Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Slapper on June 04, 2014, 03:06:37 PM
-
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.
Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.
System is corrupt to its core.
Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?
-
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.
Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.
System is corrupt to its core.
Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?
No, if the .gov actually followed the constitution, the country would not be in the mess it is. On top of that it's the American people's fault for letting it get to this point, by electing the same assclowns over and over again.
-
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.
Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.
System is corrupt to its core.
Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?
To amend what specifically?
-
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.
Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.
System is corrupt to its core.
Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?
You don't mention what, exactly, you'd like to amend, but it's not like you have any serious proposals anyways, so we'll let that slide. The fact is simple:
Our Constitution is a brilliant document and the only thing that's still sane and sensible, these many years later.
-
You don't mention what, exactly, you'd like to amend, but it's not like you have any serious proposals anyways, so we'll let that slide. The fact is simple:
Our Constitution is a brilliant document and the only thing that's still sane and sensible, these many years later.
Take your pick: Repeal of the 16th amendment, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces, et cetera.
And no, you can't be serious when talking about the US Constitution: It was written by people who believed only rich landowners should vote, that expanding the colonies to the west was a must (expansion to the west = Native American genocide,) that slavery was good because blacks were an inferior species, et cetera.
That these rich cocksuckers created a modern constitution has more to do with convenience that anything else: The newly empowered rich landowners knew that a well-armed local civilian population, tired of the queen of England, would have ZERO tolerance for anything that remotely resembled authoritative government (aka civil war). This is the only reason why they created such an advanced constitution for its time, not because they believed what they were saying (it's well known most did not,) but because they wanted to send the message to the "undecided" (40% were patriots, 20% loyalists and the rest, 40%, were people who went about their daily business not given a single fuck about who was going to get to collect taxes) that the center of power laid in the state government, not some queen 4000 miles away.
And once the Brits were gone the federal government wasted no time in absorbing as much power back from the state governments as they could. Which is why we nowadays have state governments devoid of any real function but garbage collection, driver license issuing and other state-worthy endeavors.
Albania enjoys more independence than any of the states in the US.
-
The concept of Federalism has been lost in America- power of the states to pretty much run their own affairs, govt. has gotten too big, too intrusive
Wilson and the Fed. Reserve
FDR and the New Deal
LBJ war on poverty etc...
Nixon - about as crooked as can be imagined, scary
Clinton was no friend to states rights
Bush and the Patriot Act - oh my the implications of this in the future
The American PEOPLE have gotten apathetic and lazy, ALLOWED it to happen is the sad fact
Seems like Kennedy may have been the last true Pres. who somewhat tried to represent and protect the American people, deal with out of control govt. corruption ....
-
Take your pick: Repeal of the 16th amendment, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings, elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces, et cetera.
Hey. Some actual suggestions. Great, let's look at them one by one, shall we?
- Repeal of the 16th amendment: I would support a repeat of Amendments XVI and XVII. Unfortunately, we both know that a repeal is not happening.
- elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus: This may sound great, but I'm not sure it's needed as such. Case law on when habeas corpus may be suspended is well established and, for the most part, pretty clear. Still, the less power the government has the better, so I could get behind this too.
- an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings: Even if I support such a definition conceptually, I can't help but be amused at the fact that later on in your post you want to give States more power, but here you seek to take it away.
- elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces: Which clause is that? And who should have authority over the armed forces? I don't know about you, but I want our armed forces to be under political authority.
And no, you can't be serious when talking about the US Constitution
Why yes, I am very serious.
It was written by people who believed only rich landowners should vote, that expanding the colonies to the west was a must (expansion to the west = Native American genocide,) that slavery was good because blacks were an inferior species, et cetera.
Even if everything you write were 100% true (and, of course, it isn't) what does it matter? The personal beliefs of the people who wrote the document aren't as important as the document itself.
That these rich cocksuckers created a modern constitution has more to do with convenience that anything else: The newly empowered rich landowners knew that a well-armed local civilian population, tired of the queen of England, would have ZERO tolerance for anything that remotely resembled authoritative government (aka civil war). This is the only reason why they created such an advanced constitution for its time, not because they believed what they were saying (it's well known most did not,) but because they wanted to send the message to the "undecided" (40% were patriots, 20% loyalists and the rest, 40%, were people who went about their daily business not given a single fuck about who was going to get to collect taxes) that the center of power laid in the state government, not some queen 4000 miles away.
Again, even if all this is accurate, what does it matter why they created such an "advanced constitution"? The important thing is that they did.
And once the Brits were gone the federal government wasted no time in absorbing as much power back from the state governments as they could.
We can discuss whether the Federal Government has used things like the Commerce Clause to consolidate power and bring under it's authority things which it was not originally meant to do. Amending the Constitution shouldn't be the first step in such a discussion. It should be the last.
Which is why we nowadays have state governments devoid of any real function but garbage collection, driver license issuing and other state-worthy endeavors.
I don't think anyone will argue that the Federal Government has amassed power at the expense of the States. The question is how to go about correcting that imbalance. Your statement that the Constitution is the problem and that a rewrite is needed is not only premature, it's based on faulty premises.
Albania enjoys more independence than any of the states in the US.
Sure, in the same way that a doughnut enjoys more glazing than any of the 31 ice-cream flavors at your local Baskin-Robbins.
-
Hey. Some actual suggestions. Great, let's look at them one by one, shall we?
- Repeal of the 16th amendment: I would support a repeat of Amendments XVI and XVII. Unfortunately, we both know that a repeal is not happening.
- elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority to suspend habeas corpus: This may sound great, but I'm not sure it's needed as such. Case law on when habeas corpus may be suspended is well established and, for the most part, pretty clear. Still, the less power the government has the better, so I could get behind this too.
- an amendment that ensures that personhood only applies to individual human beings: Even if I support such a definition conceptually, I can't help but be amused at the fact that later on in your post you want to give States more power, but here you seek to take it away.
- elimination of the clause that gives Congress the authority over the US Armed Forces: Which clause is that? And who should have authority over the armed forces? I don't know about you, but I want our armed forces to be under political authority.
Why yes, I am very serious.
Even if everything you write were 100% true (and, of course, it isn't) what does it matter? The personal beliefs of the people who wrote the document aren't as important as the document itself.
Again, even if all this is accurate, what does it matter why they created such an "advanced constitution"? The important thing is that they did.
We can discuss whether the Federal Government has used things like the Commerce Clause to consolidate power and bring under it's authority things which it was not originally meant to do. Amending the Constitution shouldn't be the first step in such a discussion. It should be the last.
I don't think anyone will argue that the Federal Government has amassed power at the expense of the States. The question is how to go about correcting that imbalance. Your statement that the Constitution is the problem and that a rewrite is needed is not only premature, it's based on faulty premises.
Sure, in the same way that a doughnut enjoys more glazing than any of the 31 ice-cream flavors at your local Baskin-Robbins.
Dude, I am not interested in what your opinion is on what I say. Tell me what you would change in the US Constitution.
-
Dude, I am not interested in what your opinion is on what I say.
You seemed interested in your previous post which did not contain a "what would you change?" question.
Tell me what you would change in the US Constitution.
Not very much actually, and every change would be aimed at an actual problem:
- more tightly circumscribe the Commerce Clause to limit when Congress can use it to act because it's been abused and stretched wider than goatse's asshole;
- make crystal clear and unambigious some language that has, at times, been controversial (e.g. the bullshit "only militias can have guns" argument);
- require the Senate to vote on Presidential nominees within 45 days of nomination;
- repeal Amendments XVI and XVII;
- require that all bills originate in and must be passed by the House before being considered by the Senate;
- eliminate the Senate practice of secret holds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold).
Nothing structural. I stand by my original assertion that the document is very well-written.
-
One of the things I'd change is clarify that we don't have anchor babies. You are only a citizen by birth if one of your parents is a citizen.
Another is a balanced budget amendment.
In terms of the balance of the Constitution, it is fine. Doesn't matter if the some of the framers were racist, or that it was drafted in a different era. It works.
-
One of the things I'd change is clarify that we don't have anchor babies. You are only a citizen by birth if one of your parents is a citizen.
Another is a balanced budget amendment.
In terms of the balance of the Constitution, it is fine. Doesn't matter if the some of the framers were racist, or that it was drafted in a different era. It works.
I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. There are legitimate reasons why you might want to have decific spending (imagine, for example, a world-war type situation) where the Government again issues war bonds. Obviously, it's gotten out of control and something must be done about it, but that sometihng might be difficult to express as a Constitutional Amendment that's not open to abuse.
-
No.
the document was written in a form that stands time. Even the Magna carta is still relevant, it established property rights.
The Problem is the legal code we have today.
-
I'm not sure that a balanced budget amendment is a good idea. There are legitimate reasons why you might want to have decific spending (imagine, for example, a world-war type situation) where the Government again issues war bonds. Obviously, it's gotten out of control and something must be done about it, but that sometihng might be difficult to express as a Constitutional Amendment that's not open to abuse.
I don't think there are legitimate reasons to have perpetual deficit spending. What we need to do is plan for war, natural disasters, etc. We have government funds at varying levels set aside for emergencies. We just dip into those funds and spend the money. I don't have a problem at all with forcing government to be responsible with my money. It's not impossible.
-
The principles of the Constitution remain as relevent today as ever. They remain constant throughout human history, regardless of what era it is...thats the point of it and the beauty of it.
The major problems began when the government began STRAYING from the Constitutional ideals, not because of it
-
I like the way you think!
we should revise the 14th amendment since it was designed to apply to recently freed slaves, not the millions of children of illegal aliens.
good talk.
-
it just needs some updating.
-
I don't think there are legitimate reasons to have perpetual deficit spending. What we need to do is plan for war, natural disasters, etc. We have government funds at varying levels set aside for emergencies. We just dip into those funds and spend the money. I don't have a problem at all with forcing government to be responsible with my money. It's not impossible.
But perpetual deficit spending isn't the same as temporary deficit spending though. Debt isn't bad; perpetual debt is. I don't want to shackle the government, should a need for it go into debt emerges.
-
But perpetual deficit spending isn't the same as temporary deficit spending though. Debt isn't bad; perpetual debt is. I don't want to shackle the government, should a need for it go into debt emerges.
When was the last time the federal government had no debt, no deficit, and a balanced budget? I don't recall it happening in my lifetime. And it has only gotten worse.
I have zero confidence that the politicians in D.C., from either party, will ever be responsible enough to get our fiscal house in order, unless there is some mandate that has consequences.
Also, I'd amend the Constitution to include term limits.
-
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.
Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.
System is corrupt to its core.
Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?
Fuck no I don't agree.
How is anybody going to agree with that?
You're a good example. Stupid, ignorant, racist - I don't want you even voting much less determining any government issues for me.
-
Fuck no I don't agree.
How is anybody going to agree with that?
You're a good example. Stupid, ignorant, racist - I don't want you even voting much less determining any government issues for me.
well, then, you'd have to change the constitution ;D
-
I wish the founding fathers had clarified that nothing in the Constitution is open for reinterpretation.
-
The biggest problem is not the const but an idiotic public who demand free shit, care only about gays marriage abd abortion, and are obsessed w frivolous bs
-
The biggest problem is not the const but an idiotic public who demand free shit, care only about gays marriage abd abortion, and are obsessed w frivolous bs
and they only care about such things because of the right to free speech which allows such shit to be broadcast on the news instead of things that really do matter. catch 22 really. people wanna be entertained with retarded news stories, but everyone watches the news and takes it as thats whats important at that moment in time. the news is a tv show like anything else, entertainment only. its got us brainwashed just like hitler brainwashed the german people. funny thing is, people are too dumb to realise it because they've been brainwashed into thinking the USA are the good guys.
another catch 22.
fucking retarded right?
-
the us govt took a page right out of goebbels' book. used the media to subdue the population and control them, throwing the hood over the horses head in a word and leading it along a path of idiocy and corruption. whats more is that the important shit isnt even reported. never do you hear of anything happening in a country outside of the us, on a us news station. if it does get reported, its all about what america is doing, or what americans died or disappeared or whatever.
usa is literally just as ethnocentric as china or north korea. the only difference is that WE live in this country, and are often too naive to realise it.
hilarious that more people cant see this, and that no one does anything about it. but then, whats to be done? thats the big question i think
-
And no, you can't be serious when talking about the US Constitution: It was written by people who believed only rich landowners should vote, that expanding the colonies to the west was a must (expansion to the west = Native American genocide,) that slavery was good because blacks were an inferior species, et cetera.
Once again, half the country did oppose slavery and a bunch of people died to end slavery in this country FYI Africans, sold Africans into slavery and still do and I suspect Americans of African descent are better off today than if they were African of African descent and still being sold into slavery.
Since the country was formed from those who expanded to the West what would you expect, I think we bought a lot of the land from other countries that had already expanded westward anyway Louisiana purchase and such. Native Americans liked to kill each other off in mass too.
Not so sure they were wrong about land owners being the ones allowed to vote, they have the most to contribute and lose and had to work hard for what they own. Given the chance I would support a Starship Troopers government that makes even more sense since people who contribute vote and not a bunch of freeloaders voting for free phones and healthcare for no work like we have today,
-
the us govt took a page right out of goebbels' book. used the media to subdue the population and control them, throwing the hood over the horses head in a word and leading it along a path of idiocy and corruption. whats more is that the important shit isnt even reported. never do you hear of anything happening in a country outside of the us, on a us news station. if it does get reported, its all about what america is doing, or what americans died or disappeared or whatever.
usa is literally just as ethnocentric as china or north korea. the only difference is that WE live in this country, and are often too naive to realise it.
hilarious that more people cant see this, and that no one does anything about it. but then, whats to be done? thats the big question i think
This would be a stronger position before the information age.
-
and they only care about such things because of the right to free speech which allows such shit to be broadcast on the news instead of things that really do matter. catch 22 really. people wanna be entertained with retarded news stories, but everyone watches the news and takes it as thats whats important at that moment in time. the news is a tv show like anything else, entertainment only. its got us brainwashed just like hitler brainwashed the german people. funny thing is, people are too dumb to realise it because they've been brainwashed into thinking the USA are the good guys.
another catch 22.
fucking retarded right?
We ARE the good guys. :)
-
We ARE the good guys. :)
dont be so naive. there are no good guys.
-
This would be a stronger position before the information age.
Still a pretty strong positition considering how many Fox News viewers there are, I'd think.
Or are you of the opinion that a significant percentage of the Fox News crowd is paying attention to international news via the interwebs?
-
Still a pretty strong positition considering how many Fox News viewers there are, I'd think.
Or are you of the opinion that a significant percentage of the Fox News crowd is paying attention to international news via the interwebs?
with the population of the US being an aging one, and the aging ones being in charge... and making up most of the voeters too..... well you get my point i think. older folks watch the news, and they believe it. some dont, and im always happy to debate the various conspiracy theories out there.. but majority seem to follow the leader the leader being the news corps which are indirectly run by the govt. doesnt take a lot of thought to figure it out, its basically right there in front of our eyes
US learned a lot from the nazis, notice how we copy a lot of things from them. military tactics for one, weaponry even (m60 LMG very mechanically similar to the mg42 lmg from ww2), their missile programs.... nuclear stuff too I bet though we did beat them there I don't doubt that the germans had some great ideas we later improved upon after the war. propaganda is powerful stuff if youve been subjected to it your entire life guys. imprinted from birth most of us have been.
-
with the population of the US being an aging one, and the aging ones being in charge... and making up most of the voeters too..... well you get my point i think. older folks watch the news, and they believe it. some dont, and im always happy to debate the various conspiracy theories out there.. but majority seem to follow the leader the leader being the news corps which are indirectly run by the govt. doesnt take a lot of thought to figure it out, its basically right there in front of our eyes
US learned a lot from the nazis, notice how we copy a lot of things from them. military tactics for one, weaponry even (m60 LMG very mechanically similar to the mg42 lmg from ww2), their missile programs.... nuclear stuff too I bet though we did beat them there I don't doubt that the germans had some great ideas we later improved upon after the war. propaganda is powerful stuff if youve been subjected to it your entire life guys. imprinted from birth most of us have been.
Great post, like someone on here recently said... Goebbels would be proud
-
We have a Constitution in place that was created in 1787 to mediate the social, cultural and economic circumstances of 1787.
Fast forward to today, 2014. Most lawyer teams have figured out the loopholes in the laws, and that which they can't get around of they get from the politicians.
System is corrupt to its core.
Do you agree on a large, HUGE, constitutional amendment?
Hmm....interesting proposition.
I do believe laws become outdated and in nearly 250 years, times have certainly changed. What worked then, may be obsolete today. However, wholesale changes to our constitution scares me too. If we have amendments, they are hopefully never going to be one huge one, but more nuanced. It seems like a lot of folks hang on to the concepts set in place all those years ago despite that it is a different world today.
One might say the same thing about the bible. Here we have a book that many believe to be gospel and others, like me think is more folklore. That being said, there are concepts in the bible which are basic to humankind and how we should interact with one another. I am a big believer in "do onto others as you would have them do onto you" for example.
My concern is that we never throw out the baby with the bath water. Some things are worth changing, others worth eliminating altogether and many concepts are worth keeping as well.
-
dont be so naive. there are no good guys.
I am a good guy....just saying.
-
with the population of the US being an aging one, and the aging ones being in charge... and making up most of the voeters too..... well you get my point i think. older folks watch the news, and they believe it. some dont, and im always happy to debate the various conspiracy theories out there.. but majority seem to follow the leader the leader being the news corps which are indirectly run by the govt. doesnt take a lot of thought to figure it out, its basically right there in front of our eyes
US learned a lot from the nazis, notice how we copy a lot of things from them. military tactics for one, weaponry even (m60 LMG very mechanically similar to the mg42 lmg from ww2), their missile programs.... nuclear stuff too I bet though we did beat them there I don't doubt that the germans had some great ideas we later improved upon after the war. propaganda is powerful stuff if youve been subjected to it your entire life guys. imprinted from birth most of us have been.
I am an old folk and I don't believe half of what I see on the news. Yes we elders vote. We aren't the majority. If you don't agree with how old folks vote, being a (supposedly) younger person, get out an vote too. Ever hear about how democracy works?
-
No what I'm talking about are the other 90% of the adult population who DO believe the crap they are told. I can\'t tell you the amount of time's I've tried to explain how the system really works to adults and they just shake their head shrug at me not believing a word I say even if it is so very obvious and in plain sight what is really going on. It's like that guy we all know, who's girl is getting pounded by half the town and he's totally blind to it even if he walked into his house one day and heard her getting fucked by someone else he'd chalk it up to neighbors or her watching porn or something
-
I am an old folk and I don't believe half of what I see on the news. Yes we elders vote. We aren't the majority. If you don't agree with how old folks vote, being a (supposedly) younger person, get out an vote too. Ever hear about how democracy works?
Didn't you just recently say you were involved in a campaign for democrats who turned around and fucked you right afterwards ?
Sounds like you should maybe stay clear of the ballot box if you're so easily fooled.
-
Didn't you just recently say you were involved in a campaign for democrats who turned around and fucked you right afterwards ?
Sounds like you should maybe stay clear of the ballot box if you're so easily fooled.
Something like that.
John Albert Kitzhaber (born March 5, 1947) is the 37th and current Governor of Oregon. A member of the Democratic Party, Kitzhaber has served three nonconsecutive terms as Governor, from 1995 to 2003 and a third term since 2011. He also served in the Oregon House of Representatives and Oregon Senate, including as Senate president. He was also an emergency room surgeon and has worked as a health care administrator.
It was in this last term of office he reduced PERS benefits, supposedly to fund education and still meet the budget all the while giving Nike and other big corporations a big tax break. This is not what one normally expects from a democratic governor. He's made enemies out of many of his previous supporters. He is currently campaigning for a record 4th term as governor. I returned the letter he sent me seeking campaign contributions with an explanation as to exactly why this wasn't going to happen even if Hell did freeze over.
-
The Constitution is perfectly fine as written. It is unquestionably the greatest and most enduring political document ever written. The problem is that in 2014, the Constitution is practically irrelevant. For 50 years it has been twisted, perverted and marginalized by our corrupt government.
-
dont be so naive. there are no good guys.
Don't be so jaded. We're the ones providing military and disaster relief assistance around the world. We even help our enemies when disaster strikes.
-
Still a pretty strong positition considering how many Fox News viewers there are, I'd think.
Or are you of the opinion that a significant percentage of the Fox News crowd is paying attention to international news via the interwebs
I'm one if those people who thinks people who criticize Fox News and its viewers with a broad brush are usually uninformed simpletons or partisan hacks.
-
I'm one if those people who thinks people who criticize Fox News and its viewers with a broad brush are usually uninformed simpletons or partisan hacks.
That's not particularly relevant when it comes to answering whether you think that many habitual Fox News viewers are taking advantage of the "Information Age" by following international news not being reported by Fox on the internet.
That's OK if you don't have an opinion about this and simply don't want to speculate.
FWIW, though, I think that people who use the term "criticizing with a broad brush" are usually clumsy writers or careless hacks. lol
-
I'm one if those people who thinks people who criticize Fox News and its viewers with a broad brush are usually uninformed simpletons or partisan hacks.
I am one of those people who believes if you get all you political information from Fox News you are a sheep blindly following the flock.
-
I am one of those people who believes if you get all you political information from Fox News you are a sheep blindly following the flock.
I am one of those people who believes that only stupid people choose to get all their information on any one subject from a single source.
-
I am one of those people who believes that only stupid people choose to get all their information on any one subject from a single source.
We are two people with like minds then.
-
You guys do that in the belief that the information is filtered through different agendas? (meaning that you will then be able to compare and weigh information between the sources, etc.)
-
That's not particularly relevant when it comes to answering whether you think that many habitual Fox News viewers are taking advantage of the "Information Age" by following international news not being reported by Fox on the internet.
That's OK if you don't have an opinion about this and simply don't want to speculate.
FWIW, though, I think that people who use the term "criticizing with a broad brush" are usually clumsy writers or careless hacks. lol
I have no idea whether "habitual Fox News viewers" check the internet for international news, but Fox News covers international news. So do all the other networks.
-
I am one of those people who believes if you get all you political information from Fox News you are a sheep blindly following the flock.
That's a pretty big overstatement. There are lots of older people who read one paper or watch a single news channel. That by itself doesn't make them blind sheep.
-
You guys do that in the belief that the information is filtered through different agendas? (meaning that you will then be able to compare and weigh information between the sources, etc.)
My reasoning is that the more information I have, the better equipped I am to make my own decisions, especially on a topic as important as politics; to me, it's no different than getting a second opinion from another doctor, car mechanic or contractor. I take all that information, along with information I was able to assemble myself, let it steep, and I reach a conclusion.
Being exposed to multiple viewpoints (even when those viewpoints come from people who have a known bias) is not very much in vogue today, but it is a good thing.
-
That's a pretty big overstatement. There are lots of older people who read one paper or watch a single news channel. That by itself doesn't make them blind sheep.
Perhaps not, but it also doesn't provide them a very comprehensive view of things either.
As for the newspapers; unfortunately, newspapers are rapidly becoming history. Most papers today share the new stories. Few publish independently. This is why you'll see the same news items, in various papers, on the web and on television at any given time. The news media survives on the income they get from sponsors. The news, like most things is geared to appeal to the demographic that is likely to buy the products advertised on said media, be that a newspaper, magazine, the internet, or television.
-
Perhaps not, but it also doesn't provide them a very comprehensive view of things either.
As for the newspapers; unfortunately, newspapers are rapidly becoming history. Most papers today share the new stories. Few publish independently. This is why you'll see the same news items, in various papers, on the web and on television at any given time. The news media survives on the income they get from sponsors. The news, like most things is geared to appeal to the demographic that is likely to buy the products advertised on said media, be that a newspaper, magazine, the internet, or television.
Depends on the paper and the station.
Newspapers are an endangered species and they are yesterday's news, but they are still hanging in there, especially for old timers.
-
Depends on the paper and the station.
Newspapers are an endangered species and they are yesterday's news, but they are still hanging in there, especially for old timers.
The Oregonian, which has never been the greatest paper in my opinion, has cut back home delivery to 4 days a week. The online version is available everyday. They actually upped the subscription price when they did this and they shrunk, literally, the paper. All the news, global, national and local is in one section now.
For true local news, there is always West Linn Tidings, which is a small weekly local paper. For a different slant on Portland news, there's Willamette Week. Willamette Week does it's best to help "keep Portland weird."
-
The Oregonian, which has never been the greatest paper in my opinion, has cut back home delivery to 4 days a week. The online version is available everyday. They actually upped the subscription price when they did this and they shrunk, literally, the paper. All the news, global, national and local is in one section now.
For true local news, there is always West Linn Tidings, which is a small weekly local paper. For a different slant on Portland news, there's Willamette Week. Willamette Week does it's best to help "keep Portland weird."
Oahu only has one daily and it is available online too, but you have to pay for total access.
-
Oahu only has one daily and it is available online too, but you have to pay for total access.
Same with the Oregonian, if you want total access to the online digital "paper" you have to have a subscription. A lesser version, known as Oregon Live, http://www.oregonlive.com/#/0 (http://www.oregonlive.com/#/0) is available without a subscription.