I just heard by Fox News that the Washington Post has stated that they will begin coverage of the trial for the remainder. It appears that public outrage of the lack of coverage has embarrassed the WP into reporting on this trial.
Still, the vast majority of the seats in the courtroom which are designated for the media are empty.
LadyJazzer wrote: Apparently, the issue of the "MIA media" has already had holes shot all through it by numerous posters, and with numerous links to prove it's a lie, it's appropriate to move on....
OK LJ and archer, since the Trayvon Martin case has already been covered (way more than this sick "doctor" btw), does that mean when June 10th rolls around and the trial begins, that there should be no need for more coverage of the story... should the media just "move on"? MSNBC acts like the Gosnell story doesn't exist, but you can bet your asses they will be all over Zimmerman. Just watch your little echo chamber in action.
Whatever captures the people's attention is what the media will give us.....right, left, or in-between, it's money that drives the networks ....if Fox thinks it's audience is more interested in Treyvon Martin than they are in Dr. Gosnell, than that is what they will cover....same with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc......money Arlen, none of them are so politically motivated that they would let ideology trump the bottom line.
archer wrote: Their emphasis is on how can I use this tragedy to hurt my opponents, the liberals,
The media and politicians are using the tragedy at Sandy Hook for exactly the purpose you just stated. I'm merely showing the hypocrisy of this tragedy. Let me know when MSNBC decides to cover this trial on a daily basis like they will do with Zimmerman.
archer wrote: Their emphasis is on how can I use this tragedy to hurt my opponents, the liberals,
The media and politicians are using the tragedy at Sandy Hook for exactly the purpose you just stated. I'm merely showing the hypocrisy of this tragedy. Let me know when MSNBC decides to cover this trial on a daily basis like they will do with Zimmerman.
The media and politicians are EXPLOITING the tragedy at Sandy Hook ...........
LadyJazzer wrote: Apparently, the issue of the "MIA media" has already had holes shot all through it by numerous posters, and with numerous links to prove it's a lie, it's appropriate to move on....
OK LJ and archer, since the Trayvon Martin case has already been covered (way more than this sick "doctor" btw), does that mean when June 10th rolls around and the trial begins, that there should be no need for more coverage of the story... should the media just "move on"? MSNBC acts like the Gosnell story doesn't exist, but you can bet your asses they will be all over Zimmerman. Just watch your little echo chamber in action.
Whatever captures the people's attention is what the media will give us.....right, left, or in-between, it's money that drives the networks ....if Fox thinks it's audience is more interested in Treyvon Martin than they are in Dr. Gosnell, than that is what they will cover....same with CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc......money Arlen, none of them are so politically motivated that they would let ideology trump the bottom line.
And I thought I was cynical about the media. I think the media does go for ratings but I also believe they try to influence public opinion. Like more anti Romney stories that anti Obama. And of course sex and blood leads. Especially if the film is graphic. Time for Obama to speak? If those infants hadn't been killed they could be Barack's children right?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
homeagain wrote: ANSWER my questions......WHY is there a proliferation of MALE IMPOTENCY PILLS, but NOT MALE CONTRACEPTION PILLS???
Do NOT speak to me of abortion, when you can NOT answer the questions (SPECIFICALLY the above ?).......The "doctor" was an
abomination of humanity, THAT is a given.....I am PRO-CHOICE and for good reason.....MEN, rarely take the initiative to be "pro-active"
when it comes to a good lay.........(there ARE exceptions,of course) but generally, WOMAN have the "risk" and WOMAN have the
"say".....JMO
You really don't know the answer to this?
1st of all you are the owner of your own person. You have rights and you are in control of your body. You decide what surgical procedures to have or not have You decide what food you eat where you live and if you feel like having a drink or doing some drugs you are also in control of that as well. The law is pretty clear on what rights a woman has.
Per your quote
homeagain wrote: WOMAN have the "risk" and WOMAN have the
"say"
As you say you have the risk and you have the say. That means that you also have the say over who you spread your legs for.
Men have no rights over a pregnancy until a child is born. You alone decide whether or not to keep or terminate a pregnancy. If you are so worried about the risk keep your legs closed and the problem is solved.
gmule wrote: But on this planet this is called a choice.
Yes... It is...
A blastocyst/zygote doesn't look anything like your picture, and as far as I'm concerned it's "potential life", not "personhood"... That's a debate we will never resolve, and I always come back to the same thing: If you don't like abortion--don't have one.
Feel free to continue your rant by yourself.
Spin it however you want and call it whatever you what so that it fits within your moral guidelines. It makes no difference to me if you kill your unborn child I am not the one that has to live with that on my conscience.
I wonder, do you think your mother contemplated on having you aborted?
LadyJazzer wrote: Eleven children managed to escape at Sandy Hook while the murderer was changing magazines... In Tucson, Loughner was tackled after shooting Giffords, wounding 12 others, and killing 6, while trying to change magazines , thus saving more lives, whether it was 10 or 30...How many more in Aurora are alive because the assassin's 100-round drum jammed?
And the following people were unable to attend the president's address today:
New Town, CT
Charlotte Bacon 2/22/06
Daniel Barden 9/25/05
Rachel Davino 7/17/83
Olivia Engel 7/18/06
Josephine Gay 12/11/05
Ana Marquez-Greene 4/4/06
Dylan Hockley 3/8/06
Dawn Hocksprung 6/28/65
Madeleine Hsu 7/10/06
Catherine Hubbard 6/8/06
Chase Kowalski 10/31/05
Jesse Lewis 6/30/06
James Mattioli 3/22/06
Grace McDonnell 11/04/05
Anne Marie Murphy 7/25/60
Emilie Parker 5/12/06
Jack Pinto 5/6/06
Noah Pozner 11/20/06
Caroline Previdi 9/7/06
Jessica Rekos 5/10/06
Avielle Richman 10/17/06
Lauren Rousseau 6/82
Mary Sherlach 2/11/56
Victoria Soto 11/04/85
Benjamin Wheeler 9/12/06
Allison Wyatt 7/3/06
Aurora, CO
Jessica Ghawi, 24
Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 6
John Larimer, 27
Alexander Boik, 18
Jesse Childress, 29
Jonathan Blunk, 26
Rebecca Ann Wingo, 32
Alex Sullivan, 27
Gordon Cowden, 51
Micayla Medek, 23
Alexander Teves, 24
Matthew McQuinn, 27
"We regret their absence, but we understand the extenuating circumstances...."
And I could care less if the best you've got to try to deflect from that is one monster who botched a few abortions...
How many children escaped the abortion clinic? Or is that potential children
FredHayek wrote: Per red state.com bright side? States are passing new regulations on how abortion clinics are run. Which Lefties will fight these laws?
I will... Because the laws are not about making clinics safer--They are about putting clinics out of business...
There were 694 laws passed LAST YEAR about regulating women's health... 50% of them were about eliminating abortion...
And why are all of the red-states rushing to cram these laws through?...Because they know their constituency that they can count on to support these laws are either dying off, being replaced by younger voters who don't have the pro-life crusade as their goal; and because the right-wingers are increasingly getting voted out of office. They think if they don't do it NOW, they won't get it done... What they don't realize is that as soon as the pro-lifers are in the minority, all of these retrograde laws are going to be thrown out.
"Jus' biding my time...."
All I need to do is substitute the word guns for abortions and blue for red and the argument is exactly the same for liberals about guns.
And I thought I was cynical about the media. I think the media does go for ratings but I also believe they try to influence public opinion. Like more anti Romney stories that anti Obama. And of course sex and blood leads. Especially if the film is graphic. Time for Obama to speak? If those infants hadn't been killed they could be Barack's children right?
