remedies could have been pursued rather than issuing a blanket ban against the meetings.

“My concern is that the county is trying to morph the First Amendment religious issues into a parking and traffic issue and that the could still harass my clients, substituting one form of harassment for another,” the attorney said.

Ekard vowed to personally review the case, including the county’s policies on handling complaints.

“Should I find that county staff at any level acted in a heavy-handed way; did anything inappropriate under the circumstances; or that a change or revision to our processes and procedures is warranted, I will take appropriate action immediately,” the county CEO wrote. “More importantly, let me be clear: religious intolerance in any form is not, and never will be, allowed under any circumstance in San Diego County government.”


Arguments validated?
The county’s response seems to valid Broyles legal arguments, which he addressed in a 12-page demand letter dated May 26. The letter asks Pam Elias, chief of the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use, to rescind an administrative citation issued to the couple, calling the action “inappropriate and without merit.”

“The use to which this citation refers is nothing more than a weekly Bible study and a time of fellowship at the Joneses’ residence which the department has singled out for religiously based, unequal treatment …”

The Joneses have hosted the study for about five years and the gatherings include dinner, fellowship and a Bible study. Attendance has varied, the attorney said, from five to 27 people, but averages 15.

Broyles argued that the weekly Bible study does not fit the legal description of a religious assembly, according to the county’s own ordinance. The county code indicates that religious assemblies are typically considered churches, synagogues or mosques.

In addition, he said requiring the Joneses to seek a permit violates their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and peaceful assembly.

“If the county was not targeting religious activity per se, it would presumably have to forbid any and all secular events where friends and neighbors are invited to a resident’s home on a regular basis, including, but not limited to in-home poker games, book club meetings, Monday night football parties, girl and boy scout meeting, Tupperware parties, Bunco nights, bridge clubs, etc,” the attorney wrote.

Finally, Broyles said, the county action violates the federal protections in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which was signed into law nine years ago by President Bill Clinton. That law prevents municipalities from imposing a “substantial burden” in the religious practices of a person or group

Jooser
06-02-2009, 08:28 AM
Good Post DJ, and here's some more "non-FOX" coverage on the story from a local affiliate:

http://www.10news.com/news/19562217/detail.html


Couple: County Trying To Stop Home Bible Studies

POSTED: 5:31 pm PDT May 25, 2009
UPDATED: 1:45 pm PDT May 28, 2009

SAN DIEGO -- A local pastor and his wife claim they were interrogated by a San Diego County official, who then threatened them with escalating fines if they continued to hold Bible studies in their home, 10News reported.

Attorney Dean Broyles of The Western Center For Law & Policy was shocked with what happened to the pastor and his wife.

Broyles said, "The county asked, 'Do you have a regular meeting in your home?' She said, 'Yes.' 'Do you say amen?' 'Yes.' 'Do you pray?' 'Yes.' 'Do you say praise the Lord?' 'Yes.'"


The county employee notified the couple that the small Bible study, with an average of 15 people attending, was in violation of County regulations, according to Broyles.

Broyles said a few days later the couple received a written warning that listed "unlawful use of land" and told them to "stop religious assembly or apply for a major use permit" -- a process that could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

"For churches and religious assemblies there's big parking concerns, there's environmental impact concerns when you have hundreds or thousands of people gathering. But this is a different situation, and we believe that the application of the religious assembly principles to this Bible study is certainly misplaced," said Broyles.

News of the case has rapidly spread across Internet blogs and has spurred various reactions.

Broyles said his clients have asked to stay anonymous until they give the county a demand letter that states by enforcing this regulation the county is violating their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion.

Broyles also said this case has broader implications.

"If the county thinks they can shut down groups of 10 or 15 Christians meeting in a home, what about people who meet regularly at home for poker night? What about people who meet for Tupperware parties? What about people who are meeting to watch baseball games on a regular basis and support the Chargers?" Broyles asked.

Broyles and his clients plan to give the County their demand letter this week.

If the County refuses to release the pastor and his wife from obtaining the permit, they will consider a lawsuit in federal court.

This story actually gives the SD couple's side of the story and isn't trying to blow them off as if it's just a trivial "parking" issue. No FOX slant here fellas. If it's just about parking, then why were they questioned about their praise and worship of God?

Jooser
06-02-2009, 09:12 AM
Snarky, I don't suppose you've been to ACORN's website lately, because they have in fact issued an official rebuttal of charges. Here it is:

http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=12439&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=22384&tx_ttnews[backPid]=12346&cHash=369dbd64b5


Bogus "Voter Fraud Charges" Aim to Camouflage Voter Suppression
October 10, 2008


ACORN has just completed the largest, most successful nonpartisan voter registration drive in U.S. history. We helped 1.3 million low-income, minority and young voters across the country register to vote.

Unfortunately, just as in 2006, that success in bringing people into the democratic process, have been greeted with unfounded accusations to disparage our work and help maintain the status quo of an unbalanced electorate.

After a similar spate of charges against ACORN in 2006, we learned that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had fired Republican U.S. Attorneys because they refused to prosecute ACORN and other voter assistance groups on trumped up fraud charges. This was the heart of the U.S. Attorney-gate scandal that led Karl Rove, Gonzales and other top Department of Justice officials to resign. Because the press didn’t catch on until long after the election, it was part of a successful strategy to create an unfounded specter of voter fraud and to suppress voting.

Key Facts:

1. In order to help 1.3 million people register to vote, we hired more than 13,000 registration assistance workers. As with any business or agency that operates at this scale, there are always some people who want to get paid without really doing the job, or who aim to defraud their employer. Any large department store will have some workers who shoplift.

2. Any large voter registration operation will have a small percentage of workers who turn in bogus registration forms, Their goal clearly is not to cast a fraudulent vote. It is simply to defraud their employer, ACORN, by getting a paycheck without earning it. ACORN is the victim of this fraud – not the perpetrator.

3. In nearly every case that has been reported , it was ACORN that discovered the bad forms, and called them to the attention of election authorities, putting the forms in a package that identified them in writing as suspicious, encouraging election officials to investigate, and offering to help with prosecutions. We are required by law to turn in all forms, but instead of just turning them in and figuring that it is the responsibility of the board of elections to figure out which are valid, we spend millions of dollars verifying that forms are valid, and then separate out those that are suspicious.

4. This has nothing to do with “voter fraud” – nothing at all to do with anyone trying to cast an extra vote. There has never been a single reported instance in which bogus registration forms have led to anyone voting improperly. To do that, they would have to show up at the polls, prove their identity as all first-time registrants must, and risk jail. The people who turned in these forms did so not because they wanted an extra vote, but because they didn’t care enough to make sure eligible people got to vote at all.

5. When a department store calls the police to report a shoplifting employee, no one says the department store is guilty of consumer fraud. But for some reason, when ACORN turns voter registration workers over to the authorities for filling out bogus forms, it gets accused of “voter fraud.” This is a classic case of blaming the victim; indeed, these charges are outrageous, libelous, and often politically motivated.

6. Similar attacks were launched against ACORN and other voter registration organizations in 2004 and 2006. The bogus charges were at the heart of the U.S. Attorney-gate scandal that led to the resignations of Karl Rove, Attorney General Ablerto Gonzales and other top Justice Department Officials. It turned out that it was the charges that were fraudulent, and that they were part of a systematic partisan agenda of voter suppression. Republican U.S. Attorneys David Iglesias (NM), Todd Graves (MO), and John McKay (WA) all were fired primarily because they refused to prosecute similar bogus charges of “voter fraud.” Another U.S. Attorney, Bradley Schlozman, who did politicize prosecutions against former ACORN canvassers, was forced to acknowledge under cross examination by the Senate Judiciary Committee that ACORN was the victim of fraud by its employees and ACORN had caught the employees and had identified them to law enforcement.

7. The goals of the people orchestrating these attacks are to distract ACORN from helping people vote and to justify massive voter suppression. That’s the real voter fraud; the noise about a small fraction of the forms ACORN has turned in is meant to get the press and public take their eyes off the real threat, while those hurling the charges are stealing people’s right to vote in broad daylight. They have already tried to prevent Ohio from registering voters at its early voting sites. In Michigan, they planned to use foreclosure notices to challenge thousands of voters. And if this year is like past years, they are preparing to use this so-called voter fraud to justify massive challenges to voters in minority precincts on Election Day.

The Details:

Fact: ACORN has implemented the most sophisticated quality-control system in the voter engagement field but in almost every state we are required to turn in ALL completed applications, even the ones we know to be problematic.

Fact: ACORN flags in writing incomplete, problem, or suspicious cards when we turn them in,. Unfortunately, some of these same officials then come back weeks or months later and accuse us of deliberately turning in phony cards. In many cases, we can actually prove that these are the same cards we called to their attention.

Fact: Our canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card . ACORN has a zero-tolerance policy for deliberately falsifying registrations, and in the cases where our internal quality controls have identified this happening we have fired the workers involved and turned them in to election officials and law-enforcement.

Fact: No criminal charges related to voter registration have ever been brought against ACORN or partner organizations. Convictions against individual former ACORN workers have been accomplished with our full cooperation, using the evidence obtained through our quality control and verification processes — evidence which in most cases WE called to the attention of authorities

Fact: Most election officials have recognized ACORN’s good work and praised our quality control systems. Even in the cities where election officials have complained about ACORN, the applications in question represent less than 1% of the thousands and thousands of registrations ACORN has collected.

Fact: Our accusers not only fail to provide any evidence, they fail to suggest a motive: there is virtually no chance anyone would be able to vote fraudulently, so there is no reason to deliberately submit phony registrations. ACORN is committed to ensuring that the greatest possible numbers of people are registered

ACORN will not be intimidated, we will not be provoked, and in this important moment in history we will not allow anyone to distract us from these vital efforts to empower our constituencies and our communities to speak for themselves.


First, the voter fraud charges in Nevada and Pennsylvania were not leveled solely by any political organization, in fact, it was the Nevada State Attorney General as well as the Secretary of State that raided ACORN in March and shut it down. The Spokesman for the Secretary of State was recently interviewed on FOX News (because noone else will interview him) and he said that the investigation has unearthed TENS-of-thousands fraudulent registrations. Those were his words, FOX didn't put them in his mouth. He further went on to say that they have reason to believe that a vast majority of those registrations resulted in fraudulent votes that were COUNTED. He further went on to explain that many ACORN employees that they had interviewed, had stated that they were paid by the hour, but that their bosses pressured them and had in place a 'quota' system that encouraged the type of cheating that has been uncovered. So, yes they have the "plausible deniability" base covered with some of their documents, but what was going on behind the scenes is a much different situation.

snarky
06-02-2009, 10:10 AM
I agree on both accounts. The problem is that the otherside is not rebutting the claims, and there are more than just this one blog. Silence about an issue is just as telling as rogue comments on issues, IMO.

So first, the issue was that nobody was reporting this and now the issue is that nobody is denying the thing that nobody was reporting.

EDIT: Isn't Carl Cameron the Fox WH correspondent? Has he asked about this?

snarky
06-02-2009, 10:29 AM
First, the voter fraud charges in Nevada and Pennsylvania were not leveled solely by any political organization, in fact, it was the Nevada State Attorney General as well as the Secretary of State that raided ACORN in March and shut it down. The Spokesman for the Secretary of State was recently interviewed on FOX News (because noone else will interview him) and he said that the investigation has unearthed TENS-of-thousands fraudulent registrations. Those were his words, FOX didn't put them in his mouth. He further went on to say that they have reason to believe that a vast majority of those registrations resulted in fraudulent votes that were COUNTED. He further went on to explain that many ACORN employees that they had interviewed, had stated that they were paid by the hour, but that their bosses pressured them and had in place a 'quota' system that encouraged the type of cheating that has been uncovered. So, yes they have the "plausible deniability" base covered with some of their documents, but what was going on behind the scenes is a much different situation.

No, I have never been to the ACORN site. I actually have a rather dim view of ACORN. Not because they are some evil election rigging monster but because i think they are classic hyprebolic and ineffective liberals who will champion idiot causes at times. Anyway, what exactly is the assertion here then because I really don't have my head around it.

Is the assertion that ACORN officials put quotas on people in order to force them to submit bogus registration forms which the ACORN officials can then flag as fradulent in a sort of false flag operation while ACORN's real bogus registrations are submitted? And then somehow, all these tens of thousands of false registrations are used by somebody (who, how) to cast fraudulent votes?

As for the claim by the Secretary of State's office, I would say this. Anybody can claim anything, of course. But with the amount of resources available to an office like that and the importance of election integrity, It should be pretty easy to track down any fraudulent registrations that were used to cast votes. You have a pool of suspect registrations, you can cross-reference those against people who voted either in person or absentee. Then you check the validity of those registrations.

I'm not going to sit here and say that no fraudulent votes have been cast but I will say that absent arrests and/or specific examples (not from you but from the SoS office) I'm not convinced.

Jooser
06-02-2009, 10:52 AM
OK, ACORN has admitted to alot of these voter fraud allegations, particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where criminal arrests have been made. ACORN places the blame on a few "bad apples" (to use their terminology). So, you have ACORN's top tier blaming the bottom feeders and the low level guys saying, no, my bosses made me do it. It's smoke and mirrors my friend. I just posted ACORN's rebuttle because you said that noone at ACORN is responding to these politically charged (FOX News sensationallized) allegations. I have also given an example of my original purpose of this thread that is not FOX news related. As reported by News10 in San Diego, I believe that these folks were targeted for their faith and are being unfairly treated by the county government there. Let's try to focus here. You have your opinion about FOX, that's fine, I'll have mine.

snarky
06-02-2009, 11:12 AM
OK, ACORN has admitted to alot of these voter fraud allegations, particularly in Ohio and Pennsylvania, where criminal arrests have been made.

What illegal actions has ACORN done as an organization? They have an internal quality control process that checks the validity of each card and then turn over what they believe to be fraudulent registrations to the authorities. BTW, it would be illegal (for obvious reasons) for ACORN to just destroy cards that it thinks are fraudulent.

EDIT: I understand that ACORN has admitted that it has detected voter registration fraud by a number of its employees and turned those cases over to the authorities. (oops double edit) But that is not the same as admitting to perpetrating voter registration fraud.


I just posted ACORN's rebuttle because you said that noone at ACORN is responding to these politically charged (FOX News sensationallized) allegations.

I did? Where?

Just tracing back a bit. You said something about ACORN registrations resulting in fraudulent votes for Democrats. And I am asking

1) (from above) What illegal actions has ACORN as an organization been involved in?
2) Where is your evidence that anything more that a handful of fraudulent votes have been cast in the last few election cycles and/or that any of those registrations trace back to ACORN?

stlrz d
06-02-2009, 11:13 AM
It looks like someone screwed up on that ordinance. Thought they understood what it meant but misinterpreted it and now it's come back to bite them.

Jooser - You do understand there is a difference between "top tier" and "bosses", right?

If I'm working for a company and my manager tells me to do something illegal and I do it, that's my boss telling me to do it, not the upper tier.

The point I've been trying to make in all of this is that it makes sense to check multiple sources on a story...and I will stand by my assertion that you damn well better do it when it's a story reported by Fox. I'm sorry if that hurts any feelings, but it's been proven time and time again that Fox doesn't always tell the whole story if the whole story doesn't match the ideology of their viewers.

Djfan
06-02-2009, 11:34 AM
The point I've been trying to make in all of this is that it makes sense to check multiple sources on a story.

I agree completely.


..and I will stand by my assertion that you damn well better do it when it's a story reported by Fox. I'm sorry if that hurts any feelings, but it's been proven time and time again that Fox doesn't always tell the whole story if the whole story doesn't match the ideology of their viewers.

Fair enough, but are you willing to admit that other news organizations "on the other side" of issues is also guilty? Also, can you find any respected source for your stance on Fox news? Are there such sources that make these claims about NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC?

stlrz d
06-02-2009, 11:48 AM
[quote=stlrz d]The point I've been trying to make in all of this is that it makes sense to check multiple sources on a story.

I agree completely.


..and I will stand by my assertion that you damn well better do it when it's a story reported by Fox. I'm sorry if that hurts any feelings, but it's been proven time and time again that Fox doesn't always tell the whole story if the whole story doesn't match the ideology of their viewers.

Fair enough, but are you willing to admit that other news organizations "on the other side" of issues is also guilty? Also, can you find any respected source for your stance on Fox news? Are there such sources that make these claims about NBC, CBS, CNN or ABC?[/quote:2fz449oe]

Yes I admit that, but from what I see of following news and current events, Fox is the leader of the club in skewing the news. I've never done any searching to see if there is a "respected" source but I suppose there may be one. What I know for sure is when I see a controversial story reported by Fox, checking of other sources many times shows there are details that they leave out...and not coincidentally those details are usually contrary to the "neo-con" ideology.

I guess it could be a giant conspiracy against Fox, but the "liberal" media sources are all in competition with one another too, so if one had dirt on the other they would be forthcoming with it if for no other reason than to knock their competition down a peg. It's all about ratings and money.

RuthlessBurgher
06-02-2009, 12:10 PM
Not to mention all the bipartisan sports reporting!

Fox and their "blue" conference

http://www.foxflash.com/channels/foxsports/fox_nfl_sunday//photo_tile.jpg http://www.nygratpack.com/2007/Images/Common/NFC_Logo_150x.gif

CBS and their "red" conference

http://images.zap2it.com/programs/185928/p185928_ce_h1_aa.jpg http://www.theheckler.com/news/articlefiles/530-AFC%20Logo.JPG

:P

snarky
06-02-2009, 12:14 PM
Personally, I view sources like NBC, ABC, CNN etc to be corporate rather than left (with the exception of MSNBC which is the mirror image of FOX). Yes it is probably fair to say that they tilt a bit to the left, but not much.

I mean, in 2006 Congress (with democrat support) attempted to abolish the writ of Habeas Corpus and this happened with just about zero public discussion. This is a 650 year old principal which serves as the foundation for all of our freedom from the state and it was temporarily abolished in this country without so much as a peep out of anybody but MSNBC.

CNN is a commercial that sometimes fits in news when it is convenient and there are no blockbuster movies coming out.

All of them (again excluding MSNBC) are establishment organizations without any real balls to take on controversial issues. If there is one thing that I do like about Fox it is that it rarely shies away from stuff because it is too controversial. But, IMO they carve every story they run. So in the end it doesn't help all that much, IMO.

Jooser
06-02-2009, 04:19 PM
So, basically what we have here is two OPINIONS in regards to the way that FOX reports it's stories. I've yet to read one shred of evidence that clearly outlines that FOX doctors their stories - despite the fact that I've asked for it. What I have done, however, is give you an example from a local news station in San Diego that supports my original story that I posted from FOX news.

On the side issue concerning ACORN, if the Nevada chapter of ACORN is so sterling, why has it been shut down by the State's Attorney General's office, in cooperation with the Secretary of State and the FBI? Sure one can state anything they want to, but there has to have been some criminal misconduct for these three entities to have not only raided them, but shut them down.

d - of course I know the difference between 'top tier' and 'boss' and I am also under no delusion about how top tier people use lower level bosses and their subordinates to do their dirty work while they deny any mischief. I know that you're not that naive either, so let's cut the crap. The investigation is ongoing out there, but for the time being they've been shut down. Criminal charges have been filed in two states, and there's more coming, we'll see.

stlrz d
06-02-2009, 04:30 PM
Jooser - The original story I posted showed that Fox "doctored" their story by completely leaving out the stuff about parking and traffic.

I also provided proof that they broadcast unflattering photoshopped images of an editor and reporter who had negative things to say about them.

I'm sure if I did some googling I could find plenty more.

Jooser
06-02-2009, 04:36 PM
Google away then...

I'm sure I could do the same with CNN, but why waste my time proving what I already believe about them.

I provided proof that FOX wasn't overblowing their story about these folks being crapped on by the county on the basis of religion. The parking issue, more smoke and mirrors...

stlrz d
06-02-2009, 05:07 PM
Jooser - you provided info after the fact...after it was determined that the ordinance did not apply. That doesn't prove that it was about religious persecution and it doesn't prove that Fox was "right" because they left information out of the original story. All it proves is someone (for whatever reason - poor critical thinking skills?...religion hater?...money grubbing local politician?...someone trying to solve the parking and traffic issue?...etc) was wrong in thinking the ordinance applied in this case.

Anyway, I think I'm bowing out of this one.

I'm not a devotee to any news source so I'm not offended by anyone questioning any news source...regardless of that source's perceived political bent.

But it's apparent someone here is a devotee, and that they are offended by the questioning, so it's just not worth it and time to move on.

Peace. :)

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-10-2009, 05:13 PM
Don't forget about judging something by the company it keeps. Rush, Hannity, others of that ilk. In my mind the main thing that sets Fox apart from the others is the large amount of programming it has that is meant to stir up hate, fear, and anger. MSNBC and others may be/are biased also, but they don't use those ugly things drive up their ratings so their sponsors can sell more boxes of soap. For example, I don't think there were nearly as many "slip-ups" on the other news channels about Barack "Osama" as there were on Fox. "Oops, sorry" :wink:

It's so ironic how radical conservative leadership in this country has mobilized the right, ostensibly full of Christians, to support the most un-Christian sentiments - keeping as much wealth as possible in the hands of as few people as possible. IMO, abortion, guns, minorities, immigrants - these are just pieces of red meat used to distract people to vote against their own economic self-interest to support the very few at the top of the food chain. "No welfare, if they're poor they must deserve it (somehow)!" The strategy started with Nixon, went through Atwater, then Rove. Rove's idea of a "permanent majority" kind of fell apart in the last election when people finally realized it was more important to eat than to be irate about these straw man issues.

Not everyone has figured it out though. It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad (and scary) - more than a few people I work with are buying lots of guns, ammo, and DRY GOODS!! because they are sure that Obama is going to lead the bruthahs to steal their women and children. Ruby Ridge is nothing compared to what these (on the face of it and otherwise very reasonable appearing) people think they need to prepare for. It's incredible, the sporting goods stores are out of ammo around here, and there are little networks of "real Americans" that text each other with things like "Hey the one at 1604 and 281 just got a big shipment of [insert large caliber bullet name here] in!".

When did life get so crazy?

Just my :2c , if that.

MeetJoeGreene
06-11-2009, 10:34 AM
:

It's so ironic how radical conservative leadership in this country has mobilized the right, ostensibly full of Christians, to support the most un-Christian sentiments - keeping as much wealth as possible in the hands of as few people as possible. IMO, abortion, guns, minorities, immigrants - these are just pieces of red meat used to distract people to vote against their own economic self-interest to support the very few at the top of the food chain. "No welfare, if they're poor they must deserve it (somehow)!"
When did life get so crazy?

Just my :2c , if that.

I think that is a mis-characterization of how most Christians think. For myself (and most that I know) alms and giving of time and resources to help those less fortunate (i.e. poor) is a way of life. I do NOT, however, view a large government entity (i.e. welfare) as an effective mechanism for alms and helping the poor. It may have scale... but it is highly, highly INEFFICIENT, corrupt, and SELF-serving.

So my belief in getting rid/reducing welfare does not conflict with a biblical principal of helping the poor.

Djfan
06-11-2009, 10:51 AM
Good call MJG. I always wonder how it is that non-Christians can tell me what I'm supposed to be or believe. Imagine if the Christian world (whatever that is) did that to other groups.

Study my book as much as I have and get back to me.

stlrz d
06-11-2009, 11:03 AM
Good call MJG. I always wonder how it is that non-Christians can tell me what I'm supposed to be or believe. Imagine if the Christian world (whatever that is) did that to other groups.

Study my book as much as I have and get back to me.

With all due respect sir, a study of your book and a study of history shows they did just that.

But that isn't something that's exclusive to religion. Groups of humans with "other's best interests in mind" (which usually means their own best interests) have been telling other folks what to do throughout all of recorded history.

Jooser
06-11-2009, 11:42 AM
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p262/jooser73/refs.gif
You said you were walking away, so the BS flag has been thrown!




Good call MJG. I always wonder how it is that non-Christians can tell me what I'm supposed to be or believe. Imagine if the Christian world (whatever that is) did that to other groups.

Study my book as much as I have and get back to me.

With all due respect sir, a study of your book and a study of history shows they did just that.

But that isn't something that's exclusive to religion. Groups of humans with "other's best interests in mind" (which usually means their own best interests) have been telling other folks what to do throughout all of recorded history.

stlrz d
06-11-2009, 11:45 AM
http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p262/jooser73/refs.gif
You said you were walking away, so the BS flag has been thrown!

The conversation has taken a different turn, has it not?

It's no longer about the credibility of news sources.

That's what I was walking away from.

Jooser
06-11-2009, 11:57 AM
Well, I'll still have to assess a 15 yrd. unsportsmanlike penalty since you weren't specific.

Discuss on! :moon

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-11-2009, 01:26 PM
Good call MJG. I always wonder how it is that non-Christians can tell me what I'm supposed to be or believe. Imagine if the Christian world (whatever that is) did that to other groups.

Study my book as much as I have and get back to me.

No non-Christians here, Djfan!

But either way, telling others what to believe seems unnaceptable in our society, save it for those other theocracies we hear about all the time. IMO, that's why it's so important to keep that separation of church and state strong. If laws are passed that give my religion an upper hand today ( :Clap ), how will I feel when the majority changes and laws are changed so that my practice of religion is suppressed ( :wft )?

Gotta keep it neutral for everybody's benefit.

SanAntonioSteelerFan
06-11-2009, 02:06 PM
:

It's so ironic how radical conservative leadership in this country has mobilized the right, ostensibly full of Christians, to support the most un-Christian sentiments - keeping as much wealth as possible in the hands of as few people as possible. IMO, abortion, guns, minorities, immigrants - these are just pieces of red meat used to distract people to vote against their own economic self-interest to support the very few at the top of the food chain. "No welfare, if they're poor they must deserve it (somehow)!"
When did life get so crazy?

Just my :2c , if that.

I think that is a mis-characterization of how most Christians think. For myself (and most that I know) alms and giving of time and resources to help those less fortunate (i.e. poor) is a way of life. I do NOT, however, view a large government entity (i.e. welfare) as an effective mechanism for alms and helping the poor. It may have scale... but it is highly, highly INEFFICIENT, corrupt, and SELF-serving.

So my belief in getting rid/reducing welfare does not conflict with a biblical principal of helping the poor.

I agree, and thank goodness!

What I (very poorly :oops: ) was trying to say is that the real power in the Republican party loves to get Congress to cut taxes so more and more money stays in their pockets, at the expense of everyone else. The outlook of the rank and file Christian Republican may be just that - Christian and Republican. But the effect of what the power brokers who are leading the parade has a decidedly un-Christian smell. In this, I agree with Pap who in another post said, among other things, that the Republican party is evil, or at least (my qualification here, not Pap's) its current leadership is promoting evil policies.

For example, state highways. They are falling apart all over the country. Local governments don't have the money to fix them. So what's the latest new thing? Toll roads! They will get built paralleling the failing roads. If you've got disposable income enough to pay the tolls, you get to drive on a decent road. If you don't, you get to drive on a road that sucks, and is getting worse.

Or, beyond that, how about health care for indigent children? States are looking to cut expenses everywhere, because their citizens have voted for lower taxes. So what gets cut, it's things like vaccinations or other health care benefits for indigent kids. It just seems hard to me to imagine a way to justify that.

I think cutting taxes is a laudable goal, as long as there is a working plan to make sure that essential government functions continue: things like schools, medical research, roads, the military, health care (remember, Medicare is socialized government medicine :twisted: . It just happens to deliver a lot more care per $ spent because of much lower administrative overhead than the private insurance companies :stirpot ). Otherwise, IMO, if we advocate cutting taxes while closing our eyes to how those tax cuts negatively impact those in need, it looks more like greed than anything else.

Djfan
06-14-2009, 09:28 PM
I understand the problem with less tax revenues meaning less govt services. My problem is that they never want to cut the unnecessary ones, only the teachers, cops, etc.

It seems that we have given the "nice guy" services so long that they have become sacred cows.

Government's first responsibility is to protect the citizenry, first from outside forces, then inside evils - military, borders and police/prisons/courts. After that the functioning of infustructure is huge - roadways, airports, sewage, etc. After that protection of rights - media, religion, assembly, etc.

Seems that the last things we want to EVER think about cutting are healthcare, drug programs, abortions, welfare, and other issues that I doubt have the same social support.

I for one, am tired of hearing about methadone programs, govt paid abortions, healthcare for illegals, etc, getting funding, while teachers are cut, inmates are let go, we are short on cops, and courts are not staffed enough to give equal justice to all cases.

This whole thing is crazy. It won't be long before the average tax payers say "no more!"