Dumbing Down
Find a Conversation
Dumbing Down
| Tue, 06-08-2010 - 4:50pm |
In a recent commencement address, Obama worried about too much information being available via the Internet.
Latest from the board
- The Real 'Re-Distribution' of Wealth 9
- Disgusting tweet from a Fox News Contributor 6
- "Mentally Ill" = Dangerous? 5
- Opinions on same sex marriage Supreme Court case? 4
- Can your elected representative win at Jeopardy? 1
- Government news manipulation 4
- Ask the White House Your Questions on Gun Control!
- Imminent threat to the 2nd amendment right now! 2
- Do You Think Hillary Will Run in 2016? 4
- Number of homeless Iraq, Afghan vets doubles 1
Memeber Support
Visit our Member Support area or browse the iVillage Help forum
| Q: | Where can I change my password? |
| A: | Log in, go to Edit My Preferences, and click the Account tab. Make and save your changes. |
Pages
Obviously the Obama administration is floating ideas, looking for ways to control the media and thus information available to the public.
"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."
How do you equate FOS with a government study?
That is what you chose to get from my post?
"Resist, we much. We must, and we much. About that, be committed."
So if I'm understanding you correctly.
The lastest liberal "debate" tactic.
Yes I understand that you don't like her.
<>
Nope. If someone is serious about a debate, one brings information from reputable sources. That's not a tactic. It's a starting place for a debate. It's simply not possible to have a rational debate with information from whackjob websites.
What I'm questioning is if the topic is so important to debate, how hard is it to provide factual information from a non-fringe website. One certainly has to question the inability to do so.
The OP did not wish debate the source, e.g. the commencement speech, the FTC draft. I asked for information in the actual speech that she found offensive and none was forthcoming.
I don't need the WND or Washington Times to interpret Obama's words for me, but apparently the other poster did.
If asking to debate source comments and getting a chuckle by WND and WT proposed as a serious source of credible information is a liberal debate tactic, then I'm guilty.
I didn't acknowledge that she was right. I acknowledged that I did not see merit of some of the proposals in the FTC draft study.
I do not agree at all with Bono Mack's hyperbolic letter that this draft is an attempt by government to reinvent journalism.
Using your source I showed that she was correct about her claims.
Pages