The Briefing Room

General Category => Politics => Topic started by: mystery-ak on October 12, 2017, 10:08:40 AM

Title:
Post by: mystery-ak on October 12, 2017, 10:08:40 AM
Title:
Post by: kevindavis on October 12, 2017, 10:13:02 AM
Fair question.
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 10:14:20 AM
THANK you, Ben Sasse.  You are one of the few good guys in DC.

This is what happens when you elect a President who is clueless as to what the Constitution says.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 10:19:54 AM
THANK you, Ben Sasse.  You are one of the few good guys in DC.

This is what happens when you elect a President who is clueless as to what the Constitution says.

I gather you are fine with the all the broadcast networks pushing anti-American
cultural Marxist crap.
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 10:20:46 AM
I gather you are fine with the all the broadcast networks pushing anti-American
cultural Marxist crap.

Freedom of speech
Title:
Post by: kevindavis on October 12, 2017, 10:24:25 AM
I gather you are fine with the all the broadcast networks pushing anti-American
cultural Marxist crap.


So basically you want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks what stories to push?
Title:
Post by: skeeter on October 12, 2017, 10:31:12 AM
Trump should respond by lifting the ban on political activity by 501C3 organizations, including churches.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 10:33:00 AM
Freedom of speech **********.

@Weird Tolkienish Figure
@mystery-ak

**************
I thought we had standards here, and nasty personal insults were
a no no. If that is not true I will adjust my posting style accordingly.


No organization has a "right" broadcast over the public airways. There
is a licensing process and the licensee must prove that they are providing
a public service.  Forum decorum prevents me describing you lack of
understand of how our constitutional government is suppost to work in
greater detail.
 
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 10:34:59 AM
Freedom of speech ***************

@Weird Tolkienish Figure
Oh cmon puddles
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 10:35:49 AM

So basically you want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks what stories to push?

@kevindavis
Obama had a hotline to MSNBC who admitted they cleared stories with the White House before publishing them.

Did that bother you?
Title:
Post by: mountaineer on October 12, 2017, 10:36:26 AM
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 10:37:44 AM
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 10:37:54 AM
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 10:38:34 AM
The funniest thing is that the One Rump is a gutless worm. This is an idle threat and everybody knows it.
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 10:38:51 AM
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
@mystery-ak

The communist scumbags are the ones reporting lies as news and
pushing communist propaganda.

I thought we had standards here, and nasty personal insults were
a no no. If that is not true I will adjust my posting style accordingly.


Not organization has a "right" broadcast over the public airways. There
is a licensing process and the licensee must prove that they are providing
a public service.  Forum decorum prevents me describing you lack of
understand of how our constitutional government is suppost to work in
greater detail.

@jpsb  Yes, communist was a bit specific and personally descriptive. 

All that we can really say is that you're pushing the totalitarian, anti-Constitutional, anti-American line.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 10:39:56 AM

So basically you want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks what stories to push?

No but continuously broadcasting lies as news and covering up for the communists
is not providing a public service. There is a standard you know. See THE PUBLIC
INTEREST STANDARD IN TELEVISION BROADCATING
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 10:41:30 AM
THANK you, Ben Sasse.  You are one of the few good guys in DC.

Really? What tangible thing has Ben done that is good for the country? All I see is another loser who pops his head out of his hole to spout off his righteous indignation and then goes back to cashing his paycheck and hanging around with the boys in the gym.
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 10:43:19 AM
@jpsb  Yes, communist was a bit specific and personally descriptive. 

All that we can really say is that you're pushing the totalitarian, anti-Constitutional, anti-American line.

@Suppressed
We can also say you are defending those who have sworn to destroy America.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 10:45:21 AM
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 10:46:31 AM
@Suppressed
We can also say you are defending those who have sworn to destroy America.

@driftdiver

Yes, you can say that.

But I'd rather defend America and do that, than to attack America.
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 10:47:24 AM
Jonah Goldberg is a conservative? Who knew. If it wasn't for a stained blue dress
Goldberg would be a nobody living in his mother basement. He is third rate a best.
:silly:
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 10:47:57 AM
Quote
Ross Douthat?Verified account @DouthatNYT  14h14 hours ago
More
By late 2019 Trump will be tweeting about suspending the constitution and making himself dictator & nobody will pay the slightest attention.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 10:48:59 AM
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 10:49:43 AM

And once again I must ask,  "Why are Democrat leaders not plagued with these same sort of mouthy @$$holes who question their motives?"   


Why does this seem to only be a problem for Republicans?

Because our side has critical thinkers. Their side doesn't.
Title:
Post by: mountaineer on October 12, 2017, 10:50:04 AM
If Barack Hussein Obama had called for the revocation of FCC licenses of broadcasters who criticized him, would we conservative lovers of the Constitution have praised or criticized him? That's pretty much all Jonah was saying.

Anyone who truthfully answers that yes, he would have been outraged at Obama, but is defending President Trump's comment may want to rethink his self-proclaimed regard for the First Amendment.
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 10:51:17 AM

And once again I must ask,  "Why are Democrat leaders not plagued with these same sort of mouthy @$$holes who question their motives?"   


Why does this seem to only be a problem for Republicans?

@DiogenesLamp
Because the leftists punish those who don't fall into line.  They also tend to accept any sort of progress and don't insist on a purity test.
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 10:51:17 AM
Anyone who truthfully answers that yes, he would have been outraged at Obama, but is defending President Trump's comment may want to rethink his self-proclaimed regard for the First Amendment.

See now that's a problem, there are people on "our side" who are fundamentally dishonest, including the One Rump himself.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 10:57:14 AM
Because our side has critical thinkers. Their side doesn't.

There's a big GD difference between thinking and doing. Professor Ben does all sorts of thinking. Hasn't done one real damn thing though. He has Rand Paul fever.
Title:
Post by: kevindavis on October 12, 2017, 10:58:36 AM
There's a big GD difference between thinking and doing. Professor Ben does all sorts of thinking. Hasn't done one real damn thing though. He has Rand Paul fever.


I know how dare a Senator questions our Dear Leader.
Title:
Post by: aligncare on October 12, 2017, 11:09:06 AM
Title:
Post by: aligncare on October 12, 2017, 11:20:57 AM
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 11:23:40 AM
Freedom of speech


Freedom of speech is suppressed when one side has it and the other does not have it in equal measure. 


Quote
5. Printers are educated in the Belief, that when Men differ in Opinion, both Sides ought equally to have the Advantage of being heard by the Publick; and that when Truth and Error have fair Play, the former is always an overmatch for the latter: Hence they chearfully serve all contending Writers that pay them well, without regarding on which side they are of the Question in Dispute.

-Ben Franklin-
Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 11:34:33 AM

Freedom of speech is suppressed when one side has it and the other does not have it in equal measure.

Ridiculous notion. You have as much free speech as anyone.
Title:
Post by: aligncare on October 12, 2017, 11:39:06 AM
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 11:42:30 AM

I know how dare a Senator questions our Dear Leader.

First off there is damn little lack of questioning our Dear Leader in the Senate. TO claim otherwise is genuine bullshit. What there is a lack of is getting things done. Where is Ben working with the House on trying to get Obamacare repealed? Where is Ben working with the House on a Flat Tax? Where is Ben actually doing a real thing other than run his lazy freeloading mouth about Donny?

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/591db7176391471f008b4905-480/tom-cotton-ben-sasse-and-chuck-schumer.png)

Looks like there is plenty of time to play grab ass, workout and chat with Chuck Schumer though. I wonder how many of his constituents hang out like a teen age kid during their work day?
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 11:50:39 AM
If Barack Hussein Obama had called for the revocation of FCC licenses of broadcasters who criticized him, would we conservative lovers of the Constitution have praised or criticized him? That's pretty much all Jonah was saying.

Anyone who truthfully answers that yes, he would have been outraged at Obama, but is defending President Trump's comment may want to rethink his self-proclaimed regard for the First Amendment.

Conservatives and Republicans (not the same thing, clearly) were rightfully up in arms because Hussein kept bashing and blaming Fox News because they dared to broadcast anything that wasn't favorable to him.

If he had said that he was going to take away Fox's license, the same people who are defending Trump would be screeching in rage about Obama.

We can see how far "our side" has fallen when we are arguing for the First Amendment among people who claim to be in favor of the Constitution.  They want a dictator to "fix" things and make it more "fair" for us.

I have no doubt that these same folks would defend pretty much anything Trump wants to do.

This country is in BIG trouble.

(Not that that is news.....  **nononono*)
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 11:51:09 AM

So basically you want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks what stories to push?


So basically I want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks that they can no longer discriminate against conservatives in their hiring and promotion practices.   


Force them to hire the proper quota of conservatives (as determined by their representation among the public in general)  and the problem of them censoring and lying will take care of itself. 

Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 11:52:19 AM
Really? What tangible thing has Ben done that is good for the country? All I see is another loser who pops his head out of his hole to spout off his righteous indignation and then goes back to cashing his paycheck and hanging around with the boys in the gym.

Of course, your opinion of Sasse is not the point.  What he said is the point....... and he is absolutely correct.

Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he is spitting in its face with this nonsense.
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 11:53:25 AM

So basically I want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks that they can no longer discriminate against conservatives in their hiring and promotion practices.   


Force them to hire the proper quota of conservatives (as determined by their representation among the public in general)  and the problem of them censoring and lying will take care of itself.

I love the smell of big government overreach in the morning........   **nononono*

Constitution??  WHAT Constitution??
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 11:55:43 AM
Because our side has critical thinkers. Their side doesn't.


Well as a counterclaim to that argument we have the "never Trumpers" here,   So our side has it's fair share of non critical thinkers who are knee jerk and reactionary.   


Also all the Rinos getting in line to criticize Trump are just virtue signaling to the MSM because the MSM has so much power in influencing the Voters out there.   


It's an appeal to the alligators not to eat them first. 


Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 11:56:42 AM
Of course, your opinion of Sasse is not the point.  What he said is the point....... and he is absolutely correct.

You're right. It's not the point. Brilliant Ben said something after all! $174,000 of taxpayers money a year plus benefits well spent.

Bravo Ben! You said something! You're a God Damn Genius Ben!!!!! YOU MAKE US ALL PROUD!!!!!!
Title:
Post by: skeeter on October 12, 2017, 11:56:56 AM

So basically I want the Fed to tell the broadcast networks that they can no longer discriminate against conservatives in their hiring and promotion practices.   


Force them to hire the proper quota of conservatives (as determined by their representation among the public in general)  and the problem of them censoring and lying will take care of itself.

I'd settle for all news networks to be forced to run a disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast. Something along the lines of 'the following news presentation has been modified to represent the political point of view of our corporate sponsor and may not contain all available information'.



Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 11:58:08 AM
If Barack Hussein Obama had called for the revocation of FCC licenses of broadcasters who criticized him,


People keep recasting his argument as those "who criticize him"   when it is in fact addressed at those people who spread lies and censor real news.   

You are converting his argument of "Fake News"  into "those who criticize him."    Yes,  "fake news"  may be critical of him,   but the issue is that it is fake,  not that it is critical. 


Title:
Post by: aligncare on October 12, 2017, 11:59:28 AM
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 11:59:36 AM
You're right. It's not the point. Brilliant Ben said something after all! $174,000 of taxpayers money a year plus benefits well spent.

Bravo Ben! You said something! You're a God Damn Genius Ben!!!!! YOU MAKE US ALL PROUD!!!!!!

Again, not the issue.

Your feelings against Sasse and strong feelings for Trump are beside the point.

Trump is seeking to violate the Constitution, and pseudo-cons are cheering him on.

THAT............ is the point.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 12:02:32 PM
Of course, your opinion of Sasse is not the point.  What he said is the point....... and he is absolutely correct.

Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he is spitting in its face with this nonsense.

There is no constitutional right to a broadcast license. None, zip, zero.
Title:
Post by: aligncare on October 12, 2017, 12:02:41 PM
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 12:03:11 PM

People keep recasting his argument as those "who criticize him"   when it is in fact addressed at those people who spread lies and censor real news.   

You are converting his argument of "Fake News"  into "those who criticize him."    Yes,  "fake news"  may be critical of him,   but the issue is that it is fake,  not that it is critical.

It's still not Constitutional for the dictator-like President, and the government to silence them because they're not being fair.

The left has been doing that for decades, and we have been objecting to it.

Now that Trump is playing the "you're not fair" baby card, you're on board for government censorship.

That is NOT critical thinking.  That's knee-jerk, emotionalism in defiance of our founding documents.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 12:03:46 PM
Ridiculous notion. You have as much free speech as anyone.


George Stephanopolous speaks to millions every single day.   I cannot do this.   Why can he speak to millions and I can only speak to a few?   


Which of us will more effect the minds of the voting public?   


The point of "freedom of speech"  is to allow the public to hear what people think so that the public can act upon it if they feel it is necessary to do so.   

Not being able to reach the public makes the entire point of "freedom of speech"  null and void. 


"Freedom of Speech" is the means by which the founders intended to keep the public informed about matters that may need the public's attention.   

That purpose has been short circuited by monopoly control of the means to reach the larger public.   

Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:05:03 PM
Fair question.

Stupid reaction to stupid comment.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 12:05:16 PM
I'd settle for all news networks to be forced to run a disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast. Something along the lines of 'the following news presentation has been modified to represent the political point of view of our corporate sponsor and may not contain all available information'.

What a great idea! You deserve a  :da man:
Title:
Post by: XenaLee on October 12, 2017, 12:06:20 PM
If we let the media continue with their radical partisan agenda we won't have a Constitution to worry about.

The correct way to "not let" the media continue with their propaganda campaign is to inform and educate the America public to the spreading of that radical partisan propaganda and the agenda behind it, however.  I suspect that most already know (Trump was elected, after all), but there is still a plethora of individuals out there that are, quite obviously, clueless.  And about a third of hard-core leftists that are counting on the continuation of that leftist propaganda. 

Trump may be wrong by tweeting his FCC threats.... but you have to admit that more folks are finding out about these issues due TO his tweets (method to the madness?). 


Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 12:06:40 PM
I love the smell of big government overreach in the morning........   **nononono*


I don't.  That's why I want the pro-government censorship of the big monopoly media-weapon stopped.   

I'm tired of hearing endless pro-government propaganda from the establishment controlled media.   





Constitution??  WHAT Constitution??


Exactly!   We need to take steps to ensure that the intent behind constitutionally protected "Freedom of Speech"  is met.   

Force them to allow our Freedom of Speech!   

Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:08:01 PM
@kevindavis
Obama had a hotline to MSNBC who admitted they cleared stories with the White House before publishing them.

Did that bother you?

The press has had way too much power for years considering that they are 90% liberal and have admitted as much.

The press should be free but accountable.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 12:08:13 PM
Again, not the issue.

Lady it is the whole damn issue. It is the only issue. I understand you backswim in Trump hate to make your day worthwhile. I really don't give a shit. What I do give a shit about is all the seal clapping for this do nothing loser Sasse.

You are aware that Sasse has it in his power to make Trump irrelevant by crafting legislation and getting it passed. You know that Ben is payed to do exactly that and not run his mouth about shit. That is why he is not very well liked in his state. He doesn't do shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/ben-sasse-iowa-gop-chairman/index.html

Feel free to hero worship a do nothing clown. All the power to you. Personally I judge a man by his accomplishments and even Donny has more under his belt than Professor Ben.



Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on October 12, 2017, 12:08:32 PM
Trump should respond by lifting the ban on political activity by 501C3 organizations, including churches.

Isn't it true that only black churches, can/do participate in political activities?

In practice, that is....
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 12:10:17 PM
I'd settle for all news networks to be forced to run a disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast. Something along the lines of 'the following news presentation has been modified to represent the political point of view of our corporate sponsor and may not contain all available information'.


I have said on countless occasions when people like George Stephanapolous or Chris Matthews are talking,  there should be a chyron underneath them saying something like:

"Democrat Propaganda agent from Massachusetts",  or "Democrat Propaganda agent from New York." 


So long as the public is informed just where their political opinions come from,   I think that would do a lot to force them into being more objective.   

Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:10:47 PM

And once again I must ask,  "Why are Democrat leaders not plagued with these same sort of mouthy @$$holes who question their motives?"   


Why does this seem to only be a problem for Republicans?

Amen, brother.

I can only guess that democrats have 'something' on each other and are not afraid to use it.
Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on October 12, 2017, 12:11:00 PM
Freedom of speech

".....communist scumbag"

You really shouldn't try to adjust your meds on your own....
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 12:11:19 PM
Trump may be wrong by tweeting his FCC threats.... but you have to admit that more folks are finding out about these issues due TO his tweets (method to the madness?).

You might very well be right about that. I seriously doubt Trump would go
after NBC license but putting that on the table sure got people talking. Nice
insight.
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 12:12:43 PM
Isn't it true that only black churches, can/do participate in political activities?

In practice, that is....

Ummm, no.  In practice, it is not limited to only black churches.  Why would you think that?
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 12:12:52 PM
Lady it is the whole damn issue. It is the only issue. I understand you backswim in Trump hate to make your day worthwhile. I really don't give a shit. What I do give a shit about is all the seal clapping for this do nothing loser Sasse.

You are aware that Sasse has it in his power to make Trump irrelevant by crafting legislation and getting it passed. You know that Ben is payed to do exactly that and not run his mouth about shit. That is why he is not very well liked in his state. He doesn't do shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/22/politics/ben-sasse-iowa-gop-chairman/index.html

Feel free to hero worship a do nothing clown. All the power to you. Personally I judge a man by his accomplishments and even Donny has more under his belt than Professor Ben.

What a hilarious post! 

Thanks for the laugh........... with all that talk about love and hate and swimming and worship nonsense.

However, your diversion from the subject doesn't make points for you.


It just makes you look silly.

But Donny makes LOTS of you look silly.   :tongue2:
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:13:30 PM
Title:
Post by: mystery-ak on October 12, 2017, 12:13:44 PM
Quote
You are converting his argument of "Fake News"  into "those who criticize him."    Yes,  "fake news"  may be critical of him,   but the issue is that it is fake,  not that it is critical.

First.. we only have Trump's word that a story is fake.
Second.. it is up to the *injured* party to sue..we have all kinds of libel laws in this country.
Third...these so-called fake stories haven't seemed to hurt Trump politically...like I said yesterday with all the bad press and lies circulated by the MSM during the election most people didn't believe them and elected him POTUS.....give the American people some credit to ferret out the truth no matter what it is.
Title:
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on October 12, 2017, 12:14:04 PM
Is this the same Ben Sasse who endorsed Corker's bill to effectively strip the Senate from approving Obama's Iran deal and instead caused a super majority to cancel it?

Ben has abrogated his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution by the Senate approval of treaties.

He has no credibility and should step down from office.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 12:14:24 PM


Trump is seeking to violate the Constitution,



You claim such.  You *ASSERT*  such,   but I vehemently disagree.  The public owns the airwaves through which these people broadcast leftist propaganda.   

Licenses are issued to operators for the purpose of serving the public interest.   Spreading one sided propaganda is contrary to the public interest,  therefore the holders of these licenses are violating the requirements of the license,  and therefore the custodian of the public airwaves has the duty to pull their licenses until such time as they comply with operating in a manner that serves the public's interest. 


Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 12:16:48 PM

It just makes you look silly.

But Donny makes LOTS of you look silly.   :tongue2:

Not really. What looks silly is all the pearl clutching over a dumb ass comment the President made that can NEVER HAPPEN. A) There is a Constitution. B) Licenses don't work that way.

So knowing that, we still have the usual suspects spinning off the rails over something that will never happen. Seems really productive. About as productive as lionizing Ben Sasse as someone special.
Title:
Post by: mystery-ak on October 12, 2017, 12:19:19 PM

You claim such.  You *ASSERT*  such,   but I vehemently disagree.  The public owns the airwaves through which these people broadcast leftist propaganda.   

Licenses are issued to operators for the purpose of serving the public interest.   Spreading one sided propaganda is contrary to the public interest,  therefore the holders of these licenses are violating the requirements of the license,  and therefore the custodian of the public airwaves has the duty to pull their licenses until such time as they comply with operating in a manner that serves the public's interest.

By that standard there won't be any televised or written *news* published....they are all slanted in one way or another.
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 12:19:49 PM
Not really. What looks silly is all the pearl clutching over a dumb ass comment the President made that can NEVER HAPPEN. A) There is a Constitution. B) Licenses don't work that way.

So knowing that, we still have the usual suspects spinning off the rails over something that will never happen. Seems really productive. About as productive as lionizing Ben Sasse as someone special.

You must think in hyperbole.

Did you actually read what I said?  Whenceforth comes all the gross exaggeration and nonsense??

So, your point is that our President is either a fool, or a liar.

How do you explain those here defending his right to defy the Constitution and revoke licenses of news sources that aren't fair to him?

They CLEARLY believe he means it and will do it, and they're all twitterpated.   :shrug:
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:21:53 PM
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 12:22:35 PM
It's still not Constitutional for the dictator-like President, and the government to silence them because they're not being fair.


Actually I think it is.   If the Networks were spewing anti-black or anti-Jewish propaganda,  you would see immediately that it is in the public interest for the Government to put a stop to it.   


The media spews anti-conservative propaganda every single day,   but because conservatives have become social pariahs in the media circles,   people think it should be permitted for the media to keep expressing these positions without conservatives having a right to an equal voice.   

The media is a vote manipulating machine.  That's what it has become.   By censoring or attritting one sides ability to reach the public,  it manipulates elections.   That is why they do it. 






The left has been doing that for decades, and we have been objecting to it.


And it is long past time that we started talking about putting a stop to it. 

Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 12:22:54 PM
By that standard there won't be any televised or written *news* published....they are all slanted in one way or another.

And every television show, not just the news, will have to go through some filter to make sure it's "fair"
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:25:01 PM
Of course, your opinion of Sasse is not the point.  What he said is the point....... and he is absolutely correct.

Trump took an oath to defend the Constitution, and he is spitting in its face with this nonsense.

Ever wonder why liberals don't defend the 2nd amendment with the same fervor that they defend freedom of the press.

Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 12:25:10 PM
By that standard there won't be any televised or written *news* published....they are all slanted in one way or another.

Written News is constitutionally protected. As I have pointed out three times in this
thread to which no one has responded

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A BROADCAST LICENSE.

The airways belong to the people of these United States we
can legally give or take a license any time we want.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 12:26:29 PM

So, your point is that our President is either a fool, or a liar.

Pretty well sums up every President since 1989.

Quote
How do you explain those here defending his right to defy the Constitution and revoke licenses of news sources that aren't fair to him?

They CLEARLY believe he means it and will do it, and they're all twitterpated.   :shrug:

I don't really care that people think this is a good idea. People thought Cop Rock was a good idea. That's there problem to defend. Personally in the broad scope of things Obama saying that insurance premiums would go down is a far bigger lie than this High School bullshit Donny's slinging.
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 12:27:49 PM

Actually I think it is.   If the Networks were spewing anti-black or anti-Jewish propaganda,  you would see immediately that it is in the public interest for the Government to put a stop to it.   


The media spews anti-conservative propaganda every single day,   but because conservatives have become social pariahs in the media circles,   people think it should be permitted for the media to keep expressing these positions without conservatives having a right to an equal voice.   

The media is a vote manipulating machine.  That's what it has become.   By censoring or attritting one sides ability to reach the public,  it manipulates elections.   That is why they do it. 






And it is long past time that we started talking about putting a stop to it.

Again........ an emotional response to the problem.  The federal government doesn't have the right to force 'fairness' on the media, and when it does, it is leftist defiance of the Constitution.

You are advocating that the Fed make the bias stop.  That is a liberal solution, and untenable according to the Founders.

Where will your emotionalism end?  When the government forces college professors to be "fair?"  When every TV show slanted left (most, to all of them) are censored and made to be "fair" to Republicans?

It can't work.  It shouldn't work.  It's not conservative.  It's not rational.
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:28:00 PM
The correct way to "not let" the media continue with their propaganda campaign is to inform and educate the America public to the spreading of that radical partisan propaganda and the agenda behind it, however.  I suspect that most already know (Trump was elected, after all), but there is still a plethora of individuals out there that are, quite obviously, clueless.  And about a third of hard-core leftists that are counting on the continuation of that leftist propaganda. 

Trump may be wrong by tweeting his FCC threats.... but you have to admit that more folks are finding out about these issues due TO his tweets (method to the madness?).

Another Amen to you, sister.  Yes !!  Trump has figured out a way to get around the freakily leftist media, and, while it annoys some of us, I don't blame him a bit.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 12:28:12 PM
And every television show, not just the news, will have to go through some filter to make sure it's "fair"

It already does. See Project Veritas new expose.
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 12:30:37 PM
Is this the same Ben Sasse who endorsed Corker's bill to effectively strip the Senate from approving Obama's Iran deal and instead caused a super majority to cancel it?

Ben has abrogated his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution by the Senate approval of treaties.

He has no credibility and should step down from office.

I think that is the very same Ben Sasse.
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 12:30:52 PM
It already does. See Project Veritas new expose.

@Frank Cannon
Why do you have that scum bag as your profile pic?
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:33:25 PM
@Frank Cannon
Why do you have that scum bag as your profile pic?

I don't know who that is and have been wondering.  It doesn't look 'Frank' somehow.
Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 12:33:50 PM
It already does. See Project Veritas new expose.

The hollywood liberals already come up with dumb and boring TV shows, can you imagine how much worse the conservative shows would be?
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 12:34:01 PM
And every television show, not just the news, will have to go through some filter to make sure it's "fair"

Yep.  The selfsame "Fairness Doctrine" that the dems have been pushing for years. 
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 12:35:15 PM
I don't know who that is and have been wondering.  It doesn't look 'Frank' somehow.

It's that Weinstein creep.
Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 12:36:00 PM
I don't know who that is and have been wondering.  It doesn't look 'Frank' somehow.

LOL  It's Harvey Weinstein.  My guess for the reason he's using his pic for his avatar is that Frank wishes he could get away with what Harvey has and Harvey is much more handsome than Frank really is.
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 12:36:00 PM
I don't know who that is and have been wondering.  It doesn't look 'Frank' somehow.

@Emjay
It looks like that Weinstein guy to me.
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:40:01 PM
Many of us are former TOS members.  One of the finest moments in their history was the expose of Dan Rather, who blatantly lied about George W. Bush.

The lying by the press has continued to this day.  All this hyperventilating over Trump's comment is a little over the top.  People should be Hyperventilating about the lies fed to us daily.

Go over to Yahoo's main page.  Every day they have a wildly slanted story attacking Trump.

Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:40:53 PM
@Emjay
It looks like that Weinstein guy to me.

Oh my gosh.  Perfect irony, Frank.
Title:
Post by: KingsX on October 12, 2017, 12:43:21 PM


How's this for symbolic irony...

Today, when I first viewed the forum most new posts listed were on two main topics:
this one and  "Fifty Shades of Grey."




Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:43:42 PM
Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 12:44:58 PM

How's this for symbolic irony...

Today, when I first viewed the forum most new posts listed were on two main topics:
this one and  "Fifty Shades of Grey."

It's important to mix things up and keep them new and fresh.
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 12:45:03 PM
Many of us are former TOS members.  One of the finest moments in their history was the expose of Dan Rather, who blatantly lied about George W. Bush.

The lying by the press has continued to this day.  All this hyperventilating over Trump's comment is a little over the top.  People should be Hyperventilating about the lies fed to us daily.

Go over to Yahoo's main page.  Every day they have a wildly slanted story attacking Trump.

@Emjay
Sadly, todays journalists make Dan look like a choir boy when it comes to honesty
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 12:45:45 PM

How's this for symbolic irony...

Today, when I first viewed the forum most new posts listed were on two main topics:
this one and  "Fifty Shades of Grey."

Hate to say but topics that get the most posts here often veer onto some shade of grey or when people start getting their kicks by attacking each other.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
@Frank Cannon
Why do you have that scum bag as your profile pic?

Because I think the biggest story in the Rat party self destructing is Harvey Weinstein. I also am the resident dirtbag at this forum. Most of the female posters can attest to that. I thought Harvey being my avatar appropriate.
Title:
Post by: kevindavis on October 12, 2017, 12:47:18 PM
Written News is constitutionally protected. As I have pointed out three times in this
thread to which no one has responded

THERE IS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A BROADCAST LICENSE.

The airways belong to the people of these United States we
can legally give or take a license any time we want.


To be honest, the broadcast license is old and outdated. It needs to go away.


Also, all news  (print,broadcast, and bloggers). Have the same right.
Title:
Post by: skeeter on October 12, 2017, 12:49:21 PM
888sunglass
What a great idea! You deserve a  :da man:
Seriously. I wonder what the process would be for making this a requirement.
Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 12:50:17 PM
Hate to say but topics that get the most posts here often veer onto some shade of grey or when people start getting their kicks by attacking each other.

You explain this like it's a bad thing.
Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on October 12, 2017, 12:52:11 PM
Ever wonder why liberals don't defend the 2nd amendment with the same fervor that they defend freedom of the press.

Ever wonder why certain people claiming to be "conservatives," sing from the same songbook as CNN, MSNBC, and the multitudes of extremely biased liberal propagandists?

Answer: Trump Obsession

FACT: Our airwaves are NOT entirely free and unregulated. Applicants must meet certain criteria, and follow rules. Historically enforcement has been lax.

What is sad, is that few besides Trump have sufficiently large huevos to call out "fake news," socialist propaganda, etc.

Most Republicans quietly sit on their comfortable, well paid, hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission
Title:
Post by: skeeter on October 12, 2017, 12:53:04 PM
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 12:53:19 PM
Hate to say but topics that get the most posts here often veer onto some shade of grey or when people start getting their kicks by attacking each other.

I'll take credit for threads going 50 Shades. It's about time someone recognizes my contributions around here.
Title:
Post by: AllThatJazzZ on October 12, 2017, 12:54:13 PM
:silly:

It is funny, @Suppressed, but maybe we shouldn't laugh. This kind of "debate" tactic is used by the desperate when they're unable to formulate a cogent response. He can't see that the Clinton/Blue Dress/Lucianne episode has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. It's a pitiful attempt to marginalize Jonah so that he can imply that his POV invalid.

In observing the antics at TOS, it became very evident that the left has nothing on "the right" (very loose use of that term) when it comes to the inability to craft a well-thought-out reply, opting instead to throw around ad hominems. I see it as more pathetic than laughable.
Title:
Post by: jpsb on October 12, 2017, 12:56:37 PM
Because I think the biggest story in the Rat party self destructing is Harvey Weinstein. I also am the resident dirtbag at this forum. Most of the female posters can attest to that. I thought Harvey being my avatar appropriate.

 :da man:

I can't tell you how jealous I am.
Title:
Post by: AllThatJazzZ on October 12, 2017, 12:59:10 PM
Again, not the issue.

Your feelings against Sasse and strong feelings for Trump are beside the point.

Trump is seeking to violate the Constitution, and pseudo-cons are cheering him on.

THAT............ is the point.

Exactly the point. And what's frightening is that this snowball seems to continue to roll downhill, collecting more speed and mass. A good portion of "the right" are not alarmed by this -- which, in itself, is alarming.
Title:
Post by: KingsX on October 12, 2017, 01:00:35 PM


The past several decades social conservatives have learned the hard way
that the US Constitution is not absolute law written in stone... but can be
twisted to morph over time into whatever media-manipulated popular opinion
and the USSC want it to be. 


 



Title:
Post by: etcb on October 12, 2017, 01:06:59 PM
Fair question.
1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first five words are the key.  The first amendment is a restriction on the power of Congress, not an instruction to the president.  The good Senator, being a member of Congress, is restricted by this amendment, but, the President has no constitutional power or restriction in this matter.  It would be good for the Senator to educate himself on his responsibility as well as that of the President.
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 01:09:45 PM
1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first five words are the key.  The first amendment is a restriction on the power of Congress, not an instruction to the president.  The good Senator, being a member of Congress, is restricted by this amendment, but, the President has no constitutional power or restriction in this matter.  It would be good for the Senator to educate himself on his responsibility as well as that of the President.

Nobody in their right mind wants the President doing this.  However what is the alternative.   If we do not change course this country and our Constitution will cease to exist.
Title:
Post by: AllThatJazzZ on October 12, 2017, 01:09:45 PM
Because our side has critical thinkers. Their side doesn't.

Really? You believe that? I used to. Not so much anymore. I've seen too much in the past couple of years.
Title:
Post by: XenaLee on October 12, 2017, 01:12:12 PM
Yep.  The selfsame "Fairness Doctrine" that the dems have been pushing for years.

And.... let's not forget their "net neutrality" that they've been pushing, as well.

All code-talk for leftist censorship of anything they "deem" inappropriate (not leftie-slanted enough).
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 01:12:37 PM
Title:
Post by: XenaLee on October 12, 2017, 01:14:57 PM
Really? You believe that? I used to. Not so much anymore. I've seen too much in the past couple of years.

Our side (the right .... pardon pun... side) has critical thinkers.  It's just that the majority of non-critical thinkers (on both sides) either shout them down, demonize/marginalize them via fake news and false accusations, or ignore them altogether (See:  Ted Cruz accused of 'fill in the blank' during primaries).
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 01:15:05 PM
Exactly the point. And what's frightening is that this snowball seems to continue to roll downhill, collecting more speed and mass. A good portion of "the right" are not alarmed by this -- which, in itself, is alarming.

Indeed.  And the alarming stuff is going to get worse as Populist Liberal Trump keeps saying and doing things like this.  **nononono*
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 01:17:51 PM
Because I think the biggest story in the Rat party self destructing is Harvey Weinstein. I also am the resident dirtbag at this forum. Most of the female posters can attest to that. I thought Harvey being my avatar appropriate.

Totally appropriate and appropos of this subject.  How long did the press keep quiet about this loathsome predator.  And how many people covered for him because of greed and fear.
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 01:18:49 PM
George Stephanopolous speaks to millions every single day.   I cannot do this.   Why can he speak to millions and I can only speak to a few?

Why can Ed Sheeran or Bruno Mars speak to millions and I can only speak to a few?  I guess we need censorship of popular music, too.  After all, smaller acts just can't get heard.  It's just not fair!!

(http://weclipart.com/gimg/9B18A84345658181/cartoon-pictures-of-babies-crying-18.jpg)
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 01:20:05 PM
The hollywood liberals already come up with dumb and boring TV shows, can you imagine how much worse the conservative shows would be?

I love the conservative shows.  That's why I watch re-runs of Blue Bloods and Star Trek.
Title:
Post by: XenaLee on October 12, 2017, 01:21:11 PM
Ever wonder why certain people claiming to be "conservatives," sing from the same songbook as CNN, MSNBC, and the multitudes of extremely biased liberal propagandists?

Answer: Trump Obsession

FACT: Our airwaves are NOT entirely free and unregulated. Applicants must meet certain criteria, and follow rules. Historically enforcement has been lax.

What is sad, is that few besides Trump have sufficiently large huevos to call out "fake news," socialist propaganda, etc.

Most Republicans quietly sit on their comfortable, well paid, hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission

Thought you were gonna say... most Republicans sit on their comfortable, well padded, rears.  Which would be true... especially re: the current crop of congresscritters.   They will be known as THE all-time do-nothing Congress, if things don't change.  And with McCain, McConnell and a few others still there.... nothing will change.
Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on October 12, 2017, 01:22:08 PM
Many of us are former TOS members.  One of the finest moments in their history was the expose of Dan Rather, who blatantly lied about George W. Bush.

The lying by the press has continued to this day. All this hyperventilating over Trump's comment is a little over the top. People should be Hyperventilating about the lies fed to us daily.

Go over to Yahoo's main page.  Every day they have a wildly slanted story attacking Trump.

Hyperventilating over Trump......is the main pursuit on this forum.

Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 01:24:24 PM
I love the conservative shows.  That's why I watch re-runs of Blue Bloods and Star Trek.


I've refused to watch Star Trek since Leonard Nimoy and his daughter talked my mom into buying that Silhouette.
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 01:24:44 PM
Hyperventilating over Trump......is the main pursuit on this forum.

You said it well, t_s.

Why do you keep doing that??  It's not healthy.   ^-^
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 01:28:15 PM
Hyperventilating over Trump......is the main pursuit on this forum.

Well, on the Trump threads maybe.   You need to get out more. 
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 01:28:49 PM
Hyperventilating over Trump......is the main pursuit on this forum.

Amen.  If that pursuit was forbidden, a number of members here would have nothing to say.
Title:
Post by: Emjay on October 12, 2017, 01:29:58 PM
Well, on the Trump threads maybe.   You need to get out more.

The Trump threads?  Where are the non-Trump threads.  Maybe over in General but not in Politics.
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 01:31:39 PM
It is funny, @Suppressed, but maybe we shouldn't laugh. This kind of "debate" tactic is used by the desperate when they're unable to formulate a cogent response. He can't see that the Clinton/Blue Dress/Lucianne episode has nothing to do with anything in this discussion. It's a pitiful attempt to marginalize Jonah so that he can imply that his POV invalid.

In observing the antics at TOS, it became very evident that the left has nothing on "the right" (very loose use of that term) when it comes to the inability to craft a well-thought-out reply, opting instead to throw around ad hominems. I see it as more pathetic than laughable.

@AllThatJazzZ
You are, of course, correct.  But I'm human, and the claim was so ludicrous, that was the involuntary response. 

Seeing the Leftist drumbeat for the Fairness Doctrine here is sad.  And worse than sad -- it's scary.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 12, 2017, 01:32:25 PM

I've refused to watch Star Trek since Leonard Nimoy and his daughter talked my mom into buying that Silhouette.

Holding a 27 year old grudge. You really know how to turn a guy on.
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 01:33:58 PM
The first amendment is a restriction on the power of Congress, not an instruction to the president.
@etcb

Exactly.

Because the President (think of the word...he is there just to "preside") has absolutely no power Constitutionally to make laws.  That ALL comes from Congress.  So if Congress can't do it, the President can't.
Title:
Post by: skeeter on October 12, 2017, 01:34:45 PM
Hyperventilating over Trump......is the main pursuit on this forum.

Whether intentionally or not, his tweets provoke debate. Some attack them, some defend them, eventually some sort of consensus results. Or at least the issue at hand becomes better defined.

Clarity results and given the political class has thrived in the confusion their policies have created clarity is just whats needed.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 01:37:07 PM
First.. we only have Trump's word that a story is fake.


We have countless examples of fake stories being fed to us by the media.  "Hands up! Don't Shoot!" 





Third...these so-called fake stories haven't seemed to hurt Trump politically...like I said yesterday with all the bad press and lies circulated by the MSM during the election most people didn't believe them and elected him POTUS.....give the American people some credit to ferret out the truth no matter what it is.


Reagan may have been the "Teflon"  President,   but the fact that rare individuals can emerge and against whom the media's efforts often prove futile does not solve the problem of media lying and censorship for us lesser people.   

We cannot rely on the emergence of "Super Men" to handle the media.   We need a system in place that allows ordinary men to get a fair hearing before the public. 


Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 01:38:30 PM
Well, on the Trump threads maybe.   You need to get out more.

When you have a pre-set opinion, you see what you want to see, not necessarily what's there.

@truth_seeker can't stand this forum, and attacks it, and its members regularly.

Take what he says with a grain of salt. 
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 01:39:40 PM
By that standard there won't be any televised or written *news* published....they are all slanted in one way or another.


They used to be far more intent on maintaining an appearance of objectivity in the past than they are now.   

At least 50 years ago,  they made more of an effort to present the appearance of non-bias. 


Title:
Post by: RoosGirl on October 12, 2017, 01:40:24 PM
Holding a 27 year old grudge. You really know how to turn a guy on.

I pride myself on my consistency.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 01:41:36 PM
And every television show, not just the news, will have to go through some filter to make sure it's "fair"


Why does it have to go through a "filter"?   Why can't we simply require they hire their staff in proportion to their representation of the population at large,  same as we do with "Affirmative Action"?   


If they have 40% of their staff as conservatives,   don't you think these people will express the other side of the debate without the need to censor anyone's output? 


Title:
Post by: truth_seeker on October 12, 2017, 01:41:50 PM
And.... let's not forget their "net neutrality" that they've been pushing, as well.

All code-talk for leftist censorship of anything they "deem" inappropriate (not leftie-slanted enough).

Yet a sole Republican President mentions the bias, and all hell breaks loose, with phony expressions of fright and alarm. They sound like the lopsided status-quo is cool with them. The only weapon they wield, is the white flag.
Title:
Post by: musiclady on October 12, 2017, 01:43:43 PM

They used to be far more intent on maintaining an appearance of objectivity in the past than they are now.   

At least 50 years ago,  they made more of an effort to present the appearance of non-bias.

Right.  So you think their pretense of fairness while being heavily biased was better than their blatant bias now?

I don't really see a moral distinction there.  In fact, one could argue that the former is even more insidious, because of how many Americans swallowed their lies (Viet Nam being a prime example).
Title:
Post by: etcb on October 12, 2017, 01:47:37 PM
Nobody in their right mind wants the President doing this.  However what is the alternative.   If we do not change course this country and our Constitution will cease to exist.
I would contend that many people "in their right mind" do want a restriction on both speech and the press.  They just want that restriction to be on views they disagree with.   You see examples every day on college campuses, on the street, in discussion forums, and many other places where attempts are made to restrict dissemination of ideas or opinions.  That is precisely why the Founders structured the 1st amendment to prohibit Congress as the law making body from using the power of government to restrict certain inherent rights.   
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 01:50:55 PM
Again........ an emotional response to the problem.  The federal government doesn't have the right to force 'fairness' on the media, and when it does, it is leftist defiance of the Constitution.


Since it is only through the control of the airwaves by the Federal government that they have an exclusive monopoly  to use broadcasting channels,  the Federal Government not only has a right to regulate them,  they have a duty to do so in compliance with the public interest. 


I suspect you do not hesitate to acknowledge the Federal Government's right to regulate content such as foul language or pornography from getting on the airwaves,  and if that is so,  then you must accept the entire package,  not just the parts you like.   





You are advocating that the Fed make the bias stop.  That is a liberal solution, and untenable according to the Founders.


I am advocating that the Federal government require them to allow OTHER PEOPLE to use the exclusive monopoly broadcasting channels too,  without having their speech censored by the people in control of it now. 




Where will your emotionalism end?  When the government forces college professors to be "fair?" 


The Government can certainly chose not to provide funds for the attendance of Universities which are unfair.    Or do you object to we taxpayers having to fund these American hating loons?   





When every TV show slanted left (most, to all of them) are censored and made to be "fair" to Republicans?

It can't work.  It shouldn't work.  It's not conservative.  It's not rational.


Make certain they are hiring a correct cross section of the Demographics of the nation,  and the problem of liberal slant on TV shows will disappear.   


Since the cross section of America is not biased,  there will be no effort to put liberal bias into Television shows. 

Title:
Post by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 12, 2017, 01:52:20 PM

Why does it have to go through a "filter"?   Why can't we simply require they hire their staff in proportion to their representation of the population at large,  same as we do with "Affirmative Action"?   


If they have 40% of their staff as conservatives,   don't you think these people will express the other side of the debate without the need to censor anyone's output?

So you're in favor of ideological quotas now?   :facepalm2:
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:20:16 PM
Yep.  The selfsame "Fairness Doctrine" that the dems have been pushing for years.


They were pushing it for talk radio only.   I would gladly swap the influence of talk radio for the influence of network television.   
Title:
Post by: kevindavis on October 12, 2017, 02:22:46 PM

They were pushing it for talk radio only.   I would gladly swap the influence of talk radio for the influence of network television.


So basically you don't want a small Government..
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 02:24:11 PM

They were pushing it for talk radio only.   I would gladly swap the influence of talk radio for the influence of network television.

You want the "Fairness" doctrine for TV?   Seriously?  Think what you're saying!
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:24:36 PM
Really? You believe that? I used to. Not so much anymore. I've seen too much in the past couple of years.


I am with you there brother.   The hatred spewed against Ted Cruz over at the other site convinced me that many on our side are just as irrational as many on the left.   Now that I think about it,  the hatred against Trump here does as well. 

Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 02:25:20 PM
You want the "Fairness" doctrine for TV?   Seriously?  Think what you're saying!

@Sanguine
So you're ok with the leftists controlling the media?
Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 02:25:47 PM
There is no constitutional right to a broadcast license. None, zip, zero.

The real question is, is there any Constitutional permission for the federal government to restrict broadcasting, or can anyone just put up a giant jammer?
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 02:26:01 PM
@Sanguine
So you're ok with the leftists controlling the media?

No, why do you ask?
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:26:48 PM
Why can Ed Sheeran or Bruno Mars speak to millions and I can only speak to a few?  I guess we need censorship of popular music, too.  After all, smaller acts just can't get heard.  It's just not fair!!

(http://weclipart.com/gimg/9B18A84345658181/cartoon-pictures-of-babies-crying-18.jpg)


The difference between "News"  and "Music"  is that Music does not disguise the fact that it is entertainment.   "News"  deliberately disguises the fact that it is propaganda. 

There is this concept called "consent of the governed".   

If you mislead the governed to get their consent,  is it really valid?   

Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 02:28:09 PM
Why does it have to go through a "filter"?   Why can't we simply require they hire their staff in proportion to their representation of the population at large,  same as we do with "Affirmative Action"?   

Ah, that great Conservative principle...Affirmative Action!

 22222frying pan :chairbang:   *****rollingeyes*****
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:31:13 PM
Right.  So you think their pretense of fairness while being heavily biased was better than their blatant bias now?


I disagree that they were "heavily-biased".   They were biased,  but not nearly to the degree they are biased now. 




I don't really see a moral distinction there.  In fact, one could argue that the former is even more insidious, because of how many Americans swallowed their lies (Viet Nam being a prime example).


Viet Nam is an example where they were heavily biased.   Yes,  the media deliberately spread propaganda on the issue of Vietnam,  and it cost the United States and the people of Vietnam terribly for their lies. 


Much suffering and much future disaster was the consequence of the lies they told. 

Title:
Post by: Suppressed on October 12, 2017, 02:32:50 PM
Title:
Post by: driftdiver on October 12, 2017, 02:32:52 PM
No, why do you ask?

@Sanguine
I figured you must be since you bash any ideas to try and counter it.

Except of course the one about spending a billion dollars to create a new network.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:37:34 PM
So you're in favor of ideological quotas now?   :facepalm2:


If you would keep up,  it is an example of a suggestion in which a filter is not necessary.  It was provided to prove the point that the task can be done without the Federal Government censoring any content.


If you had been keeping up,  you would have known that I have solicited ideas from everyone on how to deal with the problem.   

My methodology is always the same.   I consider my options,  then I chose the one I think is best.   If you want to provide some options,  I'm all ears.   


Instead of face palming,  perhaps you can do something more useful like think of ideas on how to deal with this problem?


(Other than doing nothing.   In some circles they use the word "cuck"  to describe this methodology.) 
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:39:02 PM

So basically you don't want a small Government..


So basically you want a Fascist government of Homosexuals and Abortion providers ran from New York and San Fransisco. 



See,  two can play this game.   
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
You want the "Fairness" doctrine for TV?   Seriously?  Think what you're saying!


Compared to what we have now,  what is the downside?   We get "equal time" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule) non censored access to the broadcasting infrastructure,  and that is supposed to be bad somehow? 

How is it that bad? 

Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:45:59 PM
The real question is, is there any Constitutional permission for the federal government to restrict broadcasting, or can anyone just put up a giant jammer?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934


While i'm at it,  the "equal time" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-time_rule)  rule was created by the "Radio Act of 1927".


Quote
The equal-time rule was created because the FCC was concerned that broadcast stations could easily manipulate the outcome of elections by presenting just one point of view, and excluding other candidates.


Manipulate the outcome of elections?   Nooooooooo!!!!!!   You don't say!   


Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 02:49:20 PM
Ah, that great Conservative principle...Affirmative Action!

 22222frying pan :chairbang:   *****rollingeyes*****


Keep up.  The point in presenting that idea was to demonstrate that the task of balancing the leftest propaganda could be accomplished without government censorship.   (Which was the detail being discussed at the time.) 


If it could be accomplished in this manner,   perhaps it could be accomplished in another manner of which you can speak?   

How about it?  Rather than taking pot shots,  can you come up with another idea for correcting the problem without government censorship?   

(And remember,  doing nothing is not fixing the problem.)   


Title:
Post by: Ancient on October 12, 2017, 02:51:24 PM
Title:
Post by: Ancient on October 12, 2017, 03:00:42 PM
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 03:02:13 PM
Title:
Post by: kevindavis on October 12, 2017, 03:05:13 PM

So basically you want a Fascist government of Homosexuals and Abortion providers ran from New York and San Fransisco. 



See,  two can play this game.


I want a small limited Government that is neutral.
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 03:10:24 PM


There is the principal of how things should be and the laws as they are.  Allowing one side to use the law to persecute but not the other is a recipient for more bad laws.  The best way to remove a bad law is to enforce it.  If the left wants to regulate speech, they need to feel the pain of that type of regulation.  Only then will they squeal and come to the table to change it.


This is a point I often make.   There is an old joke about a little girl that keeps hitting her brother. 


"Mom!  Becky is hitting me again!"   

"Well sweety,  she doesn't know it hurts."   

The boy just nodded and walked back into the other room.  A moment later mom heard a "Thwack!"  followed by a little girl bawling.   

The boy came back into the room and said  "Well,  she does now!"   



Let the ogre of government ravish the liberals for awhile,   and they will soon rethink their position that we should have such a strong overbearing government. 


So long as conservatives are the only ones to feel the pain of an overbearing government,  Liberals will feel no incentive to reign in government power.   

The solution here would seem to be to turn loose it's force on them,  and let them suffer for awhile,   and then they may come to the table with the position that "Perhaps we should restrain it more." 


Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 03:15:20 PM
Title:
Post by: DiogenesLamp on October 12, 2017, 03:18:27 PM

I want a small limited Government that is neutral.


So do I,  so why should we play this game of accusing each other of supporting Fascism or Censorship?   


The networks were created through the Government issuing the licenses to use the public airwaves.   It has allowed them the ability to build a monopoly on effective speech in this nation. 


The government contributed to the cause of the problem,   and so what can we now do to correct the problem?   


I'm open to any reasonable suggestion.   
Title:
Post by: aligncare on October 12, 2017, 03:49:20 PM
Title:
Post by: Sanguine on October 12, 2017, 04:24:51 PM
@Sanguine
I figured you must be since you bash any ideas to try and counter it.

Except of course the one about spending a billion dollars to create a new network.

Nope, you have me confused with someone else. 

I simply accept the fact that 1) giving the government the power to control the media is a stupid and existentially destructive idea, is 2)anti-Constitutional and 3) won't work the way you propose it would work. 

Other than that, I'm fine with it. 
Title:
Post by: Chosen Daughter on October 13, 2017, 01:25:34 AM

That's what I would expect as well,   but just for the purpose of discussing the idea,  we can pretend for a bit that it wouldn't.   




We actually have mostly had token conservatives.   Bill O'reilly is a Libertarian at best.   Sean Hannity I suppose would be an actual conservative,   but Shep Smith is a homosexual liberal,  and most of the staff runs the gamut between Libertarians and Liberal with few if any fiscal/social conservatives in the mix. 


A lot of the guests on various shows which they claim are "conservatives"   are usually not actually conservative.   

Meghan McCain?   No.   Dick Morris?   No.  Charles Krauthammer?   No.   And so on.

You are correct.  FOX is not Conservative and no news gets it right all the time.  Just look at FOX they gave us Trump.
Title:
Post by: Amb. Frank Cannon on October 13, 2017, 01:32:05 AM
You are correct.  FOX is not Conservative and no news gets it right all the time.  Just look at FOX they gave us Trump.

On it's best day on it's best hour FOX News gets around 3-4 million viewers. There were around 130 million votes cast in the last election.

Assuming a percentage of FOX viewers don't vote or can't vote, just how in the hell did FOX give us Trump when maybe 1% of voters watch FOX?
Title:
Post by: Chosen Daughter on October 13, 2017, 01:52:22 AM
On it's best day on it's best hour FOX News gets around 3-4 million viewers. There were around 130 million votes cast in the last election.

Assuming a percentage of FOX viewers don't vote or can't vote, just how in the hell did FOX give us Trump when maybe 1% of voters watch FOX?

Frank FOX has the highest viewership rating of any cable news stations.  If you think that they didn't have a impact on the election you are crazy.  There are no other Republican/Conservative cable news stations except FOX that I know of.  Plenty of liberal ones.  CNN, NBC, ABC...........

Oh an I also hold Breitbart and Anne Coulter and much of the Evangelical community responsible for the buffoon.

Title:
Post by: IsailedawayfromFR on October 13, 2017, 11:47:50 AM

So do I,  so why should we play this game of accusing each other of supporting Fascism or Censorship?   


The networks were created through the Government issuing the licenses to use the public airwaves.   It has allowed them the ability to build a monopoly on effective speech in this nation. 


The government contributed to the cause of the problem,   and so what can we now do to correct the problem?   


I'm open to any reasonable suggestion.
It is my opinion that most of the problems that occur in this country is the absence of remembering our Christian roots when this government was devised.

By God's own word, it is not a level playing field.  True, He gave us the freedom of choice, but that does not equate to what is right or wrong, and right by His judgment always outweighs wrong.

On most fronts, patriotism caused our government to be swayed to enforce judgments that behaved according to what was right with God (although I note an exception was slavery in its early years).  Much of our patriotic foundation has been steadily eroded as we stray further from our Christian heritage. The entire Democrat party is a perfect example of the foundering of patriotism if one looks at their platform of social liberalism that fragments a family and enforcement of diversity and onerous taxes over freedoms .

The ideal world is to control by doing what is good for the country ie, Christian-based, but we are so far down alternatives roads, it would be a very hard sell.