Spring Break
Ram Republic raises voice
Abstract:
Citing a need for more balanced coverage of political and social issues in the media, a CSU student has started publishing an independent, right-leaning news publication, which saw its first printing Monday.
Bobby Carson, editor in chief of the new monthly student publication The Ram Republic, transferred to CSU from the University of Minnesota, where he said the idea of a conservative student-run publication took root....
- Displaying 1 - 30 of 30
Adam
posted 10/09/07 @ 4:28 AM MST
I wonder who their Alan Colmes is going to be. Or will they even pretend to have anything but a conservative slant?
Craig Hawley
posted 10/09/07 @ 8:53 AM MST
Well Adam if they follow McSWanes example and the Collgegian the answer would be a rseounding F you. But I have faith that they can do a great job unlike McSwane and his Propoganda rag.
Since the Collegeian took a cheap shot I am going to write my contacts at Fox News and see if they could help the Ram Public. After all wasn't it the Collegeian board that insulted conservatives on Campus by saying that maybe Fox wold be kind to them.
Since the Collegeian took a cheap shot I am going to write my contacts at Fox News and see if they could help the Ram Public. After all wasn't it the Collegeian board that insulted conservatives on Campus by saying that maybe Fox wold be kind to them.
Originally posted byAdam
I wonder who their Alan Colmes is going to be. Or will they even pretend to have anything but a conservative slant?
ALUM'01
posted 10/09/07 @ 8:52 AM MST
Once again, the GOP just can't keep their hands out of student life and issues on the CSU campus, and college campuses in Colorado as a whole.
The funding, backing and training for this thing is coming from nonprofit front groups for the GOP and evangelical right. The whole notion of such groups creating a publication and contributing to "responsible journalism" is a contradiction. By definition, an ideologically driven group is unlikely to be able to create a fair and objective publication. All this shows is that the GOP is resorting to propaganda.
Say what you will about the editorial that has been at issue. But the whole notion of starting a "conservative" publication to counteract a "liberal media" is unfounded.
This idea of a "liberal media" is nothing more than conservatives attempting to silence those who disagree with them. It always seems that whenever there is something in a newspaper that a conservative disagrees with, it must be "liberal bias" rather than just a different view. But conservatives always forget what anyone who has spent time working in newspapers knows - the majority of newspapers are own and operated by conservative businessman.
And yes, they do meddle in the affairs of the newsroom more than conservatives want to admit.
The funding, backing and training for this thing is coming from nonprofit front groups for the GOP and evangelical right. The whole notion of such groups creating a publication and contributing to "responsible journalism" is a contradiction. By definition, an ideologically driven group is unlikely to be able to create a fair and objective publication. All this shows is that the GOP is resorting to propaganda.
Say what you will about the editorial that has been at issue. But the whole notion of starting a "conservative" publication to counteract a "liberal media" is unfounded.
This idea of a "liberal media" is nothing more than conservatives attempting to silence those who disagree with them. It always seems that whenever there is something in a newspaper that a conservative disagrees with, it must be "liberal bias" rather than just a different view. But conservatives always forget what anyone who has spent time working in newspapers knows - the majority of newspapers are own and operated by conservative businessman.
And yes, they do meddle in the affairs of the newsroom more than conservatives want to admit.
Blinky
posted 10/09/07 @ 11:00 AM MST
Originally posted byALUM'01
Once again, the GOP just can't keep their hands out of student life and issues on the CSU campus, and college campuses in Colorado as a whole.
The funding, backing and training for this thing is coming from nonprofit front groups for the GOP and evangelical right. The whole notion of such groups creating a publication and contributing to "responsible journalism" is a contradiction. By definition, an ideologically driven group is unlikely to be able to create a fair and objective publication. All this shows is that the GOP is resorting to propaganda.
Say what you will about the editorial that has been at issue. But the whole notion of starting a "conservative" publication to counteract a "liberal media" is unfounded.
This idea of a "liberal media" is nothing more than conservatives attempting to silence those who disagree with them. It always seems that whenever there is something in a newspaper that a conservative disagrees with, it must be "liberal bias" rather than just a different view. But conservatives always forget what anyone who has spent time working in newspapers knows - the majority of newspapers are own and operated by conservative businessman.
And yes, they do meddle in the affairs of the newsroom more than conservatives want to admit.
"Once again, the GOP just can't keep their hands out of student life and issues on the CSU campus"
Yeah as opposed to liberal who NEVER get involved in student life and issues on the CSU campus.
Registered Independent
posted 10/10/07 @ 5:36 PM MST
Originally posted byALUM'01
Once again, the GOP just can't keep their hands out of student life and issues on the CSU campus, and college campuses in Colorado as a whole.
The funding, backing and training for this thing is coming from nonprofit front groups for the GOP and evangelical right. The whole notion of such groups creating a publication and contributing to "responsible journalism" is a contradiction. By definition, an ideologically driven group is unlikely to be able to create a fair and objective publication. All this shows is that the GOP is resorting to propaganda.
Say what you will about the editorial that has been at issue. But the whole notion of starting a "conservative" publication to counteract a "liberal media" is unfounded.
This idea of a "liberal media" is nothing more than conservatives attempting to silence those who disagree with them. It always seems that whenever there is something in a newspaper that a conservative disagrees with, it must be "liberal bias" rather than just a different view. But conservatives always forget what anyone who has spent time working in newspapers knows - the majority of newspapers are own and operated by conservative businessman.
And yes, they do meddle in the affairs of the newsroom more than conservatives want to admit.
*
RESPONSE TO ALUM 01':
Quite ticked off about this recent turn of events, aren't you? It's pretty amusing.
You have your facts wrong. 89% of mainstream media news people admit to habitually voting for the Democrats, which probably means the actual number is somewhat higher.
Pick up a copy of Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias", which lays out the facts on this subject. Leftist bias has been an epidemic in the mainstream media for the last 35 years.
Author Bernard Goldberg was a CBS news reporter and producer for 30 years, who also happened to win 7 Emmy awards for newscasting. He was a media "insider" for a long time, and he has the facts to back up what he says. It's an informative book.
The only difference between McSwayne running this newspaper and Carson running the new publication is that the new editor admits where he is coming from.
In what way does offering competing ideas constitute an "attempt to silence" the left as you stated? That's quite a leap in logic you have going on there.
And if you don't think that McSwayne is "ideologicaly driven", you must have been off of the planet for the past 3 weeks.
Hey, where did all that supposed reverence for the First Amendment go?
Welcome to the Founding Father's intended version of the "Free Marketplace of Ideas."
*
Craig Hawley
posted 10/10/07 @ 6:05 PM MST
Wow awesome letter. Short, concise , completely on point and truthful. I salute you.
And not an F you in the post. LOL!
And not an F you in the post. LOL!
Originally posted byALUM'01
Once again, the GOP just can't keep their hands out of student life and issues on the CSU campus, and college campuses in Colorado as a whole.
The funding, backing and training for this thing is coming from nonprofit front groups for the GOP and evangelical right. The whole notion of such groups creating a publication and contributing to "responsible journalism" is a contradiction. By definition, an ideologically driven group is unlikely to be able to create a fair and objective publication. All this shows is that the GOP is resorting to propaganda.
Say what you will about the editorial that has been at issue. But the whole notion of starting a "conservative" publication to counteract a "liberal media" is unfounded.
This idea of a "liberal media" is nothing more than conservatives attempting to silence those who disagree with them. It always seems that whenever there is something in a newspaper that a conservative disagrees with, it must be "liberal bias" rather than just a different view. But conservatives always forget what anyone who has spent time working in newspapers knows - the majority of newspapers are own and operated by conservative businessman.
And yes, they do meddle in the affairs of the newsroom more than conservatives want to admit.
Nancy
posted 10/09/07 @ 9:21 AM MST
Though I live in Arizona, I have been following the story of your campus newspaper and the use of a profanity related to our President, George Bush, with a great deal of interest.
Like you, I feel ALL speech should be protected under the First Amendment. However, as a reporter, I find myself taking the side of those who were in disagreement with the "right" to publish said profanity.
When one writes for a newspaper, you have tremendous responsibilities to the public as a whole, not just to those who agree with you politically. A newspapers' function is to inform, not attack or abuse their readers, not to force the writer's opinion down the throat of those around them. While there ARE opinion columns in every newspaper, never will you see the profanity your paper used to enforce their point (unless it's some gutter rag who no one reads anyway); when you do that, you lose your audience immediately.
It can be a heady experience to have access to a newspaper, with full decision making abilities to put whatever you wish on the pages. It is only with the maturity of experience and discretion should one take over the pages. When your paper chose the words it chose to enforce their political beliefs, you became nothing better than a paper used to line bird cages. It has always been with great pride that I wrote for the newspaper for which I wrote. I enjoyed making a difference in the world I lived in and I did nothing to alienate myself from that world, even when the reader didn't agree with my opinion. Had David McSwane written a piece outlining his political beliefs, instead of inflaming the public as a whole to appease his own ego with his two word editorial, I would have stood behind his right to do so, whether I agreed with his opinion or not. I would imagine McSwane feels incredibly smug right now, having forced the issue of freedom of speech, but at what cost? To be honest, were I an editor looking at his resume, I wouldn't have him working for me given he's already proven he's a loose cannon. That's a resume headed for File 13 about as fast as I can get it there.
All I can say to McSwane is this: Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, for it won't last long, and it wasn't that impressive to begin with. You are still a child in the protected world of academia. In the real world, you know, one you don't see on television, you would have been taken to task for doing what you did in a mainstream newspaper, if not fired altogether. It is only upon reaching adulthood, something you don't seem to have done yet, that you realize temperance is a tool to be used widely and often.
Just because profanity is protected speech when used in the arena of a newspaper doesn't mean you have to use it. To do so demeans not just your reading public but yourself.
Were I have been able to find an e-mail address to the new newspaper, I'd have sent this there, knowing the one I sent to the Collegian will be ignored.
Like you, I feel ALL speech should be protected under the First Amendment. However, as a reporter, I find myself taking the side of those who were in disagreement with the "right" to publish said profanity.
When one writes for a newspaper, you have tremendous responsibilities to the public as a whole, not just to those who agree with you politically. A newspapers' function is to inform, not attack or abuse their readers, not to force the writer's opinion down the throat of those around them. While there ARE opinion columns in every newspaper, never will you see the profanity your paper used to enforce their point (unless it's some gutter rag who no one reads anyway); when you do that, you lose your audience immediately.
It can be a heady experience to have access to a newspaper, with full decision making abilities to put whatever you wish on the pages. It is only with the maturity of experience and discretion should one take over the pages. When your paper chose the words it chose to enforce their political beliefs, you became nothing better than a paper used to line bird cages. It has always been with great pride that I wrote for the newspaper for which I wrote. I enjoyed making a difference in the world I lived in and I did nothing to alienate myself from that world, even when the reader didn't agree with my opinion. Had David McSwane written a piece outlining his political beliefs, instead of inflaming the public as a whole to appease his own ego with his two word editorial, I would have stood behind his right to do so, whether I agreed with his opinion or not. I would imagine McSwane feels incredibly smug right now, having forced the issue of freedom of speech, but at what cost? To be honest, were I an editor looking at his resume, I wouldn't have him working for me given he's already proven he's a loose cannon. That's a resume headed for File 13 about as fast as I can get it there.
All I can say to McSwane is this: Enjoy your fifteen minutes of fame, for it won't last long, and it wasn't that impressive to begin with. You are still a child in the protected world of academia. In the real world, you know, one you don't see on television, you would have been taken to task for doing what you did in a mainstream newspaper, if not fired altogether. It is only upon reaching adulthood, something you don't seem to have done yet, that you realize temperance is a tool to be used widely and often.
Just because profanity is protected speech when used in the arena of a newspaper doesn't mean you have to use it. To do so demeans not just your reading public but yourself.
Were I have been able to find an e-mail address to the new newspaper, I'd have sent this there, knowing the one I sent to the Collegian will be ignored.
Craig Hawley
posted 10/09/07 @ 9:49 AM MST
Even the Liberal Media doesn't try to hide that it is Liberal any more. Man Alum1 ( anonymous Nick again real courageous ) is 180 degrees wrong on every issue. The new York times showed it's Liberal Bias to the world with the Pretraeus ad , and it was confirmed by their own ombudsman. Chris Matthews called the Bush administration criminal and he is supposed to be a unbiased host for the GOP Debate. Get real Alum1.
This Lefty Free Speech debate is always brought up to hide and justify Liberal Left fringe behavior. Say F Bush and then cry fee speech to justify sloppy , journalism and childish behavior counter productive to the paper , CSU and the students. The whole campus says that the Paper id Liberal and they make that clear when they made fun of the Ram Public before it wrote a word. So they tried to pre judge the new paper and stifle it's free speech and you and them are continuing to try to do so.
You and the Collegeian are prime examples of censorship by trying to marginilize and destroy a competing paper instead of welcome it with your little free speech loving , liberal arms. Once Again Alum1 you make the rights point by being a HYPOCRITE.
The Main Stream Media is Liberal. Fox News is conservative. Get over it and stop trying to convince America otherwise. Remember the Liberal elite calling most of America " fly over states ". Guess where the papers and Media are based for the most part. In Liberal big cities on the two coasts.
Once again when you say an ideologically driven group is usually not objective , you are correct if referring to the Collegeian which has shown time and time again that it is ideologically driven , and a slave to that ideology.
You on the other hand betray your bias and unfair judgement by attacking a paper that has no track record and just one issue so far. So at the risk of asking a Liberal like you to be fair , could we reserve judgement until after the Ram Public has a first issue and maybe a few more before you Liberals start telling us how biased it is. Sounds almost like you have made up your mind already. Hmmmmmmmmm that is what the Pretraeus ad did also. I see a trend here.
You Liberals are mind readers that trash people and papers before they even have a chance to speak. So you free speech loving Liberals judge peoples speech before they say it. A new Low.
You are trying to censor speech before it even happens. There's only one danger to free speech around here Alum1 and it is the pre judging , Liberals who will not tolerate dissent.
This Lefty Free Speech debate is always brought up to hide and justify Liberal Left fringe behavior. Say F Bush and then cry fee speech to justify sloppy , journalism and childish behavior counter productive to the paper , CSU and the students. The whole campus says that the Paper id Liberal and they make that clear when they made fun of the Ram Public before it wrote a word. So they tried to pre judge the new paper and stifle it's free speech and you and them are continuing to try to do so.
You and the Collegeian are prime examples of censorship by trying to marginilize and destroy a competing paper instead of welcome it with your little free speech loving , liberal arms. Once Again Alum1 you make the rights point by being a HYPOCRITE.
The Main Stream Media is Liberal. Fox News is conservative. Get over it and stop trying to convince America otherwise. Remember the Liberal elite calling most of America " fly over states ". Guess where the papers and Media are based for the most part. In Liberal big cities on the two coasts.
Once again when you say an ideologically driven group is usually not objective , you are correct if referring to the Collegeian which has shown time and time again that it is ideologically driven , and a slave to that ideology.
You on the other hand betray your bias and unfair judgement by attacking a paper that has no track record and just one issue so far. So at the risk of asking a Liberal like you to be fair , could we reserve judgement until after the Ram Public has a first issue and maybe a few more before you Liberals start telling us how biased it is. Sounds almost like you have made up your mind already. Hmmmmmmmmm that is what the Pretraeus ad did also. I see a trend here.
You Liberals are mind readers that trash people and papers before they even have a chance to speak. So you free speech loving Liberals judge peoples speech before they say it. A new Low.
You are trying to censor speech before it even happens. There's only one danger to free speech around here Alum1 and it is the pre judging , Liberals who will not tolerate dissent.
Craig Hawley
posted 10/09/07 @ 10:05 AM MST
Nancy loved your comments. You were right one target.
Mr. Mcswane , I would like to give you some adult advice and perspective that may serve you well in future articles.
Instead of always saying " CAN I SAY THAT " ( because the answer, a child could tell you , is always yes due to the first amendment ) try saying " SHOULD I SAY THAT " instead.
It was never that you couldn't say F Bush , it was always , that in the view of a vast majority of Americans living in this Democracy and your readers , you shouldn't have said F Bush.
Hey your young and believe it or not you will grow out of this childish need to fight the power structure and authority that all kids go through as part of the maturation process.
Mr. Mcswane , I would like to give you some adult advice and perspective that may serve you well in future articles.
Instead of always saying " CAN I SAY THAT " ( because the answer, a child could tell you , is always yes due to the first amendment ) try saying " SHOULD I SAY THAT " instead.
It was never that you couldn't say F Bush , it was always , that in the view of a vast majority of Americans living in this Democracy and your readers , you shouldn't have said F Bush.
Hey your young and believe it or not you will grow out of this childish need to fight the power structure and authority that all kids go through as part of the maturation process.
justakid
posted 10/09/07 @ 10:32 AM MST
Just what we need, a CSU Fox News. For those of you who think the media is liberal: get real. The media treats Republicans like they're the home team. Conservatives just think anything that portrays Bush as slightly less than divine is far left.
Registered Independent
posted 10/10/07 @ 8:09 PM MST
Originally posted byjustakid
Just what we need, a CSU Fox News. For those of you who think the media is liberal: get real. The media treats Republicans like they're the home team. Conservatives just think anything that portrays Bush as slightly less than divine is far left.
RESPONSE TO JUST A KID:
Now let's just do a short review of our facts here:
In the public-television arena, channels CBS news, NBC news, ABC news and PBS news programs all lean liberal, and always have.
Nothing remotely conservative at all in that "free" television broadcasting lineup.
Now let's look at cable TV. On the liberal side
you have the 24-hour news channels of established CNN and the more strident MSNBC.
Representing the more conservative side of cable channels, Fox News stands alone.
In fact out of the entire group of 7 news channels from which to select, Fox is alone as being right of center.
And yet your problem is with Fox news?
Who are outnumbered 6 to 1 among television news channels?
Interesting position. Doesn't remotely pretend to support 1st Amendment freedom of the press and freedom of speech, however.
*
Different Ram Alum 01
posted 10/09/07 @ 11:26 AM MST
I was at CSU for the same round of bullshit that Alum 01 above is talking about. No doubt we knew each other then.
The last time this happened the GOP was backing student government candidates by sending political consultants, money and heavy-handed lawyers. Can you imagine? It's just student government.
They were also using most of the same talking points about liberal bias of educators and press. It's all rhetoric, nothing more. Buy into the bullshit if you want, but the real travesty here is the idea that a national political party is getting involved in affairs on a college campus. Can you imagine? It's just a college newspaper.
There's something seriously broken in the national political system when this shit starts happening.
The last time this happened the GOP was backing student government candidates by sending political consultants, money and heavy-handed lawyers. Can you imagine? It's just student government.
They were also using most of the same talking points about liberal bias of educators and press. It's all rhetoric, nothing more. Buy into the bullshit if you want, but the real travesty here is the idea that a national political party is getting involved in affairs on a college campus. Can you imagine? It's just a college newspaper.
There's something seriously broken in the national political system when this shit starts happening.
Registered Independent
posted 10/10/07 @ 6:33 PM MST
Originally posted byDifferent Ram Alum 01
I was at CSU for the same round of bullshit that Alum 01 above is talking about. No doubt we knew each other then.
The last time this happened the GOP was backing student government candidates by sending political consultants, money and heavy-handed lawyers. Can you imagine? It's just student government.
They were also using most of the same talking points about liberal bias of educators and press. It's all rhetoric, nothing more. Buy into the bullshit if you want, but the real travesty here is the idea that a national political party is getting involved in affairs on a college campus. Can you imagine? It's just a college newspaper.
There's something seriously broken in the national political system when this shit starts happening.
*
RESPONSE TO DIFFERENT RAM ALUM 01:
Are you actually stating with a straight face that McSwayne's 4-word anti-Bush editorial a few weeks ago was not absolutely dripping liberal bias?
In order for that preposterous assertion to be true; McSwayne would next have to speak for the public (in light of Congress' 11% approval rating) by publishing an editorial in giant block letters, telling Nancy Pelosi to "Fold it four ways and put it where the moon don't shine."
What do you think is the likelihood of that ever occurring? There is obviously nada, zip, zero, no chance of that.
The only thing that has been "seriously broken" with the arrival of this new competing publication, is the left's death-grip stranglehold on publishing at CSU.
*
Craig Hawley
posted 10/09/07 @ 3:53 PM MST
The Left starts a fight knowingly ( McSwane knew what he was doing and the left keeps saying how brave they are for saying F Bush in the first place ) and then whines when the right fights back because the right is using heavy weights. If you don't like the consequences ten don't create the controversy. When are people on the left just stand up , get a set ,and take responsibility for their personal actions.
First they say F Bush then defend it as some kind of free speech heroes. Then they get upset when I and some others used the same language towards them. Now they are crying and whining because we are using better people and tactics than them to defend civil speech while they champion vulgarity. It is like the left is defending Jesus ( who didn't curse LOL! ) and the left is trying ( Badly ) to defend the Devil ( I am sure he would approve of McSwane's potty mouth ). LOL!
I guess you don't think the Government should use it's position and power to criticize individual citizens. Oh you mean like Harry Reid trying desperately to change the page from the Moveon.org debacle by attacking Rush Limbaugh , a private citizen holding no powerful office like a Senator. Rush Limbaugh has a long , long record of supporting the troops more than Harry Reid ever did.
I have an Idea. Since the Left says hey have the troop best interest at heart then let's take a vote of the Military and if they Military in a Democratic vote , says they want to come back , then the left wins. It will never happen because the Military overwhelmingly support Bush and are Republicans. Don't you remember the Democrats trying to get all those ballots from the Military rejected because thy knew they would be good news for Republicans.
The Democrats and Liberals actually are doing what they always do. They want to tell the troops what to do , not help them and listen to them. They want to socialize medicine and everything else in America. Have you seen the dining rooms in China at a factory. Looks like something out of a robot gone mad Hollywood movie. And socialized medicine is working so well in Canada they have people waiting months to see a Dentist , then getting drunk and pulling it out with pliers. These are the benefits that Democrats want to give you.
Any two year old knows that when they are in a sand box it can only hold so many kids before no one in the sand box can have a good time. Well America is a huge sand box and it is and will get so full we will all suffer. The Democrats don't care as long as they get votes , until one day they wake up and another culture has taken over our country and it is to late to do a damn thing about it.
Remember that the moderate Muslims the left adores are still treating their women like cattle and does not want to assimilate but come here then complain until Liberals give them benefits and opportunities to build their own separate communities and mini countries in America. Some of these communities have been taped practicing with automatic weapons. Why? IT sure as hell isn't for rabbit season.
But the left has never seen a reason to fight for heir country. The just keep whining about rights that others gave them , while they destroy the very country guaranteeing those rights.
The are pathetic hypocrites of the worst kind.
First they say F Bush then defend it as some kind of free speech heroes. Then they get upset when I and some others used the same language towards them. Now they are crying and whining because we are using better people and tactics than them to defend civil speech while they champion vulgarity. It is like the left is defending Jesus ( who didn't curse LOL! ) and the left is trying ( Badly ) to defend the Devil ( I am sure he would approve of McSwane's potty mouth ). LOL!
I guess you don't think the Government should use it's position and power to criticize individual citizens. Oh you mean like Harry Reid trying desperately to change the page from the Moveon.org debacle by attacking Rush Limbaugh , a private citizen holding no powerful office like a Senator. Rush Limbaugh has a long , long record of supporting the troops more than Harry Reid ever did.
I have an Idea. Since the Left says hey have the troop best interest at heart then let's take a vote of the Military and if they Military in a Democratic vote , says they want to come back , then the left wins. It will never happen because the Military overwhelmingly support Bush and are Republicans. Don't you remember the Democrats trying to get all those ballots from the Military rejected because thy knew they would be good news for Republicans.
The Democrats and Liberals actually are doing what they always do. They want to tell the troops what to do , not help them and listen to them. They want to socialize medicine and everything else in America. Have you seen the dining rooms in China at a factory. Looks like something out of a robot gone mad Hollywood movie. And socialized medicine is working so well in Canada they have people waiting months to see a Dentist , then getting drunk and pulling it out with pliers. These are the benefits that Democrats want to give you.
Any two year old knows that when they are in a sand box it can only hold so many kids before no one in the sand box can have a good time. Well America is a huge sand box and it is and will get so full we will all suffer. The Democrats don't care as long as they get votes , until one day they wake up and another culture has taken over our country and it is to late to do a damn thing about it.
Remember that the moderate Muslims the left adores are still treating their women like cattle and does not want to assimilate but come here then complain until Liberals give them benefits and opportunities to build their own separate communities and mini countries in America. Some of these communities have been taped practicing with automatic weapons. Why? IT sure as hell isn't for rabbit season.
But the left has never seen a reason to fight for heir country. The just keep whining about rights that others gave them , while they destroy the very country guaranteeing those rights.
The are pathetic hypocrites of the worst kind.
ALUM'01
posted 10/09/07 @ 4:31 PM MST
OK Mr. Hawley, I'll play your game. My name is: Heath Hixson. I graduated from CSU in 2001. I'll entertain the expected vitriol that will probably be thrown at me.
Different Ram Alum 01 is right that GOP members have been way too involved at times in the student life on the CSU campus. We could talk about their actions across the state involving student organizations on campuses in Colorado in the late 1990s and early part of this decade but that would probably take more time than I have. Needless to say, you might have a different perspective if you endured the several years of chicanery on the part of some of the area's Republican "leaders" like I and other students did. And let me point out that this statement does not extend to all members of the party in that area, just certain ones that I will refrain from naming because of potential libel and defamation reasons.
Anyway, my point here is that my arguments are not baseless, rather they are centered on my personal experiences as a former Collegian desk editor, KCSU talk show host, an ASCSU Senator (CSU student government), and as a past and current political activist on the CSU campus, Colorado and the nation.
First, the Liberal Media issue: This argument has little merit. The top 3 newspapers in terms of circulation in this nation are USA TODAY, Wall Street Journal and the New York Times - in that order. The USA TODAY is moderate at best, at the very least it plays the status quo. The Wall Street Journal is definitely conservative. The New York Times based on your view is liberal, but some would argue with that. These three newspapers have a combined circulation of 6.2 million every day, which is more than 10 percent of the 60 million newspapers circulated each Sunday in the United States. The rest of the newspapers span the political spectrum.
Although, in my personal experience, the three newspapers I worked for in Texas and Illinois were owned by corporations or families with conservative leanings, or had editors who were Republicans and were public about their views. Further, cable news is definitely conservative and dominated by Fox News, which has an audience that is as much as CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. And do I even need to mention talk radio?
As for the Petraeus thing, wasn't that an ad? If so, why should the Times be slammed for running an ad that was paid for and produced by a third party? Why would they deny the revenue in this tough time of advertising spending? Wouldn't that be contrary to conservative views of profit at all costs? Please don't try to play the moralist and patriot cards. Because you and I both know how business works.
So with all of this said, where is the "liberal media"? And who exactly is the mainstream media? Given that radio and cable-TV are dominated by unabashedly conservative sources and some of the largest newspapers in the nation are conservative, where is the liberal mainstream media that you speak of?
I take issue with the continued attacks on the Collegian, the CSU Journalism program and others associated at CSU as liberal radicals, or whatever defamatory term you use. It is a fine institution, the programs are quality, and the associated people are undeserving of your derogatory attacks.
As for the Collegian, I would argue against it being liberal or conservative. In my four years of experience at student media, I consistently watched as the hard-working student journalists were ALWAYS worried about being fair and objective - let's please put the recent editorial aside for a minute.
As a graduate of the journalism program, I can tell you that this approach of being fair and objective was constantly stressed. People on both sides of the political spectrum were angered at one time or another at Collegian stories or columns - a sign that the student journalists were doing their job. Considering that many of the professors and faculty remain, I can't imagine it has changed much.
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Collegian has been ideologically driven. The source of stories come from the ideas and planning of students, let me repeat that, students. There is no front group for a political party that is funding the organization, providing columnists and contributing to strategic planning and training.
Oh, and as far as McSwane and the Editorial Board (I'm saying they made the best journalistic decision) it is my understanding that there were just as many people signing a petition supporting them as there were on the petition against them. It is just a better story to write about all the people who were against them, and that seemed to be the focus of the stories written about the situation - conflict sells newspapers and attracts viewers.
As far as the Ram Republic, the first issue shows that it is likely to be just a propaganda piece for the CSU College Republicans, if not the broader party within Northern Colorado and the state (that is obvious by the "production of CSU College Republicans" on the last page). I am not arguing that they don't have the right to publish and voice their opinion as you and others have suggested. If you knew me, you would know I would be the first to defend your right given that I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to that issue. But my point is don't call it "journalism." Call it what it is - political party propaganda. By calling it the "conservative voice," they have stripped it off all potential objectivity from the beginning. It simply sounds like a partisan rag with all facts and potential truth pre-filtered through a conservative view - thus washing it of any other voice that may exist in an issue.
The issue here is not censoring the Ram Republic, but asking the broader question of why GOP members in Colorado continue to meddle in the affairs of CSU students. Why not let students work it out? Why don't these College Republican "leaders" try to work for the Collegian or student media? Why don't they become reporters? Why don't they try to be columnists? Why don't they become part of the solution?
Different Ram Alum 01 is right that GOP members have been way too involved at times in the student life on the CSU campus. We could talk about their actions across the state involving student organizations on campuses in Colorado in the late 1990s and early part of this decade but that would probably take more time than I have. Needless to say, you might have a different perspective if you endured the several years of chicanery on the part of some of the area's Republican "leaders" like I and other students did. And let me point out that this statement does not extend to all members of the party in that area, just certain ones that I will refrain from naming because of potential libel and defamation reasons.
Anyway, my point here is that my arguments are not baseless, rather they are centered on my personal experiences as a former Collegian desk editor, KCSU talk show host, an ASCSU Senator (CSU student government), and as a past and current political activist on the CSU campus, Colorado and the nation.
First, the Liberal Media issue: This argument has little merit. The top 3 newspapers in terms of circulation in this nation are USA TODAY, Wall Street Journal and the New York Times - in that order. The USA TODAY is moderate at best, at the very least it plays the status quo. The Wall Street Journal is definitely conservative. The New York Times based on your view is liberal, but some would argue with that. These three newspapers have a combined circulation of 6.2 million every day, which is more than 10 percent of the 60 million newspapers circulated each Sunday in the United States. The rest of the newspapers span the political spectrum.
Although, in my personal experience, the three newspapers I worked for in Texas and Illinois were owned by corporations or families with conservative leanings, or had editors who were Republicans and were public about their views. Further, cable news is definitely conservative and dominated by Fox News, which has an audience that is as much as CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. And do I even need to mention talk radio?
As for the Petraeus thing, wasn't that an ad? If so, why should the Times be slammed for running an ad that was paid for and produced by a third party? Why would they deny the revenue in this tough time of advertising spending? Wouldn't that be contrary to conservative views of profit at all costs? Please don't try to play the moralist and patriot cards. Because you and I both know how business works.
So with all of this said, where is the "liberal media"? And who exactly is the mainstream media? Given that radio and cable-TV are dominated by unabashedly conservative sources and some of the largest newspapers in the nation are conservative, where is the liberal mainstream media that you speak of?
I take issue with the continued attacks on the Collegian, the CSU Journalism program and others associated at CSU as liberal radicals, or whatever defamatory term you use. It is a fine institution, the programs are quality, and the associated people are undeserving of your derogatory attacks.
As for the Collegian, I would argue against it being liberal or conservative. In my four years of experience at student media, I consistently watched as the hard-working student journalists were ALWAYS worried about being fair and objective - let's please put the recent editorial aside for a minute.
As a graduate of the journalism program, I can tell you that this approach of being fair and objective was constantly stressed. People on both sides of the political spectrum were angered at one time or another at Collegian stories or columns - a sign that the student journalists were doing their job. Considering that many of the professors and faculty remain, I can't imagine it has changed much.
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Collegian has been ideologically driven. The source of stories come from the ideas and planning of students, let me repeat that, students. There is no front group for a political party that is funding the organization, providing columnists and contributing to strategic planning and training.
Oh, and as far as McSwane and the Editorial Board (I'm saying they made the best journalistic decision) it is my understanding that there were just as many people signing a petition supporting them as there were on the petition against them. It is just a better story to write about all the people who were against them, and that seemed to be the focus of the stories written about the situation - conflict sells newspapers and attracts viewers.
As far as the Ram Republic, the first issue shows that it is likely to be just a propaganda piece for the CSU College Republicans, if not the broader party within Northern Colorado and the state (that is obvious by the "production of CSU College Republicans" on the last page). I am not arguing that they don't have the right to publish and voice their opinion as you and others have suggested. If you knew me, you would know I would be the first to defend your right given that I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to that issue. But my point is don't call it "journalism." Call it what it is - political party propaganda. By calling it the "conservative voice," they have stripped it off all potential objectivity from the beginning. It simply sounds like a partisan rag with all facts and potential truth pre-filtered through a conservative view - thus washing it of any other voice that may exist in an issue.
The issue here is not censoring the Ram Republic, but asking the broader question of why GOP members in Colorado continue to meddle in the affairs of CSU students. Why not let students work it out? Why don't these College Republican "leaders" try to work for the Collegian or student media? Why don't they become reporters? Why don't they try to be columnists? Why don't they become part of the solution?
Craig Hawley
posted 10/09/07 @ 5:04 PM MST
Gotta say that I disagree with just about every point you made but I respect your views and courage for just saying who you are and at least having the guts to stand behind your convictions.
Reasonable people can have diametrically opposed views and still respect each oter. I will obviously be working on the other side of most arguments you make but hey that is America and I was willing to die for that right to disagree and say may the best man or woman win.
What I have to speak ou against is the rash , un thought out tirade of Mr. McSwane using emotionaly evoking words , and generating emotionaly charged non productive debate on serious issues that because of Mr. McSwane have been side tracked through his selfish collapse to his anger and loss of self control.
I will leave it at , you and I will have to agree to disagree. But again I salute you for shooting from the hip , laying it on the line and actually using the freedom of speech unashamedly letting all know who we are and where we stand.
To me that is a beautiful thing and worth guys like me fighting and yes some times dying for. I assure you that my self and dare I speak for my fallen commrades in arms did not risk the ultimate sacrifice so Mr. McSWane could bring the right of free speech to it's lowest common denominator. We aspire to loftier dialogue and uses of that precious gift.
Every Amercan has the right to be a jerk. But why would you wat to be and why would any one defend the indefensible. Those who defend and support bad behavior invite said behavior on them selves some day and then will have no moral authority left to speak out against it. Think about that one before you go and say Yea McSwane and F Bush. When I was cursing back at the left supporting McSwane they got all upset at my language and said as much just look over the posts. But if you defend McSwanes right to say F Bush with no consequences then I have the rigt to expect the same treatment and if you don't give it then you are a hypocrite and marginalize your self and argument.
Reasonable people can have diametrically opposed views and still respect each oter. I will obviously be working on the other side of most arguments you make but hey that is America and I was willing to die for that right to disagree and say may the best man or woman win.
What I have to speak ou against is the rash , un thought out tirade of Mr. McSwane using emotionaly evoking words , and generating emotionaly charged non productive debate on serious issues that because of Mr. McSwane have been side tracked through his selfish collapse to his anger and loss of self control.
I will leave it at , you and I will have to agree to disagree. But again I salute you for shooting from the hip , laying it on the line and actually using the freedom of speech unashamedly letting all know who we are and where we stand.
To me that is a beautiful thing and worth guys like me fighting and yes some times dying for. I assure you that my self and dare I speak for my fallen commrades in arms did not risk the ultimate sacrifice so Mr. McSWane could bring the right of free speech to it's lowest common denominator. We aspire to loftier dialogue and uses of that precious gift.
Every Amercan has the right to be a jerk. But why would you wat to be and why would any one defend the indefensible. Those who defend and support bad behavior invite said behavior on them selves some day and then will have no moral authority left to speak out against it. Think about that one before you go and say Yea McSwane and F Bush. When I was cursing back at the left supporting McSwane they got all upset at my language and said as much just look over the posts. But if you defend McSwanes right to say F Bush with no consequences then I have the rigt to expect the same treatment and if you don't give it then you are a hypocrite and marginalize your self and argument.
Originally posted byALUM'01
OK Mr. Hawley, I'll play your game. My name is: Heath Hixson. I graduated from CSU in 2001. I'll entertain the expected vitriol that will probably be thrown at me.
Different Ram Alum 01 is right that GOP members have been way too involved at times in the student life on the CSU campus. We could talk about their actions across the state involving student organizations on campuses in Colorado in the late 1990s and early part of this decade but that would probably take more time than I have. Needless to say, you might have a different perspective if you endured the several years of chicanery on the part of some of the area's Republican "leaders" like I and other students did. And let me point out that this statement does not extend to all members of the party in that area, just certain ones that I will refrain from naming because of potential libel and defamation reasons.
Anyway, my point here is that my arguments are not baseless, rather they are centered on my personal experiences as a former Collegian desk editor, KCSU talk show host, an ASCSU Senator (CSU student government), and as a past and current political activist on the CSU campus, Colorado and the nation.
First, the Liberal Media issue: This argument has little merit. The top 3 newspapers in terms of circulation in this nation are USA TODAY, Wall Street Journal and the New York Times - in that order. The USA TODAY is moderate at best, at the very least it plays the status quo. The Wall Street Journal is definitely conservative. The New York Times based on your view is liberal, but some would argue with that. These three newspapers have a combined circulation of 6.2 million every day, which is more than 10 percent of the 60 million newspapers circulated each Sunday in the United States. The rest of the newspapers span the political spectrum.
Although, in my personal experience, the three newspapers I worked for in Texas and Illinois were owned by corporations or families with conservative leanings, or had editors who were Republicans and were public about their views. Further, cable news is definitely conservative and dominated by Fox News, which has an audience that is as much as CNN, MSNBC and CNBC combined. And do I even need to mention talk radio?
As for the Petraeus thing, wasn't that an ad? If so, why should the Times be slammed for running an ad that was paid for and produced by a third party? Why would they deny the revenue in this tough time of advertising spending? Wouldn't that be contrary to conservative views of profit at all costs? Please don't try to play the moralist and patriot cards. Because you and I both know how business works.
So with all of this said, where is the "liberal media"? And who exactly is the mainstream media? Given that radio and cable-TV are dominated by unabashedly conservative sources and some of the largest newspapers in the nation are conservative, where is the liberal mainstream media that you speak of?
I take issue with the continued attacks on the Collegian, the CSU Journalism program and others associated at CSU as liberal radicals, or whatever defamatory term you use. It is a fine institution, the programs are quality, and the associated people are undeserving of your derogatory attacks.
As for the Collegian, I would argue against it being liberal or conservative. In my four years of experience at student media, I consistently watched as the hard-working student journalists were ALWAYS worried about being fair and objective - let's please put the recent editorial aside for a minute.
As a graduate of the journalism program, I can tell you that this approach of being fair and objective was constantly stressed. People on both sides of the political spectrum were angered at one time or another at Collegian stories or columns - a sign that the student journalists were doing their job. Considering that many of the professors and faculty remain, I can't imagine it has changed much.
I am not sure where you get the idea that the Collegian has been ideologically driven. The source of stories come from the ideas and planning of students, let me repeat that, students. There is no front group for a political party that is funding the organization, providing columnists and contributing to strategic planning and training.
Oh, and as far as McSwane and the Editorial Board (I'm saying they made the best journalistic decision) it is my understanding that there were just as many people signing a petition supporting them as there were on the petition against them. It is just a better story to write about all the people who were against them, and that seemed to be the focus of the stories written about the situation - conflict sells newspapers and attracts viewers.
As far as the Ram Republic, the first issue shows that it is likely to be just a propaganda piece for the CSU College Republicans, if not the broader party within Northern Colorado and the state (that is obvious by the "production of CSU College Republicans" on the last page). I am not arguing that they don't have the right to publish and voice their opinion as you and others have suggested. If you knew me, you would know I would be the first to defend your right given that I am pretty much an absolutist when it comes to that issue. But my point is don't call it "journalism." Call it what it is - political party propaganda. By calling it the "conservative voice," they have stripped it off all potential objectivity from the beginning. It simply sounds like a partisan rag with all facts and potential truth pre-filtered through a conservative view - thus washing it of any other voice that may exist in an issue.
The issue here is not censoring the Ram Republic, but asking the broader question of why GOP members in Colorado continue to meddle in the affairs of CSU students. Why not let students work it out? Why don't these College Republican "leaders" try to work for the Collegian or student media? Why don't they become reporters? Why don't they try to be columnists? Why don't they become part of the solution?
Craig Hawley
posted 10/09/07 @ 4:45 PM MST
Why don't the collegeian staff come work for the Ram Public. And the students are working it out with the Ram Public and you can't stand it.
You ask why they don't go work for the collegeian about 4 times. Well let's see the Collegeian already publicly insulted Republican students , showed no class or journalistic ethics , had an Editor that just cost them $50,000 in advertisers so far , caused the staff to have to take a 10% pay cut , lost subscribers , alienated alumni , and openly embraced the fact as well as it's supporters that McSwane and the Board hate Busch and are left leaning.
Gee I can't imagine why the Republican students on campus are not just flocking to the Collegeian. Man you on the left ask some real winner questions. It would be like the Klan asking why the Black Panther Party couldn't just break up and become Klan members .
Ok next nutty lefty idea please
You ask why they don't go work for the collegeian about 4 times. Well let's see the Collegeian already publicly insulted Republican students , showed no class or journalistic ethics , had an Editor that just cost them $50,000 in advertisers so far , caused the staff to have to take a 10% pay cut , lost subscribers , alienated alumni , and openly embraced the fact as well as it's supporters that McSwane and the Board hate Busch and are left leaning.
Gee I can't imagine why the Republican students on campus are not just flocking to the Collegeian. Man you on the left ask some real winner questions. It would be like the Klan asking why the Black Panther Party couldn't just break up and become Klan members .
Ok next nutty lefty idea please
Raymond Giles
posted 10/10/07 @ 10:57 AM MST
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
Craig Hawley
posted 10/10/07 @ 1:48 PM MST
Hey well said man. You let me know when you find that paper not driven by political agendas , and I'll join you there. LOL!
Until then you could understand that if my choices are either a Liberal left paper and their agenda that I find dangerous for my country , or a Right leaning paper who's editorial opinions I am more likely to agree with and though I do not agree with all things Republican , within their frame work more of my issues are aligned , then I will go Ram Republic.
But again well said.
Until then you could understand that if my choices are either a Liberal left paper and their agenda that I find dangerous for my country , or a Right leaning paper who's editorial opinions I am more likely to agree with and though I do not agree with all things Republican , within their frame work more of my issues are aligned , then I will go Ram Republic.
But again well said.
Originally posted byRaymond Giles
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
Registered Independent
posted 10/10/07 @ 11:43 PM MST
Originally posted byRaymond Giles
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
RESPONSE TO RAYMOND GILES:
I read the entire Ram Rebublic following your suggestion to do so.
The article in question was about someone else who used a racial slur.
The Ram Republic did not use the racial slur, and you know it. They reported on its use by someone else.
Would you prefer that newspapers not tell you about such events?
I believe that you are "shooting the bearer of bad news."
Your dismay at the use of the slur is understandable, and shared. But do you really want to be "out of the loop" regarding hearing about this issue?
I don't remember the Collegian reporting on this incident at all, let alone condemning it.
Don't you find that a little patronizing?
Rather along the lines of them deciding for you that "what you don't know can't hurt you?"
Craig Hawley
posted 10/11/07 @ 7:25 AM MST
Have to be careful what you write. From reading what you said one would think the Ram Republic was pretending to be a real news source like the Collegeian. I read the paper from cover to cover and it stated immeadiately that it was an opinion source not unbiased news. Since the Collegeian is nothing but a Lebral left opinion piece I see that at least the Ram Republic is honest about being a counter to the Collegeian.
I think 105 years of the Collegeian brain washing young students in a Liberal monopoly is enough. And after 105 years of Monopoly the Collegeian throws a tantrum when the right fights back. COWARDS!
I think 105 years of the Collegeian brain washing young students in a Liberal monopoly is enough. And after 105 years of Monopoly the Collegeian throws a tantrum when the right fights back. COWARDS!
Originally posted byRaymond Giles
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
Raymond Giles
posted 10/11/07 @ 9:00 AM MST
RESPONSE TO REGISTERED INDEPENDENT:
You asked, "Would you prefer that newspapers not tell you about such events? and that I am "shooting the bearer of bad news."
So you are telling me with a straight face that the sole purpose of the Ram Republic was to report on the event. It wasn't to allow a gentleman to defend himself for using the "n-word" to make a point about free speech. How can you rationally compare a commonly used expletive to a racial slur that symbolizes hundreds of years of oppression? If you think that these two words are even in the same category of offensiveness then you are in deep denial. I am a conservative man with conservative values. The "f-word" offended me so I decided to read the Ram Republic. I picked up a copy of the Ram Republic and read an article defending the use of the "n" word. The "n" word is not just offensive, its racist, and I think you will find that people all across the political spectrum will find that offensive. I say the f-word sometimes if I stub my toe. My grandfather had to drink from "n*&gger" water fountain. How can these be compared?
You asked, "Would you prefer that newspapers not tell you about such events? and that I am "shooting the bearer of bad news."
So you are telling me with a straight face that the sole purpose of the Ram Republic was to report on the event. It wasn't to allow a gentleman to defend himself for using the "n-word" to make a point about free speech. How can you rationally compare a commonly used expletive to a racial slur that symbolizes hundreds of years of oppression? If you think that these two words are even in the same category of offensiveness then you are in deep denial. I am a conservative man with conservative values. The "f-word" offended me so I decided to read the Ram Republic. I picked up a copy of the Ram Republic and read an article defending the use of the "n" word. The "n" word is not just offensive, its racist, and I think you will find that people all across the political spectrum will find that offensive. I say the f-word sometimes if I stub my toe. My grandfather had to drink from "n*&gger" water fountain. How can these be compared?
Originally posted byRaymond Giles
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
Craig Hawley
posted 10/11/07 @ 9:58 AM MST
You say the commonly used F word. It didn't used to be there was a time before F. It became commonly used because of people like you saying commonly used , and not enacting any consequences for our Nation sinking into a Liberal quagmire of filth.
I agree that the N word is offensive , but disagree with you that some how we should grade offensive speech. The reason we have the offensive speech is because people started saying well it is not that bad. The second you justify any cursing or filth speech you stretch the boundaries of what's normal and keep bringing in the fringe by legitimizing it.
So I deplore the use of both words. I believe the argument was that the left was trying to say all speech was sacred and untouchable. That argument would say then that the N word is protected speech no matter how offensive it is to you. You either have no limits on speech or you have some. Can't be both. The gentleman that used the word was trying to point out the Hypocrisy of the left and did so. You can't say all speech is sacred and protected and then chicken out and denounce what is said to prove a point ten seconds later. That makes you a Hypocrite.
We as a society need to take back our country from the Lunatic Left. They continue to champion lost causes and the indefensible like McSwanes lame attempt at controversy. Even the lefts ridiculous argument was that the F word is said all the time so it is no big deal. First of all it is a big deal to me and a lot of other decent people. Second using your own convoluted thesis then McSwane was taking to most lazy route possible using a word that has been used to death by your own admission and has been used to stir debate a million times. Talk about been there done that.
So we condemn any speech that is profane , vulgar , and offends the common decency of most people. See Conservatives by nature don't like to get involved in this melee , that is why they call us the silent majority. But you the left just keep on pushing the boundaries of civil behavior and when you start to defend the F Bomb you wake us up and we have to say NO MORE!
We are tired of taking our kids and wives out in public to hear your foul mouths and juvenile attempts at feeling tough. You are not some Outlaw to be feared , you are a spoiled foul mouth child that needs your mouth washed out with soap. LOL!
Hey McSwane open wide.
I agree that the N word is offensive , but disagree with you that some how we should grade offensive speech. The reason we have the offensive speech is because people started saying well it is not that bad. The second you justify any cursing or filth speech you stretch the boundaries of what's normal and keep bringing in the fringe by legitimizing it.
So I deplore the use of both words. I believe the argument was that the left was trying to say all speech was sacred and untouchable. That argument would say then that the N word is protected speech no matter how offensive it is to you. You either have no limits on speech or you have some. Can't be both. The gentleman that used the word was trying to point out the Hypocrisy of the left and did so. You can't say all speech is sacred and protected and then chicken out and denounce what is said to prove a point ten seconds later. That makes you a Hypocrite.
We as a society need to take back our country from the Lunatic Left. They continue to champion lost causes and the indefensible like McSwanes lame attempt at controversy. Even the lefts ridiculous argument was that the F word is said all the time so it is no big deal. First of all it is a big deal to me and a lot of other decent people. Second using your own convoluted thesis then McSwane was taking to most lazy route possible using a word that has been used to death by your own admission and has been used to stir debate a million times. Talk about been there done that.
So we condemn any speech that is profane , vulgar , and offends the common decency of most people. See Conservatives by nature don't like to get involved in this melee , that is why they call us the silent majority. But you the left just keep on pushing the boundaries of civil behavior and when you start to defend the F Bomb you wake us up and we have to say NO MORE!
We are tired of taking our kids and wives out in public to hear your foul mouths and juvenile attempts at feeling tough. You are not some Outlaw to be feared , you are a spoiled foul mouth child that needs your mouth washed out with soap. LOL!
Hey McSwane open wide.
Originally posted byRaymond Giles
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
Registered Independent
posted 10/11/07 @ 2:58 PM MST
Originally posted byRaymond Giles
I have read the Ram Republic. It is nothing but political propaganda with an article about the use of a racial slur to add to the mix. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself: www.ramrepublic.com. The irony of it all is that I am a "conservative", but its not my voice. I am also black. Thanks for insulting your potential black readers before ever getting started. I was hoping for a truly newsworthy paper.
RESPONSE TO RAYMOND GILES 2nd POSTING;
Of course I wasn't comparing the two incidents. I did nothing of the kind. Look over what I wrote.
The Ram Republic did not print an editorial of their own, using a racial slur.
They reported as a news item, that someone else had used a racial slur to try and make a "comparison" point.
The guy using the racial slur was exposed as a mean-spirited, less-bright type, in the news item.
The Ram Republic did not make commentary on their news story about the person's use of the slur.
They assume readers are capable of reading a news item and reaching their own conclusions about it.
Which in fact readers are capable of doing.
You and I reached the same conclusion about the guy using the slur (that the Ram reported on); without anyone having to tell either of us what to think about him.
So obviously, simply reporting the news item is effective.
My original question to you was; why would you not want to be informed about such occurrances?
JD
posted 10/10/07 @ 7:42 PM MST
To Bobby Carson,
Four words: Find a page designer.
Four words: Find a page designer.
Craig Hawley
posted 10/10/07 @ 9:07 PM MST
Hey JD do you have any suggestions for page design that would be better. Or are you just one of those people who are part of the problem not the solution.
If you do have an idea let's here it, if not your comments are counterproductive and you become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
If you do have an idea let's here it, if not your comments are counterproductive and you become part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Originally posted byJD
To Bobby Carson,
Four words: Find a page designer.
Registered Independent
posted 10/10/07 @ 10:53 PM MST
Originally posted byJD
To Bobby Carson,
Four words: Find a page designer.
RESPONSE TO JD:
A few more words for the Collegian: Find an editor who can write his way out of a paper bag.
That McSwayne editorial today was lame beyond belief.
Registered Independent
posted 10/11/07 @ 4:26 PM MST
*
P.S. TO RAYMOND GILES:
No, I had not thought about the possibility that the Ram Reporter could have been affording the guy the opportunity to defend himself for using the N-word; not in the sense of endorsing him.
Because what had immediately come to my mind upon reading the article was "What an idiot. There's no comparison there."
If we want to "read into" why a news item is printed, you could also read into the Ram's motive as being "And looky who is coming out of the woodwork now"; in a very unflattering way.
I think it was simply a factual news item.
The guy clearly couldn't think up a good free speech argument, and came up with this statement that backfired on him.
*
P.S. TO RAYMOND GILES:
No, I had not thought about the possibility that the Ram Reporter could have been affording the guy the opportunity to defend himself for using the N-word; not in the sense of endorsing him.
Because what had immediately come to my mind upon reading the article was "What an idiot. There's no comparison there."
If we want to "read into" why a news item is printed, you could also read into the Ram's motive as being "And looky who is coming out of the woodwork now"; in a very unflattering way.
I think it was simply a factual news item.
The guy clearly couldn't think up a good free speech argument, and came up with this statement that backfired on him.
*
Raymond Giles
posted 10/12/07 @ 8:56 AM MST
Registered Independent:
It seems that you read very objectively and form your own opinions based on the facts. It is much to my relief to know that there ARE still people out there capable of thinking with such a degree of rationality and open mindedness. From your point of view, I can agree with you that this was simply a factual news item. I would hope that you are not the minority.
It seems that you read very objectively and form your own opinions based on the facts. It is much to my relief to know that there ARE still people out there capable of thinking with such a degree of rationality and open mindedness. From your point of view, I can agree with you that this was simply a factual news item. I would hope that you are not the minority.
- Displaying 1 - 30 of 30
Max
posted 10/09/07 @ 3:23 AM MST