The Briefing Room
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Weird Tolkienish Figure on October 11, 2017, 03:22:44 pm
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/trump-threatens-to-target-licenses-nbc-and-networks-after-nuclear-arsenal-report.html
What a moron.
-
Imagine the reaction if Obama threatens to target Fox.
-
Imagine the reaction if Obama threatens to target Fox.
He did; Conservatives blew up.
-
He did; Conservatives blew up.
But I imagine a lot of people here would welcome this..
-
If I remember right, Trump made some noise a while back about altering libel laws to go after alleged "fake news" outlets. And his supporters just yawned.
They probably would do the same on this matter too.
Or we will hear that Trump was only joking.
-
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/11/trump-threatens-to-target-licenses-nbc-and-networks-after-nuclear-arsenal-report.html
What a moron.
You are not a moron. You just say moron things like this.
Trump is exactly right to do this. I have been trying to get people to threaten these propaganda bastards for years, and Trump is finally the man with enough guts to do it!
The media corporations are our enemy. They are the propaganda corps for the left in this nation, and they have been manipulating elections with their lies, their omissions, and their spin, and it's way past time we did a frontal assault on their legitimacy and their continued lawful operation in this country.
Yes, pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with. I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me. I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them, I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them, I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats.
These are our enemies, and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election, and probably a lot longer than that.
We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.
-
The first salvo.
(https://i.imgur.com/QmDgCzc.png)
-
You are not a moron. You just say moron things like this.
Trump is exactly right to do this. I have been trying to get people to threaten these propaganda bastards for years, and Trump is finally the man with enough guts to do it!
The media corporations are our enemy. They are the propaganda corps for the left in this nation, and they have been manipulating elections with their lies, their omissions, and their spin, and it's way past time we did a frontal assault on their legitimacy and their continued lawful operation in this country.
Yes, pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with. I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me. I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them, I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them, I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats.
These are our enemies, and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election, and probably a lot longer than that.
We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.
Have you even read the Constitution?
-
Have you even read the Constitution?
@kevindavis
Here's the problem, our enemies have copies of our Constitution and they are more than willing to use it against us. What would you propose as a solution to the abuse and lies perpetrated by folks like NBC & CBS under the guise of free speech?
-
Have you even read the Constitution?
Today’s journalists have abdicated their duty under the constitution. There’s no penumbra in the first amendment that would protect the press from deliberate lying to the public.
This from Caroline Little, CEO of the Newspaper Association Of America, in an editorial in the Miami Herald:
“For a society to be responsible and powerful, it must be informed. Our free press, protected by the first constitutional amendment, plays a critical role in ensuring that every American has constant access to important and trustworthy news.”
Read more at: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/speak-up/article1955056.html
Trump is correct for calling out NBC. Broadcasters must meet certain obligations to the public in order to renew their licenses. So, why shouldn’t a news network be held to a simple standard of veracity?
-
@kevindavis
Here's the problem, our enemies have copies of our Constitution and they are more than willing to use it against us. What would you propose as a solution to the abuse and lies perpetrated by folks like NBC & CBS under the guise of free speech?
Just ignore them....
-
Today’s journalists have abdicated their duty under the constitution. There’s no penumbra in the first amendment that would protect the press from deliberate lying to the public.
This from Caroline Little, CEO of the Newspaper Association Of America, in an editorial in the Miami Herald:
“For a society to be responsible and powerful, it must be informed. Our free press, protected by the first constitutional amendment, plays a critical role in ensuring that every American has constant access to important and trustworthy news.”
Read more at: http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/speak-up/article1955056.html (http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/speak-up/article1955056.html)
Trump is correct for calling out NBC. Broadcasters must meet certain obligations to the public in order to renew their licenses. So, why shouldn’t a news network be held to a simple standard of veracity?
Sorry, but I think the whole broadcast licenses is kinda old and out of date. To be quite honest I don't want the Government to dictate what is fake news and not fake news.
-
Imagine the reaction if Obama threatens to target Fox.
If FOX were shown to be deliberately lying? My reaction would be the same.
In early summer The New York Times wrote they would overlook certain journalistic standards in reporting on Trump. And that Trump was so dangerous it was their mission to expose the danger, even if it meant lowering their standard on number of source and on named sources before printing a story.
Now that’s disturbing. But I have no problem with them coming out in opposition administration policies. However, if they are proven to be deliberately lying about material facts, I have a problem with that, as we all should.
-
If FOX were shown to be deliberately lying? My reaction would be the same.
In early summer The New York Times wrote they would overlook certain journalistic standards in reporting on Trump. And that Trump was so dangerous it was their mission to expose the danger, even if it meant lowering their standard on number of source and on named sources before printing a story.
Now that’s disturbing. But I have no problem with them coming out in opposition to an administration. However, if the are proven to be deliberately lying, that I have a problem with, as we all should.
I don't like the lying but the best thing to do is just ignore them.
-
I don't like the lying but the best thing to do is just ignore them.
Yes thats worked so well these last few decades.
-
Pulling the Plug on Anti-Chavez TV
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/17/AR2007011702003.html
-
So which time was Trump lying? This time or last time?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-exclusive/trump-wants-to-make-sure-u-s-nuclear-arsenal-at-top-of-the-pack-idUSKBN1622IF
Of course Trump has a documented history of wanting to go after the media that is unfavorable to him. Nothing new there.
-
The thing is that it's an idle, blustery threat from a blowhard. It just makes Trump, and his sycophants, look even dumber. Trump is a ballsless freak who would never do that.
-
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
-
Someone should tell Trump that it is the individual stations, not the networks themselves, who have the license.
You would have thought that Trump, being a TV guy, might have known this.
-
Someone should tell Trump that it is the individual stations, not the networks themselves, who have the license.
You would have thought that Trump, being a TV guy, might have known this.
He knows.
-
So putting them out of business is the solution?
Not just no, but hell no.
We have freedom of the press in this country. And it's not just for news sources we like or who write favorable news about "our guy."
@Applewood
Letting enemies of the country continue their propaganda war against us?
Same result and the govt shutting them down just takes longer and is much much more painful and would hit us all.
-
@Applewood
Letting enemies of the country continue their propaganda war against us?
We have something called freedom of speech,[edit].
[Edit by Mod1]
-
He knows.
I don't think he does.
-
The thing is that it's an idle, blustery threat from a blowhard. It just makes Trump, and his sycophants, look even dumber. Trump is a ballsless freak who would never do that.
Yes, it probably is. But I find it alarming that so many people would go along with the idea if it could be done. They are so willing to trash the Constitution to protect their hero.
-
We have something called freedom of speech, [edit].
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
[Edit]
Personal insults edited by Mod1
-
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
[Edit]
Respond to what I wrote, [edit].
Edit by Mod1
-
Yes, it probably is. But I find it alarming that so many people would go along with the idea if it could be done. They are so willing to trash the Constitution to protect their hero.
They're a bunch of gutless twerps who want a daddy figure because they're too weak to stand against "propaganda" without government intervention.
-
Respond to what I wrote, [edit].
@Weird Tolkienish Figure
I did [edit]
Edit by Mod1
-
So putting them out of business is the solution?
Not just no, but hell no.
We have freedom of the press in this country. And it's not just for news sources we like or who write favorable news about "our guy."
No one is getting upset over unfavorable news stories. Some of us are rightly getting upset over misrepresented facts and material lies from our ‘trusted’ news sources.
-
Yes, it probably is. But I find it alarming that so many people would go along with the idea if it could be done. They are so willing to trash the Constitution to protect their hero.
@Applewood
Your enemy doesn't care a whit about your free speech. They care only for their ability to spew propaganda and lies to further their agenda of destroying you. Are you going to fight for their right to keep lobbing bombs or are you going to attempt to fight back?
-
If I remember right, Trump made some noise a while back about altering libel laws to go after alleged "fake news" outlets. And his supporters just yawned.
They probably would do the same on this matter too.
Or we will hear that Trump was only joking.
You will hear from me that it doesn't go nearly far enough. We need to be bringing whatever weapon to bear that we are able against the media-weapon that has been f***ing up the country since at least Nixon/Kennedy.
They are the propaganda corps of the New York/Washington Establishment, and we need to force control of them out of the hands of Liberal agents.
-
No one is getting upset over unfavorable news stories. Some of us are rightly getting upset over misrepresented facts and material lies from our ‘trusted’ news sources.
@aligncare
These aren't mistakes or a difference in opinion. These are out and out lies.
-
Have you even read the Constitution?
Yes I have, and one of the most important aspects of it is "Freedom of Speech. "
That has been totally destroyed by monopoly control of all sources of broadcasting, and it undermines the very purpose for which the Founders incorporated "Freedom of Speech" into our constitution.
The purpose is so that the public can hear both sides without suppression. Well we have suppression. We have censorship. We have one party total control over the airwaves, and as a consequence it has caused the public to make very bad decisions.
It is our duty to insure freedom of speech. We must stop liberal censorship of the airwaves.
-
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
I think we all get First Amendment rights ... however, defamation of character is quite another issue; especially purposefully lying about the actions and comments about the President of the U.S.
-
Sorry, but I think the whole broadcast licenses is kinda old and out of date. To be quite honest I don't want the Government to dictate what is fake news and not fake news.
I don't either. Break the monopoly, and the problem will take care of itself.
Once conservatives can break into the broadcast streams, they can report the news that the liberal controllers routinely censor.
-
I think we all get First Amendment rights ... however, defamation of character is quite another issue; especially purposefully lying about the actions and comments about the President of the U.S.
He's a public figure. Is Trump such a whining bleep that he needs the government to intervene?
-
I don't like the lying but the best thing to do is just ignore them.
This is as wrong as it can be. Ignoring them lets their lies permeate the public, and the public makes bad decisions based on the lies they have been told.
When Hitler was preaching that the Jews were "Untermenschen" and that greedy Jewish bankers stabbed Germany in the Back, and that Jewish Rabbis drank the blood of gentile children, the people heard it and believed it.
Ignoring it didn't stop the evil from spreading. Only confronting it can do that. You must reach the people with the truth, and you must challenge lies in front of the people so that the people are not misled by evil and falsehood.
"Ignoring it" allows it to fester and grow. It allows it to damage the nation and the people. Only fighting back against it with at least equal ability to reach the people can counter act it.
-
He did; Conservatives blew up.
It was stupid then and it's stupid now. NBC owns maybe a handful of TV stations? Trumps mad at what the cables are doing, and there are no licenses to pull.
-
The thing is that it's an idle, blustery threat from a blowhard. It just makes Trump, and his sycophants, look even dumber. Trump is a ballsless freak who would never do that.
It puts the idea on the table and gets people to think about it. Look, it has us talking about it now!
The fact that you are engaging in this discussion means that Trump has worked his spell on you and you are right this very minute doing exactly what he wanted you to do when he made that tweet.
He is way inside your ooda loop, and you don't even realize it.
-
It puts the idea on the table and gets people to think about it. Look, it has us talking about it now!
The fact that you are engaging in this discussion means that Trump has worked his spell on you and you are right this very minute doing exactly what he wanted you to do when he made that tweet.
He is way inside your ooda loop, and you don't even realize it.
Nothing will come of this just like basically nothing has come of any of the crap Trump tweets about (NFL excepting).
-
We have something called freedom of speech,[edit].
[Edit by Mod1]
Which is exactly why we need to drop a nuclear powered sledge hammer on the propaganda monopoly controlled out of Washington DC and New York.
Monopoly suppresses *OUR* freedom of speech.
Monopoly: Do you speak it?
-
Yes, it probably is. But I find it alarming that so many people would go along with the idea if it could be done. They are so willing to trash the Constitution to protect their hero.
We are so willing to protect the means of protecting the constitution by stopping One party monopoly of speech that is currently damaging the constitution.
Had the media reported the truth about Obama and his scandals, Obama would be in prison where he belongs. They are destroying our country by covering up lies.
-
Enough with name calling.
-
They're a bunch of gutless twerps who want a daddy figure because they're too weak to stand against "propaganda" without government intervention.
You are not a "twerp". None of us are capable of standing against this trillion dollar propaganda system.
It is a monopoly, and none of us are big enough to break it. If we all work together, we might be able to break it, but individually we are just helpless pawns.
-
No one is getting upset over unfavorable news stories. Some of us are rightly getting upset over misrepresented facts and material lies from our ‘trusted’ news sources.
The biggest scandal this year (Imran Awan) and I haven't heard a f***ing word from the New York/Washington controlled media-weapon.
The media-weapon is the tool of the deep state, and it will not be used against it's own.
-
Yes I have, and one of the most important aspects of it is "Freedom of Speech. "
That has been totally destroyed by monopoly control of all sources of broadcasting, and it undermines the very purpose for which the Founders incorporated "Freedom of Speech" into our constitution.
The purpose is so that the public can hear both sides without suppression. Well we have suppression. We have censorship. We have one party total control over the airwaves, and as a consequence it has caused the public to make very bad decisions.
It is our duty to insure freedom of speech. We must stop liberal censorship of the airwaves.
Even Freedom of Speech has its limits. One need only look at the leakage coming out of the national security team on nuclear weapons. http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285545.0.html
If a news agency publishes an article knowingly that is secret govt intelligence, and whose intent to publish is to weaken this country, that is sedition. There is no Freedom of Speech on seditious behavior.
-
You are not a "twerp". None of us are capable of standing against this trillion dollar propaganda system.
It is a monopoly, and none of us are big enough to break it. If we all work together, we might be able to break it, but individually we are just helpless pawns.
[Edit], who needs the gubment to save you from the mean ol' propaganda.
Edit by Mod1.
-
Since no one bothered to read the link I provided, here's a quote from it.
In his first comments about the U.S. nuclear arsenal since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump was asked about a December tweet in which he said the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity “until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.”
And there is more, direct quotes to Reuters that he does indeed thing the US nuke arsenal should be expanded. So now he is lying about saying that he said such a thing, and using that lie to threaten NBC.
-
I don't either. Break the monopoly, and the problem will take care of itself.
Once conservatives can break into the broadcast streams, they can report the news that the liberal controllers routinely censor.
That is already happening. It is the reason Steve Bannon is prominent in the news lately.
-
There are like 4 or 5 conservative media news outlets on cable these days. Don't be stupid.
-
@aligncare
These aren't mistakes or a difference in opinion. These are out and out lies.
Says who? Of course Trump says they are lies. How many lies has Trump been in caught telling over the years? More than I can count. If this is a lie, then it should be provable as a lie. Otherwise it is just Trump being Trump.
However, a US President threatening to punish the press using the power of a government agency under his control, over reporting that is unfavorable to him is more than a bit disturbing. It is damn right scary.
And it sets a very bad precedent that wouldn't be easy to turn back.
Some of you think it is a good idea when it’s your guy subverting the Constitution. When the next democrat gets in office you will be signing the exact opposite tune no doubt.
Hell Obama said things critical of Fox and their reporting (to be more precise – I think it was more their opinion and editorial content) but I don’t recall Obama ever threatening to sic the FCC on them the way Trump has.
FWIW, somewhere Richard Nixon is thinking, “Damn! All I had to do was call Watergate “fake news” and threaten to shut down the Washington Post?”
-
Since no one bothered to read the link I provided, here's a quote from it.
And there is more, direct quotes to Reuters that he does indeed thing the US nuke arsenal should be expanded. So now he is lying about saying that he said such a thing, and using that lie to threaten NBC.
Instead of trying to stifle freedom of the press, perhaps Trump supporters should look for evidence that Trump didn't advocate for such an increase in the nuclear arsenal -- that is, whether the NBC report is really a lie or the truth. Just because Trump is accusing NBC of putting out a false report doesn't mean the report is indeed false.
-
You will hear from me that it doesn't go nearly far enough. We need to be bringing whatever weapon to bear that we are able against the media-weapon that has been f***ing up the country since at least Nixon/Kennedy.
They are the propaganda corps of the New York/Washington Establishment, and we need to force control of them out of the hands of Liberal agents.
Sorry, but I will not go for putting them out of business. Dictators do that. This country is not a dictatorship...yet.
-
@aligncare
These aren't mistakes or a difference in opinion. These are out and out lies.
And out and out censorship of information damaging to Democrats.
-
I think we all get First Amendment rights ... however, defamation of character is quite another issue; especially purposefully lying about the actions and comments about the President of the U.S.
Lying through a trillion dollar broadcasting system is a deliberate attempt to manipulate elections, and this deprives us of "consent."
-
As much as I'd like to hammer these guys, I'm not sure the gain is worth the risk. The MSM is declining and only seems to have influence with our scared GOP congress people.
Other than that most people today get their news from the internet. The horse is already long out the barn door.
-
Sorry, but I will not go for putting them out of business. Dictators do that. This country is not a dictatorship...yet.
Trump sycophants want to turn it into one. They're more anti-liberty than democrats.
-
He's a public figure. Is Trump such a whining bleep that he needs the government to intervene?
The Economy is a shambles under George HW Bush. "It's the economy stupid!"
1992 was the year the media-weapon stole an election from us by lying to US population at large.
-
The biggest scandal this year (Imran Awan) and I haven't heard a f***ing word from the New York/Washington controlled media-weapon.
The media-weapon is the tool of the deep state, and it will not be used against it's own.
@DiogenesLamp
I'm convinced a significant portion of this country would argue for the protection of their enemies all the way to the ovens.
-
Nothing will come of this just like basically nothing has come of any of the crap Trump tweets about (NFL excepting).
Trump is extremely successful in bypassing the liberal media in his tweets. It is unfiltered, which the media hates (and sometimes gets him in trouble). It is the only way a non-liberal President can get his message out past the liberal media.
-
Says who? Of course Trump says they are lies. How many lies has Trump been in caught telling over the years? More than I can count. If this is a lie, then it should be provable as a lie. Otherwise it is just Trump being Trump.
However, a US President threatening to punish the press using the power of a government agency under his control, over reporting that is unfavorable to him is more than a bit disturbing. It is damn right scary.
And it sets a very bad precedent that wouldn't be easy to turn back.
Some of you think it is a good idea when it’s your guy subverting the Constitution. When the next democrat gets in office you will be signing the exact opposite tune no doubt.
Hell Obama said things critical of Fox and their reporting (to be more precise – I think it was more their opinion and editorial content) but I don’t recall Obama ever threatening to sic the FCC on them the way Trump has.
FWIW, somewhere Richard Nixon is thinking, “Damn! All I had to do was call Watergate “fake news” and threaten to shut down the Washington Post?”
Relax. There is no way that Trump can shut down any part of the media. He's just venting.
And, by the way, Obama nor The Clinton's have no reason to threaten the media. The media constantly flattered them, covered for them and fawned over them.
But a lot of people are shutting down the media as individuals by not watching or subscribing or reading leftist press.
-
And out and out censorship of information damaging to Democrats.
So basically you want censorship.
-
So basically you want censorship.
@kevindavis
So basically you're ok with censorship that benefits the leftists.
@DiogenesLamp
-
Trump is extremely successful in bypassing the liberal media in his tweets. It is unfiltered, which the media hates (and sometimes gets him in trouble). It is the only way a non-liberal President can get his message out past the liberal media.
I kinda agree. I cannot recall a president ever being attacked so blatantly by the press.
I only wish Trump would get an editor for his tweets. The points could be made in a more presidential manner.
-
@kevindavis
So basically you're ok with censorship that benefits the leftists.
@DiogenesLamp
I want no censorship.
-
Instead of trying to stifle freedom of the press, perhaps Trump supporters should look for evidence that Trump didn't advocate for such an increase in the nuclear arsenal -- that is, whether the NBC report is really a lie or the truth. Just because Trump is accusing NBC of putting out a false report doesn't mean the report is indeed false.
Saying that Trump and supporters are trying to stifle the press is just plain garbage; rather they are trying to stop false reporting. You are right, just because Trump is making accusations doesn't make them so, but in the same light the news stories that NBC and most of the MSM are reporting doesn't mean that what they are reporting is accurate. They are no longer journalist striving to report the news accurately and without bias; they are a bunch of reporters who relay news in such a way as to sway their leftist viewpoints and agenda.
Nope. I've never been a Trump supporter, yet I certainly can see the media circus that continues and the circus inside the halls of Congress is just as bad. I still believe Trump to be a narcissist with liberal tendencies....that's who he is. I think he has displayed some very admirable patriotism and currently believe he has done some good and I still am darn thankful we don't have Clinton and after 8 years of Bammy, Trump is a breath of fresh air.
-
Saying that Trump and supporters are trying to stifle the press is just plain garbage; rather they are trying to stop false reporting. You are right, just because Trump is making accusations doesn't make them so, but in the same light the news stories that NBC and most of the MSM are reporting doesn't mean that what they are reporting is accurate. They are no longer journalist striving to report the news accurately and without bias; they are a bunch of reporters who relay news in such a way as to sway their leftist viewpoints and agenda.
Nope. I've never been a Trump supporter, yet I certainly can see the media circus that continues and the circus inside the halls of Congress is just as bad. I still believe Trump to be a narcissist with liberal tendencies....that's who he is. I think he has displayed some very admirable patriotism and currently believe he has done some good and I still am darn thankful we don't have Clinton and after 8 years of Bammy, Trump is a breath of fresh air.
I've already posted a link with a direct interview between Reuters and Trump where he says he wants to increase the US Nuke arsenal. Are you still going to believe that in this case the media is lying?
-
Instead of trying to stifle freedom of the press, perhaps Trump supporters should look for evidence that Trump didn't advocate for such an increase in the nuclear arsenal -- that is, whether the NBC report is really a lie or the truth. Just because Trump is accusing NBC of putting out a false report doesn't mean the report is indeed false.
Thank you for being one person that can pay attention. ^-^
-
I want no censorship.
@kevindavis
You already have censorship. Censorship which is controlled by people who have openly stated they want to bring down America. In many cases the decisions are being made by foreign nationals.
People who have no issue depriving you of any and all rights up to and including your life.
-
The Economy is a shambles under George HW Bush. "It's the economy stupid!"
1992 was the year the media-weapon stole an election from us by lying to US population at large.
NOPE. Read my lips.
-
Says who? Of course Trump says they are lies. How many lies has Trump been in caught telling over the years? More than I can count. If this is a lie, then it should be provable as a lie. Otherwise it is just Trump being Trump.
However, a US President threatening to punish the press using the power of a government agency under his control, over reporting that is unfavorable to him is more than a bit disturbing. It is damn right scary.
And it sets a very bad precedent that wouldn't be easy to turn back.
Some of you think it is a good idea when it’s your guy subverting the Constitution. When the next democrat gets in office you will be signing the exact opposite tune no doubt.
Hell Obama said things critical of Fox and their reporting (to be more precise – I think it was more their opinion and editorial content) but I don’t recall Obama ever threatening to sic the FCC on them the way Trump has.
FWIW, somewhere Richard Nixon is thinking, “Damn! All I had to do was call Watergate “fake news” and threaten to shut down the Washington Post?”
@Neverdul
Its not limited to this one issue. The MSM lies all the time, they hide information all the time, they push their political agenda, ALL THE TIME
-
Instead of trying to stifle freedom of the press, perhaps Trump supporters should look for evidence that Trump didn't advocate for such an increase in the nuclear arsenal -- that is, whether the NBC report is really a lie or the truth. Just because Trump is accusing NBC of putting out a false report doesn't mean the report is indeed false.
@Applewood
And what would that accomplish? You NTs won't even listen but you expect the MSM to acknowledge their lies?
-
Saying that Trump and supporters are trying to stifle the press is just plain garbage; rather they are trying to stop false reporting. You are right, just because Trump is making accusations doesn't make them so, but in the same light the news stories that NBC and most of the MSM are reporting doesn't mean that what they are reporting is accurate. They are no longer journalist striving to report the news accurately and without bias; they are a bunch of reporters who relay news in such a way as to sway their leftist viewpoints and agenda.
Nope. I've never been a Trump supporter, yet I certainly can see the media circus that continues and the circus inside the halls of Congress is just as bad. I still believe Trump to be a narcissist with liberal tendencies....that's who he is. I think he has displayed some very admirable patriotism and currently believe he has done some good and I still am darn thankful we don't have Clinton and after 8 years of Bammy, Trump is a breath of fresh air.
Me, too, libertybell. By the way, some people get really ticked off if we say that Trump is better than Clinton.
They claim that this is a worn out excuse for defending Trump. In fact, it is the honest truth. Hillary would have continued in Obama's shoes and pushed the nation further into socialism, acceptance of illegals and a blind eye on terrorism.
I can't defend Trump on everything but I think he's been a decent president so far and accomplished a lot of goals in spite of being thwarted by Senate rinos.
I simply will not go down the road of attacking Trump based on his tweets.
-
Saying that Trump and supporters are trying to stifle the press is just plain garbage; rather they are trying to stop false reporting. You are right, just because Trump is making accusations doesn't make them so, but in the same light the news stories that NBC and most of the MSM are reporting doesn't mean that what they are reporting is accurate. They are no longer journalist striving to report the news accurately and without bias; they are a bunch of reporters who relay news in such a way as to sway their leftist viewpoints and agenda.
While I would lightly agree with the monopoly angle (which would really be hard to prove). The US government, especially the FED is not the watchdog and arbiter of truth.
Be VERY careful what you wish for, because the next Democrat controlled government may well be right around the corner. What is established today will be used later to clear the tables of Conservative sources.
The better solution is Conservative watchdogs in the press itself - Ben Shapiro style.
The shock in this election cycle was in finding out that the entirety of Conservative commentary was in the bag - From FOX, to Drudge, to Breitbart, to all of the talking heads.
The thing to do is establish new press leaders in the Conservative press, and quit paying attention to New York and LA.
But using the Federal government to exercise your will is a dire mistake, of monumental proportions.
-
But using the Federal government to exercise your will is a dire mistake, of monumental proportions.
As it would be for just about everything in life.
-
As it would be for just about everything in life.
That's right.
-
I've already posted a link with a direct interview between Reuters and Trump where he says he wants to increase the US Nuke arsenal. Are you still going to believe that in this case the media is lying?
I was merely pointing out that just because a news story is reported, no longer means that it is by any means accurate, nor does Trump calling news 'fake' necessarily mean that it is so. There is no journalistic accuracy in reporting anymore, nor is the office of the presidency held in esteem anymore. Both sides are guilty.
If we take a look back at the campaign that Trump ran, it was shameful and made a mockery out of the election process ... along the way his own party vowed to derail his presidency because their establishment candidates failed and the MSM has never stopped with their inaccuracy in reporting. The DEM party toppled on with their accusations of Russian collusion, etc., because their 'Queen' was never crowned.
Meanwhile, we have an entire country that has suffered under Bammy and Trump with all his faults, I believe is trying to make some headway in turning things around.
-
Be VERY careful what you wish for, because the next Democrat controlled government may well be right around the corner. What is established today will be used later to clear the tables of Conservative sources.
Well said..
-
Well said..
@mystery-ak
So you mean they might pick a guy who made a video and put all the blame on him. Putting him in jail to hide their actions.
yeah I'd hate for that to happen
-
Yes I have, and one of the most important aspects of it is "Freedom of Speech. "
That has been totally destroyed by monopoly control of all sources of broadcasting, and it undermines the very purpose for which the Founders incorporated "Freedom of Speech" into our constitution.
The purpose is so that the public can hear both sides without suppression. Well we have suppression. We have censorship. We have one party total control over the airwaves, and as a consequence it has caused the public to make very bad decisions.
It is our duty to insure freedom of speech. We must stop liberal censorship of the airwaves.
Freedom of speech applies to and restricts the government. It was not put into the Constitution so "that the public can hear both sides without suppression".
You've got to look at it in context:
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.
-
@mystery-ak
So you mean they might pick a guy who made a video and put all the blame on him. Putting him in jail to hide their actions.
yeah I'd hate for that to happen
You fight it or counter it.. you too can use freedom of the press..you don't start pulling license's because you don't like what they say...this is what dictators do...
-
No one is getting upset over unfavorable news stories. Some of us are rightly getting upset over misrepresented facts and material lies from our ‘trusted’ news sources.
Any old excuse you can find to justify tyranny huh?
Sad.
-
You fight it or counter it.. you too can use freedom of the press..you don't start pulling license's because you don't like what they day...this is what dictators do...
That's right - And I might add, that we today, CAN. The press was just as liberal back in the day, where there was nothing but the big 3 and the AP.
The net has changed that in leaps and bounds.
-
You fight it or counter it.. you too can use freedom of the press..you don't start pulling license's because you don't like what they day...this is what dictators do...
@mystery-ak that's what they want...a dictator of their own that they can be proud of. Someone who doesn't care about the Constitution or rule of law...just someone who will extract payback and collect some revenge for them against the Left.
Never mind that the person they would be cheering while this is happening would be taking pages directly from the Liberal playbook they supposedly despise.
As long as he can get them the pound of flesh they demand...
-
As much as I'd like to hammer these guys, I'm not sure the gain is worth the risk. The MSM is declining and only seems to have influence with our scared GOP congress people.
Other than that most people today get their news from the internet. The horse is already long out the barn door.
What "risk"?
As @DiogenesLamp eloquently spelled out, NBC, CNN, and others are censoring information that is very damaging to the DEM Party.
...and too many Hollywood 'stars' who remained silent knowing about his reputation and proclivities.
They do this for the sole reason of affecting elections and assisting the Left push their Agenda.
...robbing us of "Consent".
That is something, for which the American People would get behind a President. And would it be 'Populist'? Or Constitutionally mandated he do somthing about it?
-
The Economy is a shambles under George HW Bush. "It's the economy stupid!"
1992 was the year the media-weapon stole an election from us by lying to US population at large.
Come on... please consider 12 years of the GOP, and along comes a face like Bubba. It was 'Burnout' killed the GOP.
The positive effects of the Reagan Economic model covered 25 years.
-
What "risk"?
As @DiogenesLamp eloquently spelled out, NBC, CNN, and others are censoring information that is very damaging to the DEM Party.
...and too many Hollywood 'stars' who remained silent knowing about his reputation and proclivities.
They do this for the sole reason of affecting elections and assisting the Left push their Agenda.
...robbing us of "Consent".
That is something, for which the American People would get behind a President. And would it be 'Populist'? Or Constitutionally mandated he do somthing about it?
People won't get behind tyranny or someone they perceive to be acting as a dictator.
-
People won't get behind tyranny or someone they perceive to be acting as a dictator.
@txradioguy
Where were you during Obamas time in office?
-
So basically you want censorship.
"The most insidious power of the media is the power to ignore". - Chris Plante
-
You fight it or counter it.. you too can use freedom of the press..you don't start pulling license's because you don't like what they say...this is what dictators do...
@mystery-ak
Ahh I see. Little ole me is gonna fight the whole MSM with my blog posts.
yeah lol
Oh wait I can take a billion dollars from my savings account and start up a competitor company to them,
-
@txradioguy
Where were you during Obamas time in office?
Same place I am now...serving in the military. I didn't miss anything.
Still doesn't justify cheering a tyrannical move like this.
-
@mystery-ak
Ahh I see. Little ole me is gonna fight the whole MSM with my blog posts.
yeah lol
Oh wait I can take a billion dollars from my savings account and start up a competitor company to them,
Don't tell that to the "little people" who made blog posts at TOS that countered a blatant falsehood by the MSM regarding the President.
Where's Dan rather these days?
-
@mystery-ak
Ahh I see. Little ole me is gonna fight the whole MSM with my blog posts.
yeah lol
Oh wait I can take a billion dollars from my savings account and start up a competitor company to them,
The story is already being disputed...pulling licenses is not needed.
We have just as much access to the press as the MSM does, times have changed.
-
@DiogenesLamp
I'm convinced a significant portion of this country would argue for the protection of their enemies all the way to the ovens.
I don't think there is any doubt about it!
-
Don't tell that to the "little people" who made blog posts at TOS that countered a blatant falsehood by the MSM regarding the President.
Where's Dan rather these days?
@txradioguy
So out of the thousands of lies the media tells you have ONE story of a successful counter?
One?
Really? Just one?
-
@mystery-ak
Ahh I see. Little ole me is gonna fight the whole MSM with my blog posts.
yeah lol
Oh wait I can take a billion dollars from my savings account and start up a competitor company to them,
I often said that FR missed the boat by not putting up a news mag with news supplied by it's mammoth nation-wide user-base. The very thing that brought down Rather could be presented in a journalistic fashion.
No national rag has even a fraction of boots on the ground and fact-checkers that your average forum has at it's disposal. But that would require people like those who once inhabited FR - People with a penchant toward winnowing out the truth.
-
The story is already being disputed...pulling licenses is not needed.
We have just as much access to the press as the MSM does, times have changed.
@mystery-ak
Yes we can visit their webpage all day long.
We cannot choose what message gets transmitted out to hundreds of millions of people.
Times haven't changed that much.
-
I often said that FR missed the boat by not putting up a news mag with news supplied by it's mammoth nation-wide user-base. The very thing that brought down Rather could be presented in a journalistic fashion.
No national rag has even a fraction of boots on the ground and fact-checkers that your average forum has at it's disposal. But that would require people like those who once inhabited FR - People with a penchant toward winnowing out the truth.
@roamer_1
And yet they dictate whats on the news each and every day
-
@txradioguy
So out of the thousands of lies the media tells you have ONE story of a successful counter?
One?
Really? Just one?
I realize that no number of successes will satisfy your blood lust for a tyrannical move like this form Trump.
You said what can you do...tried to make yourself out to be a helpless victim...I merely pointed out a very famous and very publicized win for the people.
-
@roamer_1
And yet they dictate whats on the news each and every day
If you haven't noticed, 'They' are all hurting for viewership/readership. Especially newspapers and news mags... Folding up like cheap lawn chairs everywhere.
-
ALL of the media is owned by six corporations! There IS no actual reporting going on at this point in time! There is only left wing propaganda being sold as news!
-
If you haven't noticed, 'They' are all hurting for viewership/readership. Especially newspapers and news mags... Folding up like cheap lawn chairs everywhere.
@roamer_1
And yet they still determine whats on the news each and every day. They tell each newscaster what to say about things like nominees for the Supreme Court.
-
ALL of the media is owned by six corporations! There IS no actual reporting going on at this point in time! There is only left wing propaganda bein sold as news!
I hate to tell you, but that has loooong been the case - All of my lifetime.
Now, there is net. and now, more and more, people are going elsewhere for their news.
-
I realize that no number of successes will satisfy your blood lust for a tyrannical move like this form Trump.
You said what can you do...tried to make yourself out to be a helpless victim...I merely pointed out a very famous and very publicized win for the people.
@txradioguy
I know its hard but you should really try to think. There is a middle ground.
There is a problem with the media in this country. It has been and is controlled by leftists who are using it to destroy our freedoms. Yet folks like you defend them while they do it.
I take it you like extra crispy in the ovens?
-
Nothing will come of this just like basically nothing has come of any of the crap Trump tweets about (NFL excepting).
That might be true, but you know what is true for sure? Doing nothing will achieve nothing!
-
I hate to tell you, but that has loooong been the case - All of my lifetime.
Now, there is net. and now, more and more, people are going elsewhere for their news.
That is true but not NEARLY enough to make any real difference. The NY Times still calls the tune on what is or isn't news. Even for cable. There are a very few who do actual reporting but for every one that sees their reporting there are thousands that don't.
-
That is true but not NEARLY enough to make any real difference. The NY Times still calls the tune on what is or isn't news. Even for cable. There are a very few who do actual reporting but for every one that sees their reporting there are thousands that don't.
It is still far, far better than when the whole thing was governed by the big 3 and the AP. Thousands, even millions of sources where the truth may out. We have less to fight in this regard than our fathers... However, needless to say:
Eternal Vigilance.
-
That is already happening. It is the reason Steve Bannon is prominent in the news lately.
It isn't enough, and we have no way of knowing if it will eventually be successful in breaking the monopoly.
I see the empire fighting back. Google is censoring, Twitter is censoring, Facebook is censoring, a hosting service informed "Gab" that they had to leave. The left mostly owns the internet, and I don't mean metaphorically either.
It is in the interests of the United States and necessary to protect the rights of it's people to insure that there is no monopoly and no censorship of freedom of speech.
-
There are like 4 or 5 conservative media news outlets on cable these days. Don't be stupid.
I don't know what you are talking about. I don't have cable, I only get television from broadcast stations. All I see is ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX, and they are all feeding me the same lines of bullsh*t from the echo chamber of Urban Liberals in New York and Los Angeles.
-
Says who? Of course Trump says they are lies. How many lies has Trump been in caught telling over the years? More than I can count. If this is a lie, then it should be provable as a lie. Otherwise it is just Trump being Trump.
You do love linking everything wrong in the world back to Trump. Apparently you can't see any evil beyond him.
http://www.returnofkings.com/105550/10-recent-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-real-news-media
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/12/10/the-7-worst-examples-of-fake-news-from-the-mainstream-media-n2257896
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/11/22/12-fake-news-stories-from-the-mainstream-media/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/the_war_on_fake_news.html
-
Sorry, but I will not go for putting them out of business. Dictators do that. This country is not a dictatorship...yet.
Dictators also put them in business. Every dictator had to have a propaganda corps to spew their lies to the public.
But in this case we have an Oligarchy that we have taken to lately calling the "Establishment" and "Deep State".
The existing corporations are party organs. We need a system where party organs cannot dominate and censor the information delivery systems.
-
As much as I'd like to hammer these guys, I'm not sure the gain is worth the risk. The MSM is declining and only seems to have influence with our scared GOP congress people.
Other than that most people today get their news from the internet. The horse is already long out the barn door.
For people that appear to be conservatives using the internet to route around the censorship systems of the existing broadcasting monopolies, you certainly seem to be ill informed about the current doings regarding the behemoths that control the internet.
There is censorship afoot. I actually can't believe I need to tell anyone about this.
So your solution is to leave our fate in the hands of left wing ideologies in Silicon Valley?
-
@roamer_1
And yet they still determine whats on the news each and every day. They tell each newscaster what to say about things like nominees for the Supreme Court.
So??
-
There is censorship afoot. I actually can't believe I need to tell anyone about this.
You needn't. it is the remedy that is in question.
So your solution is to leave our fate in the hands of left wing ideologies in Silicon Valley?
And yours is to let the Fed guard our speech?
-
Trump sycophants want to turn it into one. They're more anti-liberty than democrats.
Yes, we should all just sit back and accept what big brother tells us is the truth.
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/big-brother-1984.jpg)
Meantime, everyone get ready for their two minute hate. The image of Emmanuel Goldstein will be showing shortly.
-
@DiogenesLamp
I'm convinced a significant portion of this country would argue for the protection of their enemies all the way to the ovens.
"Sheep, thought I."
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_%28film%29
-
So basically you want censorship.
Uh, no. For some reason you seem to have flipped my entire argument demanding an end to censorship as some how advocating for censorship.
Are you okay?
-
ALL of the media is owned by six corporations! There IS no actual reporting going on at this point in time! There is only left wing propaganda being sold as news!
:amen: :amen:
-
I want no censorship.
Then what is your proposal to stop the trillion dollar broadcasting infrastructure which is totally under the control of the Liberal media-weapon from censoring us?
I'm all ears.
-
Then what is your proposal to stop the trillion dollar broadcasting infrastructure which is totally under the control of the Liberal media-weapon from censoring us?
I'm all ears.
AM radio created a natural competition that lasted for decades.
Next will be similar.
-
I've already posted a link with a direct interview between Reuters and Trump where he says he wants to increase the US Nuke arsenal. Are you still going to believe that in this case the media is lying?
In my opinion, the most serious point in this discussion is the fact that the media do lie routinely,
(Hands up, Don't shoot!) and can do so whenever they wish, and even more seriously, they can censor information (Imran Awan? Who's that?) which the American people need to hear to make the right decisions.
They are tampering with our nation's control system by blinding us.
That they may have or may not have bungled this particular one is irrelevant to the larger point here.
Allowing them to lie and censor is damaging to the nation.
-
Here's the thing, the report on the nuclear arsenal comment is pretty much correct, per the Reuters/Trump interview I posted the link for. So all y'all arguing that Trump is right to threaten to take away some media "licenses" are essentially saying that a POTUS is right to threaten censorship for them telling an accurate story.
-
NOPE. Read my lips.
I have written countless essays on George HW Bush's stupidest blunder in political history, but this does not change the fact that the Media carried Bill Clinton over the finish line with their lies and omissions.
George HW could have survived that blunder, though he did not deserve to survive it, however Bill Clinton could not have won without the media putting their thumb on the scale with their lies about the economy, and their lies about George HW Bush. (grocery store scanner)
Also I will point out that George HW Bush did not make a mistake when he said "read my lips... no new taxes." His blunder was breaking that promise in an effort to make a deal with the Democrats.
-
While I would lightly agree with the monopoly angle (which would really be hard to prove). The US government, especially the FED is not the watchdog and arbiter of truth.
Nor should they be. That is just asking for trouble. But in the manner that they can say people are discriminating against blacks because they do not have any blacks in their employ, is it so difficult to say "The media discriminates against conservatives because they do not have 50% conservatives on their staff in decision making positions."
The liberals like affirmative action? Shove it up their @$$ and break it off! Force them to hire their political enemies and force them to give them as much air time and control over the stories as they already do to their army of Liberal employees.
But using the Federal government to exercise your will is a dire mistake, of monumental proportions.
Depending how you use it, maybe, but what is also a dire mistake is leaving our nation with a one sided political propaganda system manipulating elections.
-
As it would be for just about everything in life.
And do you buy your gas from Standard Oil?
-
I've been down this thread for a while, and nobody answered my question, and it's a pretty obvious one for anybody who knows the first thing about broadcasting:
What licenses?
Broadcast networks don't have licenses. Cable news networks don't have licenses. Broadcast nets like NBC and CBS only have a handful of stations they actually own, so other than those O&O stations, what licenses are being referred to?? All this folderol is over a half-hour news broadcast on 12-15 TV stations.
-
@mystery-ak
So you mean they might pick a guy who made a video and put all the blame on him. Putting him in jail to hide their actions.
yeah I'd hate for that to happen
This is what they don't get. The thing they claim to fear is already here. Instead of official government control over the media, the "Deep State" uses agents to create the illusion of distance.
I learned something very alarming in 1995. We had created a Republican majority in Congress, and I thought we could finally do something about balancing the budget and reducing the National debt.
I was shocked to see every single media outlet mocking the idea, and opposing ever effort to slow the growth of government spending. They were actively HOSTILE to the idea of making the government live within it's means.
Who could be against the idea of balancing the budget?
When bits and pieces of the government shut down because of a Bill Clinton veto, they blamed the Republicans in Congress. When the government was shut down because of a Reagan veto, they blamed Reagan.
It finally dawned on me that every media effort to support the excessive spending of government could be explained by the possibility that the people holding their leash are somehow actually making money from excessive government spending.
Could it be that the media pushes liberal policies because liberal policies are in the best interest of the people who own and run the media corporations? Could the hostility to restraining the spending of government be because powerful people are intercepting portions of these money streams?
I dunno, but ever since then i've been considering it as a reasonable possibility. It would certainly explain a lot of their behavior if this were the case.
-
I have written countless essays on George HW Bush's stupidest blunder in political history, but this does not change the fact that the Media carried Bill Clinton over the finish line with their lies and omissions.
George HW could have survived that blunder, though he did not deserve to survive it, however Bill Clinton could not have won without the media putting their thumb on the scale with their lies about the economy, and their lies about George HW Bush. (grocery store scanner)
Also I will point out that George HW Bush did not make a mistake when he said "read my lips... no new taxes." His blunder was breaking that promise in an effort to make a deal with the Democrats.
If there had been no 'read my lips' betrayal, there wouldn't have been a Perot.
-
I've been down this thread for a while, and nobody answered my question, and it's a pretty obvious one for anybody who knows the first thing about broadcasting:
What licenses?
Broadcast networks don't have licenses. Cable news networks don't have licenses. Broadcast nets like NBC and CBS only have a handful of stations they actually own, so other than those O&O stations, what licenses are being referred to?? All this folderol is over a half-hour news broadcast on 12-15 TV stations.
The networks themselves are not licensed but every single one of the stations they own or are affiliated with are licensed. And the networks tightly control the content on ALL of them!
The answer to all of this is to spread those licenses around to some non network companies in all markets.
-
Nor should they be. That is just asking for trouble. But in the manner that they can say people are discriminating against blacks because they do not have any blacks in their employ, is it so difficult to say "The media discriminates against conservatives because they do not have 50% conservatives on their staff in decision making positions."
The liberals like affirmative action? Shove it up their @$$ and break it off! Force them to hire their political enemies and force them to give them as much air time and control over the stories as they already do to their army of Liberal employees.
Depending how you use it, maybe, but what is also a dire mistake is leaving our nation with a one sided political propaganda system manipulating elections.
**nononono*
-
Freedom of speech applies to and restricts the government. It was not put into the Constitution so "that the public can hear both sides without suppression".
Yes it was, for that is the only way that it can serve the benefit of the people. The assumption in 1787 was that the people would only need to fear suppression of speech from the government because the idea that private people could do such a thing was unimaginable.
So long as the technology consisted of speeches at public gatherings or printed material, no one could have an advantage at reaching the public that other people couldn't match.
But this television thing is different. Not only do visual images bypass the more rational persons of the brain to directly impact the more emotional sections, so too can this medium be controlled in such a way that other people cannot use it's power to convey their messages.
It is a very good brainwashing tool. The multi billion dollar advertising industry is proof that it influences people to do what the advertisers want them to do.
You've got to look at it in context:
Yes you do. You have to look at it's purpose and intent, and make sure that purpose and intent is protected.
-
In my opinion, the most serious point in this discussion is the fact that the media do lie routinely,
(Hands up, Don't shoot!) and can do so whenever they wish, and even more seriously, they can censor information (Imran Awan? Who's that?) which the American people need to hear to make the right decisions.
They are tampering with our nation's control system by blinding us.
That they may have or may not have bungled this particular one is irrelevant to the larger point here.
Allowing them to lie and censor is damaging to the nation.
And let’s not forget too how the media is presenting the Russia Russia Russia story in the top of the hour news for the last 12 months, always as if there were something there. When, in fact, we know there is no there there. Mueller’s got nothing but some 3,000 facebook ads purchased by Russians.
That’s 3000 out of 3 billion Facebook ads in a year. Yeah, Russia stole the election for Trump. Give me a break.
-
You fight it or counter it.. you too can use freedom of the press..
No you can't. That's why that guy went to jail, and nobody could stop it. Give me a trillion dollar broadcasting system informing everyone that Obama is lying about Benghazi, and that this man is a scape goat being used by a powerful man to cover up his blunder, and I guarantee you that man would not have gone to jail, and Obama may very well have gone to jail for pulling such a stunt.
You can't fight this power without something of equal power. They've put a trillion dollars into their broadcasting system, and it remains the most powerful means of influencing Americans in existence today.
you don't start pulling license's because you don't like what they say...this is what dictators do...
You start pulling licenses because the interests of the nation are not being served through their misuse of the public airwaves. That's what rational and responsible people do.
-
The networks themselves are not licensed but every single one of the stations they own or are affiliated with are licensed. And the networks tightly control the content on ALL of them!
The answer to all of this is to spread those licenses around to some non network companies in all markets.
The networks were barred from owning any more than a few stations many decades ago. Ownership is already distributed.
-
And let’s not forget too how the media is presenting the Russia Russia Russia story in the top of the hour news for the last 12 months, always as if there were something there. When, in fact, we know there is no there there. Mueller’s got nothing but some 3,000 facebook ads purchased by Russians.
That’s 3000 out of 3 billion Facebook ads in a year. Yeah, Russia stole the election for Trump. Give me a break.
Much like " there is no voter fraud" in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary!
-
The networks were barred from owning any more than a few stations many decades ago. Ownership is already distributed.
It really doesn’t make much difference if they own them outright or simply control who does now does it?
And they still control 100% of the network programing regardless of who owns the locals.
-
Trump is giving us possibly our last opportunity to get this thing done, to turn the tables, expose the media lies. If not now, when? If not Trump, then who?
-
Trump is giving us possibly our last opportunity to get this thing done, to turn the tables, expose the media lies. If not now, when? If not Trump, then who?
ROTFLMAO!!!
:odrama:
-
No national rag has even a fraction of boots on the ground and fact-checkers that your average forum has at it's disposal.
That is a pearl of wisdom and why places like Facebook and Google are so dangerous, especially as they are run by liberals who manipulate what you see or read. See @DiogenesLamp 's commentary http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285511.msg1479594.html#msg1479594
-
ROTFLMAO!!!
:odrama:
Feel better now? Why don’t you just answer the questions?
Because a mocking Emoji is all you’ve got, is my guess.
-
That is a pearl of wisdom and why places like Facebook and Google are so dangerous, especially as they are run by liberals who manipulate what you see or read. See @DiogenesLamp 's commentary http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285511.msg1479594.html#msg1479594
Except in the method of retaliation, I agree with @DiogenesLamp . What I would see is Conservatives rising to meet their own needs. That's what Conservatives do.
You want to compete with Google abd Facebook, it just takes startup money.
-
Feel better now? Why don’t you just answer the questions?
Because a mocking Emoji is all you’ve got, is my guess.
It's always the 'last chance'. If we are that far gone, you're beating a dead horse.
And your gleaming-eyed statement about Tump - Noted serial liar - being 'TheWON' to expose the liars just made me giggle out loud. Too funny.
-
It really doesn’t make much difference if they own them outright or simply control who does now does it?
And they still control 100% of the network programing regardless of who owns the locals.
I totally agree with that, the nets call the shots for the most part, but individual stations have been known to refuse to air some episodes of some programs, and they are in their rights to do so.
It still rubbishes this notion that Trump can simply yank NBC's license. He can't because there isn't one.
-
Except in the method of retaliation, I agree with @DiogenesLamp . What I would see is Conservatives rising to meet their own needs. That's what Conservatives do.
You want to compete with Google abd Facebook, it just takes startup money.
In my little under 50k population hometown some enterprising and well healed local folks attempted to start a newspaper to compete with the corporate owned rag which claims to be " your hometown newspaper" . The corporate rag sold advertising at below cost for as long as it took (two years) to run them out of business. Same thing happened to most of our local mom and pop stores when Wal-Mart showed up.
-
@kevindavis
Here's the problem, our enemies have copies of our Constitution and they are more than willing to use it against us. What would you propose as a solution to the abuse and lies perpetrated by folks like NBC & CBS under the guise of free speech?
@driftdiver
Apparently we should tear up the Constitution and put a lock on free speech. Yay!
-
Which is exactly why we need to drop a nuclear powered sledge hammer on the propaganda monopoly controlled out of Washington DC and New York.
Monopoly suppresses *OUR* freedom of speech.
Monopoly: Do you speak it?
I do. What monopoly have you been referring to? OTA broadcasting is the only aspect I can think of that meets even one of the criteria.
-
When I see someone post "you're under Trump's spell" I know he's trolling.
-
I've been down this thread for a while, and nobody answered my question, and it's a pretty obvious one for anybody who knows the first thing about broadcasting:
What licenses?
Broadcast networks don't have licenses. Cable news networks don't have licenses. Broadcast nets like NBC and CBS only have a handful of stations they actually own, so other than those O&O stations, what licenses are being referred to?? All this folderol is over a half-hour news broadcast on 12-15 TV stations.
The networks were barred from owning any more than a few stations many decades ago. Ownership is already distributed.
@Cyber Liberty
Thanks for bringing some facts into the discussion.
-
@mystery-ak that's what they want...a dictator of their own that they can be proud of. Someone who doesn't care about the Constitution or rule of law...just someone who will extract payback and collect some revenge for them against the Left.
Never mind that the person they would be cheering while this is happening would be taking pages directly from the Liberal playbook they supposedly despise.
As long as he can get them the pound of flesh they demand...
@txradioguy
I still remember the TOS thread from 2016, when multiple Trump supporters came right out and admitted that yes, we do need our own dictator---at least for now, and then we can put him back in the box.
-
That is true but not NEARLY enough to make any real difference. The NY Times still calls the tune on what is or isn't news. Even for cable. There are a very few who do actual reporting but for every one that sees their reporting there are thousands that don't.
Of course there is a real difference..with all the lies and bad press the MSM flung at Trump, he prevailed..people chose not to believe them and looked elsewhere for their news....YES...times are changing!
-
In my little under 50k population hometown some enterprising and well healed local folks attempted to start a newspaper to compete with the corporate owned rag which claims to be " your hometown newspaper" . The corporate rag sold advertising at below cost for as long as it took (two years) to run them out of business. Same thing happened to most of our local mom and pop stores when Wal-Mart showed up.
I fail to believe you would be *for* the government (read fed, especially) stepping in to rectify matters.
We've got Home Depot and Lowes, but everyone that matters still goes to Try-City or Western Building Center, unless it's Sunday, or you want hockey sticks for some reason.
-
@mystery-ak
Ahh I see. Little ole me is gonna fight the whole MSM with my blog posts.
@driftdiver
Why not? You've said before that posting negative things about Trump damages him, so apparently we on this forum have more power than we ever imagined.
-
Of course there is a real difference..with all the lies and bad press the MSM flung at Trump, he prevailed..people chose not to believe them and looked elsewhere for their news....YES...times are changing!
That is a brilliant point.
-
I fail to believe you would be *for* the government (read fed, especially) stepping in to rectify matters.
We've got Home Depot and Lowes, but everyone that matters still goes to Try-City or Western Building Center, unless it's Sunday, or you want hockey sticks for some reason.
Actually I'm for far less government regulation of damn near everything!
-
I've been down this thread for a while, and nobody answered my question, and it's a pretty obvious one for anybody who knows the first thing about broadcasting:
What licenses?
Broadcast networks don't have licenses. Cable news networks don't have licenses. Broadcast nets like NBC and CBS only have a handful of stations they actually own, so other than those O&O stations, what licenses are being referred to?? All this folderol is over a half-hour news broadcast on 12-15 TV stations.
(http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-04-02-b47f33a5_large.jpg)
In the manner that forcing Christians to comply with Gaystapo demands is not really about "cake", so too is the discussion about the Monopoly media-weapon not really about "licenses."
"Licenses" are simply a convenient metaphor for the concept of striking back at the monopoly media-weapon election manipulators.
-
If you haven't noticed, 'They' are all hurting for viewership/readership. Especially newspapers and news mags... Folding up like cheap lawn chairs everywhere.
@roamer_1
Exactly. Millennials don't watch TV at all anymore, and magazines and papers are unknown to them. They get their news online, and there are many, many solid conservative sources.
The other day I read an article about the media empire Ben Shapiro is building.
-
Actually I'm for far less government regulation of damn near everything!
Exactly. So how then is the FED (the FED, mind you) going to fix this presumed monopoly and apparent liberal press which deemed otherwise unstoppable? Remember in your answer that whatever new toys we make, the dems will get to play with next time they get in the sandbox.
-
That's right - And I might add, that we today, CAN. The press was just as liberal back in the day, where there was nothing but the big 3 and the AP.
The net has changed that in leaps and bounds.
Has it given us parity? Can our spokesmen reach out and influence 30 million Americans nightly?
I see George Stephanopolous virtually every day lying to or misleading me as to what is going on in the world. To what channel do I tune to see Ben Shapiro giving the morning news?
The internet influences only a tiny slice of the public compared to television, and even now our liberal enemies are trying to gain total control over the internet.
-
@mystery-ak that's what they want...a dictator of their own that they can be proud of. Someone who doesn't care about the Constitution or rule of law...just someone who will extract payback and collect some revenge for them against the Left.
Never mind that the person they would be cheering while this is happening would be taking pages directly from the Liberal playbook they supposedly despise.
As long as he can get them the pound of flesh they demand...
Virtue signaling, strawmanning, and suggesting we continue losing in the manner we have been losing.
-
Exactly. So how then is the FED (the FED, mind you) going to fix this presumed monopoly and apparent liberal press which deemed otherwise unstoppable? Remember in your answer that whatever new toys we make, the dems will get to play with next time they get in the sandbox.
Open up the market and allow anyone to play who wants to.
-
People won't get behind tyranny or someone they perceive to be acting as a dictator.
But if you sneak it up on them, as it is being done now, they are not only okay with it, they will call other people "Dictators" for wanting to strip the real dictators of their existing Dictator powers.
If you don't think the media is "Dictating" I've got four words for you.
"Hands Up! Don't Shoot!"
-
@mystery-ak
Ahh I see. Little ole me is gonna fight the whole MSM with my blog posts.
yeah lol
Oh wait I can take a billion dollars from my savings account and start up a competitor company to them,
A billion dollars? You greatly underestimate the assets the media-weapon currently has at it's disposal.
-
The story is already being disputed...pulling licenses is not needed.
We have just as much access to the press as the MSM does, times have changed.
I see George Stephanopolous almost every morning. To what channel should I turn to see the news being delivered by Walter Williams?
-
Of course there is a real difference..with all the lies and bad press the MSM flung at Trump, he prevailed..people chose not to believe them and looked elsewhere for their news....YES...times are changing!
Big media shouldn’t be regulated, but it should be subject to the same libel and slander statutes as any individual. News editors need to feel the heat when they put out false reports. Lives and reputations are at stake.
Secondly, Big Media should suffer the same fate as Ma Bell, when she got too big. That would open up the field to more independent journalist and investigative reporting, like what Project Veritas has been doing. Throw some conservative competition in to the mix. The antidote to censorship is more speech.
-
Big media shouldn’t be regulated, but it should be subject to the same libel and slander statutes as any individual. News editors need to feel the heat when they put out false reports. Lives and reputations are at stake.
Secondly, Big Media should suffer the same fate as Ma Bell, when she got too big. That would open up the field to more independent journalist and investigative reporting, like what Project Veritas has been doing. Throw some conservative competition in to the mix. The antidote to censorship is more speech.
Damned right! Let them say anything they want and be held fully accountable for it!
-
I fail to believe you would be *for* the government (read fed, especially) stepping in to rectify matters.
I would be (though not the fed in the case in question).
Intentionally taking a loss with the express intent of driving competition out of business is known as dumping (though many reserve that specific term for international trade), and there are rules against it for good reason. Ensuring that businesses and individuals play fair is one of the very few things I think governments should actually be doing.
One could make the case that government should simply provide a fair court system and things like this should be civil, not criminal. However, if you can afford to drive someone out of business by dumping you can probably drive them out of the court by just lawyering up hard. I think this is an instance where we do need a government to deal with it.
-
@roamer_1
Exactly. Millennials don't watch TV at all anymore, and magazines and papers are unknown to them. They get their news online, and there are many, many solid conservative sources.
The other day I read an article about the media empire Ben Shapiro is building.
@CatherineofAragon
Yep. My kids don't have cable or paper news/mags. Never have had em. I have of late, followed them in that, and I am greatly relieved by throwing out the cable company. And I am not alone by any means. 'Cord-cutting' has become a term, and then a meme. Their empire is crumbling to dust.
I am partial to Ben Shapiro, and fond of his mag, The Daily Wire (http://www.dailywire.com/). And his podcast and Youtube offerings. Of the talking heads, he's the only one I still trust unequivocally. You should look up one of his college presentations on Youtube (the recent Berkeley speech was a gas).
I would really like to get One America News Network (http://www.oann.com/) as a live stream - I hear it is based in the Midwest, and I would hope to get a perspective different from NYC and LA. I am considering getting a ROKU just for that reason. I hear very good things about them... Maybe the new FOX.
So yes, there are many solid Conservative sources. And I dare say, if that is what one is after, there is no problem finding it.
-
@CatherineofAragon
Yep. My kids don't have cable or paper news/mags. Never have had em. I have of late, followed them in that, and I am greatly relieved by throwing out the cable company. And I am not alone by any means. 'Cord-cutting' has become a term, and then a meme. Their empire is crumbling to dust.
I am partial to Ben Shapiro, and fond of his mag, The Daily Wire (http://www.dailywire.com/). And his podcast and Youtube offerings. Of the talking heads, he's the only one I still trust unequivocally. You should look up one of his college presentations on Youtube (the recent Berkeley speech was a gas).
I would really like to get One America News Network (http://www.oann.com/) as a live stream - I hear it is based in the Midwest, and I would hope to get a perspective different from NYC and LA. I am considering getting a ROKU just for that reason. I hear very good things about them... Maybe the new FOX.
So yes, there are many solid Conservative sources. And I dare say, if that is what one is after, there is no problem finding it.
It is very easy to see a trend in your local and assume that it's happening more broadly. That is a BIG mistake.
-
Big media shouldn’t be regulated, but it should be subject to the same libel and slander statutes as any individual. News editors need to feel the heat when they put out false reports. Lives and reputations are at stake.
Secondly, Big Media should suffer the same fate as Ma Bell, when she got too big. That would open up the field to more independent journalist and investigative reporting, like what Project Veritas has been doing. Throw some conservative competition in to the mix. The antidote to censorship is more speech.
AC.....couldn't agree more. 888high58888
-
I realize that no number of successes will satisfy your blood lust for a -<[tyrannical move]>- like this form Trump.
This is called "framing the debate." It is asserting the premise that anyone who believes in breaking the grip of the Corporate Media-weapon is advocating tyranny.
It is a strawman tactic.
You said what can you do...tried to make yourself out to be a helpless victim...I merely pointed out a very famous and very publicized win for the people.
Scooter Libby. Nixon Resigns. Vietnam Collapses. Goldwater loses. Russia rigged the election. Dog on Car roof. "Binders full of Women".
What was that thing that Candy Crowly did again that was a lie during the Romney/Obama debate?
"Hands up! Don't shoot!" "White Hispanic." "It's the Economy stupid." "Ronny RAY-gun." "Star Wars!"
Republicans want to kill women and children! "Fast and Furious!" A Video tape blamed for Benghazi. "Cash for Clunkers". Weaponized IRS.
"Maccaca". Strom Thurmond birthday party. Donna Brazile giving Hillary the debate questions.
"Grocery store Scanner" (Bush HW) White Water. Monica Lewinski.
You talk about one win, and you ignore the hundreds if not thousands of losses that would not have occurred without the Liberal monopoly of the media-weapon.
-
I hate to tell you, but that has loooong been the case - All of my lifetime.
Some people were slaves for all of their lifetimes, but that didn't make it right or acceptable. That something has persisted is not a good argument that it should continue.
Now, there is net. and now, more and more, people are going elsewhere for their news.
Too many aren't. Too many still get their news from the media-weapon.
-
Has it given us parity?
Parity? That sounds like 'FAIRNESS'... I know you too well to cosider you anything but Conservative, @DiogenesLamp ... but 'fairness' is a liberal position. I don;t expect fairness in anything.
Can our spokesmen reach out and influence 30 million Americans nightly?
Spokesmen? Like Limbaugh's 20m? Nothing the news channels have come close to AM radio planting 10s of millons of listeners for 3hr shows. But I don't care about 'spokesmen'. I care about the message. And while you can say it's subjective (and I won't point to data), Chik-Fil-A happens and swamps anything the libs can do all by itself. For all the liberal threats and boycotting, JCPennys and Target are who crash and burn... All those folks got the message. That means that somehow, that message is getting out there.
I see George Stephanopolous virtually every day lying to or misleading me as to what is going on in the world. To what channel do I tune to see Ben Shapiro giving the morning news?
Who goes to the TV anymore for news?
The internet influences only a tiny slice of the public compared to television, and even now our liberal enemies are trying to gain total control over the internet.
meh.
-
You needn't. it is the remedy that is in question.
I've proposed striking a blow against the existing enemy. It is a stretch to portray opposition to the existing status quo as a "remedy."
Some may not remember, but in the past I have solicited suggestions as to what can be done about the problem, but most people spent all their time trying to convince me that nothing needs to be done about the problem, and that they don't even see a problem.
I have suggested various things, and none of them constituted letting the government control the media. I am absolutely against that. The worst thing we could do is to jump out of the frying pan and into the fire.
I'm still interested in hearing any ideas what to do about the problem other than trying to tear down the monopoly that exists now.
And yours is to let the Fed guard our speech?
Absolutely not. But they can make "common carriers" carry all traffic.
-
Some people were slaves for all of their lifetimes, but that didn't make it right or acceptable. That something has persisted is not a good argument that it should continue.
Too many aren't. Too many still get their news from the media-weapon.
*****rollingeyes***** I know @roamer_1 can handily answer for himself, but cripes, that is not even close to what he said or meant or implied.
-
AM radio created a natural competition that lasted for decades.
That existed during a time in which Americans were in far more agreement regarding morals and ethics. That past was a different country.
-
And let’s not forget too how the media is presenting the Russia Russia Russia story in the top of the hour news for the last 12 months, always as if there were something there. When, in fact, we know there is no there there. Mueller’s got nothing but some 3,000 facebook ads purchased by Russians.
That’s 3000 out of 3 billion Facebook ads in a year. Yeah, Russia stole the election for Trump. Give me a break.
Talk about a "loss" caused by the media! How many millions, and how much effectiveness in advancing the agenda has been lost as a result of this media fabricated propaganda effort?
It's similar to the Valerie Palme incident. It was totally fabricated to damage the Republican party, not advance the best interests of the people.
-
Some people were slaves for all of their lifetimes, but that didn't make it right or acceptable. That something has persisted is not a good argument that it should continue.
I am not claiming that. But unarguably, There are more Conservative outlets now than there were then - in droves. It isn;t harder now - it is much, much easier.
Too many aren't. Too many still get their news from the media-weapon.
I don't think that is true. Overall viewership through cable and sat outlets is plummeting. Let it plummet. Don't fix what is fixing itself.
-
Evening news viewing on the three major broadcast networks is huge compared to the numbers for cable news programming. Broadcast news will continue to be the primary influencing source for most of the country.
A hypothetical. Does anyone really believe that if NBC network and cable news were to suddenly disappear that you would notice? That you would see a drop in the quality of news information OTA or on cable?
More likely total news product quality would improve by its absence. And don’t we get enough left wing propaganda news from the remaining news outfits?
-
Except in the method of retaliation, I agree with @DiogenesLamp . What I would see is Conservatives rising to meet their own needs. That's what Conservatives do.
You want to compete with Google abd Facebook, it just takes startup money.
France didn't commit to helping the US achieve independence until our forces demonstrated some capability at fighting back against the British.
If such an effort could show some success, it might be a reasonable alternative to challenge these bastards that control the news and entertainment in this nation.
So far One America News Network looks like the only potential player I see.
I wouldn't mind equal representation occurring through market forces, but monopolies are inherently resistant to being broken by market forces.
-
Absolutely not. But they can make "common carriers" carry all traffic.
I will let profit sort that out - and with the exception of PBS receiving gvt funding, that model has served well - Especially now, as the cable bundling practices are swiftly becoming a noose around their necks.
I say, let em hang.
-
@driftdiver
Apparently we should tear up the Constitution and put a lock on free speech. Yay!
You must be reading a different discussion and somehow mistakenly posted on this one. Do be more careful next time.
-
@Cyber Liberty
Thanks for bringing some facts into the discussion.
"Facts" are always good, but they are more helpful when they are actually relevant to the focus of the discussion.
-
You must be reading a different discussion and somehow mistakenly posted on this one. Do be more careful next time.
Unsubscribe.
-
If such an effort could show some success, it might be a reasonable alternative to challenge these bastards that control the news and entertainment in this nation.
So far One America News Network looks like the only potential player I see.
But what a player. They will be challenging FOX in a short time.
And entertainment is feeling the pinch too - They can't fill movie houses, Netflix is murdering the normal outlets, and more and more, folks are going to ala carte. Heck I can't even tell you the last TV show I watched. I am waiting for the final season of Longmire to come out (anytime now), but other than that, I am not attached to anything coming through the networks. Heck, I can't even tell you the last time I was on Netflix, even. Almost totally divorced.
I wouldn't mind equal representation occurring through market forces, but monopolies are inherently resistant to being broken by market forces.
Except their carriers are plummeting. without their carriers, cable and sat, they are all but gone.
-
Of course there is a real difference..with all the lies and bad press the MSM flung at Trump, he prevailed..people chose not to believe them and looked elsewhere for their news....YES...times are changing!
Nixon didn't. Goldwater didn't. George HW Bush didn't. Dole didn't. George W did, but barely. McCain didn't and Romney didn't.
I believe that the media framing the debate produces a constant shift in the electorate of about ~10% points.
It's enough to swing an election, and thereby a destiny.
-
"Facts" are always good, but they are more helpful when they are actually relevant to the focus of the discussion.
Trump is threatening to pull licenses. There are no licenses to pull. I don't think it gets more relevant than that.
Idiots.
-
Trump is threatening to pull licenses. There are no licenses to pull. I don't think it gets more relevant than that.
Idiots.
I find some humor that we are "arguing" about confiscation of a thing that does not exist because of a lie that does not exist.
-
I find some humor that we are "arguing" about confiscation of a thing that does not exist because of a lie that does not exist.
Ironical, isn't it?
-
*****rollingeyes***** I know @roamer_1 can handily answer for himself, but cripes, that is not even close to what he said or meant or implied.
@RoosGirl
There wasn't enough overwrought drama in @roamer_1's post, so it had to be adjusted for effect.
-
Ironical, isn't it?
Yes, and I'm glad that irony is so delicious.
-
Trump is threatening to pull licenses. There are no licenses to pull. I don't think it gets more relevant than that.
Idiots.
Yes my friend there are licenses. And the FCC refusing to renew a few of them in large markets woul have a telling effect and affect!
-
You must be reading a different discussion and somehow mistakenly posted on this one. Do be more careful next time.
@DiogenesLamp
"Do be more careful"---do people really talk like that outside of movies from the fifties?
Thanks, Sparky, but I'm in the right place, getting a little cheap entertainment from you this evening.
-
SMH....
I can't believe the debate I'm reading among people who supposedly are Conservative.
Orwell was right.
-
Yes my friend there are licenses. And the FCC refusing to renew a few of them in large markets woul have a telling effect and affect!
They are nothing to the nets. Nothing. This is the most breathtaking of nothing I've seen in years!
-
Evening news viewing on the three major broadcast networks is huge compared to the numbers for cable news programming. Broadcast news will continue to be the primary influencing source for most of the country.
Except in that all are ted to the cable and sat bundles - that's their delivery... And cable and sat subscriptions have been plummeting remarkably - 20-30% quarterly. How long can that be sustained?
A hypothetical. Does anyone really believe that if NBC network and cable news were to suddenly disappear that you would notice? That you would see a drop in the quality of news information OTA or on cable?
I don't think I'd even know the difference. The alphabet channels make up a tiny percentage of my viewership - I have no idea when the last thing I watched from any of them was... That tiny.
-
SMH....
I can't believe the debate I'm reading among people who supposedly are Conservative.
Orwell was right.
I think there is no concept of unintended consequences anymore. There's no forward thought to what happens the next time liberals (the ones who call themselves liberals instead of trying to hide it) gain the majority.
-
Yes my friend there are licenses. And the FCC refusing to renew a few of them in large markets woul have a telling effect and affect!
How exactly do you plan to punish locally owned stations that had no part in the Trump nuke story?
How many actual stations do you think the parent network owns these days?
Or does that not matter and you just want to nuke all of their broadcast liscenses?
-
SMH....
I can't believe the debate I'm reading among people who supposedly are Conservative.
Orwell was right.
@AbaraXas rule of law and the Constitution don't matter.
It's all about revenge and paybacks.
-
Fake news should be fought with facts to expose the lies. And then publicly mocked for reporting false information.
I thought it was the left that tried to silence people/organizations that they disagree with.
With Trump the right and the left are merging using the same tactics all ending with more statist control of our lives.
-
Fake news should be fought with facts to expose the lies. And then publicly mocked for reporting false information.
I thought it was the left that tried to silence people/organizations that they disagree with.
With Trump the right and the left are merging using the same tactics all ending with more statist control of our lives.
But it's different when it's OUR guy /s
-
Fake news should be fought with facts to expose the lies. And then publicly mocked for reporting false information.
I thought it was the left that tried to silence people/organizations that they disagree with.
With Trump the right and the left are merging using the same tactics all ending with more statist control of our lives.
That's what happens when a liberal is elected as a "Republican" President.
And here we have "conservatives" advocating censorship, and ignoring the First Amendment, just because "our guy" is doing it.
It's a completely upside down world, @DB .....
-
I wouldn't mind equal representation occurring through market forces, but monopolies are inherently resistant to being broken by market forces.
It certainly appeared that since Fox came around that it was the monopoly breaker - considering its tendency to be more objective than the other three legacy tv networks.
Fox was killing those guys in viewership and going strong - then, plump. They began acting like the others more and more, hiring actors like Kelly instead of true reporters. Drumming up enough negatives to sit O'Reilly down.
Now, they are little better than the alternatives, and their credibility has tanked as a result, allowing the others to catch back up.
Too bad, I thought we had the market forces breaking that monopoly.
-
But it's different when it's OUR guy /s
Beat me to it!
GMTA. (Especially when it comes to telling the TRUTH).
-
How exactly do you plan to punish locally owned stations that had no part in the Trump nuke story?
How many actual stations do you think the parent network owns these days?
Or does that not matter and you just want to nuke all of their broadcast liscenses?
Can you show me a post where I ever advocated the FCC refusing to renew licenses? I simply said that it woul have effects and affects if the did!
-
How many actual stations do you think the parent network owns these days?
28, spread out in some very big markets, can be viewed in 36% of all US homes.
That is a big chunk. http://www.nbcuniversal.com/business/nbcuniversal-owned-television-stations
-
28, spread out in some very big markets, can be viewed in 36% of all US homes.
That is a big chunk. http://www.nbcuniversal.com/business/nbcuniversal-owned-television-stations
Most (more than half) are Telemundo. Don't count.
I saw this earlier when I looked it up. Bottom line: There will be no licenses pulled. None.
-
Most (more than half) are Telemundo. Don't count.
You know, they are not all illegals watching that.
A very stupid statement. Of course they count.
-
Most (more than half) are Telemundo. Don't count.
I saw this earlier when I looked it up. Bottom line: There will be no licenses pulled. None.
Just for the record, I didn't think Trump said anything about "pulling" licenses. I think he did say someting about protesting the renewal of some.
-
28, spread out in some very big markets, can be viewed in 36% of all US homes.
That is a big chunk. http://www.nbcuniversal.com/business/nbcuniversal-owned-television-stations
28 out of how many NBC affiliates total?
Drop in the bucket compared to the total number of local stations that actually do provide a service to their community.
But hey what does the needs and wants of the smaller communities where that might be the only local station I the town matter when it comes to sticking it to the suits in 30 Rock right.
Trump needs to get iver the fact he's not running the Apprentice on NBC anymore and start acting like a U.S. president instead of a third world tyrant.
-
Just for the record, I didn't think Trump said anything about "pulling" licenses. I think he did say someting about protesting the renewal of some.
Same thing. If you want to screw with a station whether it's radio or the you lodge a complaint about their license renewal with the FCC when they are in the renewal window.
Trump is making less than a veiled threat to have his FCC at the very least hold up the renewal for intense scrutiny.
And that's some major league BS on his part.
-
28 out of how many NBC affiliates total?
Drop in the bucket compared to the total number of local stations that actually do provide a service to their community.
But hey what does the needs and wants of the smaller communities where that might be the only local station I the town matter when it comes to sticking it to the suits in 30 Rock right.
Trump needs to get iver the fact he's not running the Apprentice on NBC anymore and start acting like a U.S. president instead of a third world tyrant.
All I did was pull up the records. Nothing more. You insinuated NBC does not own many stations that have licenses, but if one can get into 36% of the homes in the US, one does not need many stations.
-
All I did was pull up the records. Nothing more. You insinuated NBC does not own many stations that have licenses, but if one can get into 36% of the homes in the US, one does not need many stations.
36% is still a very small percentage. The bulk of that concentrated in New York and LA with Chigaco in the mix as well.
Ok so even if I agree with the premise that is a big chunk (I don't) the second and third order effects by suck a stupid move would put HUNDREDS of locally owned and operated stations out if business.
Where is the sense in that simply because Trump is throwing a tantrum?
-
Trump is threatening to pull licenses. There are no licenses to pull. I don't think it gets more relevant than that.
Idiots.
(http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-04-02-b47f33a5_large.jpg)
As I said previously, it isn't about "cake" and it isn't about "licenses."
-
@DiogenesLamp
"Do be more careful"---do people really talk like that outside of movies from the fifties?
Thanks, Sparky, but I'm in the right place, getting a little cheap entertainment from you this evening.
Best way to teach someone.
-
SMH....
I can't believe the debate I'm reading among people who supposedly are Conservative.
Orwell was right.
Yup. People let 1984 sneak up on them and they don't care. It is Mind boggling.
-
And for the record...as of 2015 NBC owns and operates 11 stations and has affiliate agreements with 222 other stations across the country.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBC_television_affiliates_(by_U.S._state)
-
Many of you still don't understand President Trump.
He's started the conversation, which focuses attention on the FACT of media bias. That invites a second look at charges of fake news citing anonymous sources, etc..
-
Many of you still don't understand President Trump.
@DCPatriot
Exactly. Trump is just getting them all spun up to report on 'fake news'. He knows exactly how to play the MSM.
Now, as you point out, he has fake news channels doing story after story on fake news. It's kind of hilarious in a way.
-
I think there is no concept of unintended consequences anymore. There's no forward thought to what happens the next time liberals gain the majority.
If we leave things as they are, they will resume what was briefly interrupted by the current man we have who fights.
-
SMH....
I can't believe the debate I'm reading among people who supposedly are Conservative.
Orwell was right.
I know. It's frightening.
-
Many of you still don't understand President Trump.
He's started the conversation, which focuses attention on the FACT of media bias. That invites a second look at charges of fake news citing anonymous sources, etc..
Luckily we have you to translate for us.
-
Fake news should be fought with facts to expose the lies. And then publicly mocked for reporting false information.
And how are these facts to reach the public?
I thought it was the left that tried to silence people/organizations that they disagree with.
What we are speaking of is breaking the silence. You seem to think that demanding equal voice is promoting silence. It is promoting speech.
-
That's what happens when a liberal is elected as a "Republican" President.
And here we have "conservatives" advocating censorship, and ignoring the First Amendment, just because "our guy" is doing it.
It's a completely upside down world, @DB .....
You and your cadre make up your mind that we are advocating censorship (because you aren't really listening to what is being said) and then you repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat, and repeat.
You ignore the actual censorship going on, and you "virtue signal" about how much you oppose theoretical censorship that you see so very clearly in your minds.
You choke on a gnat and swallow a camel.
-
Best way to teach someone.
@DiogenesLamp
You have a lot to learn, so I'll keep it in mind.
-
If we leave things as they are, they will resume what was briefly interrupted by the current man we have who fights.
Trump is claiming that NBC is lying about him saying that the US needs to expand its nuclear arsenal. Trump actually said in a Reuters interview back in January that the US needs to expand its nuclear arsenal. I provided a link to the interview earlier in the thread. Now Trump is suggesting that the administration will target "licenses" (I guess for the sake of the discussion we'll just go along with the whole "license" thing) of networks, supposedly for spreading false news, except it's not false news. So what is really happening here is that for whatever reason now Trump doesn't want people to know he said the same thing in a private meeting that he said in an interview several months prior. Do you think it's a good precedent to set that an administration can threaten to target any news media when they report something it doesn't like? So let's just say this administration goes through and cleans house at all the 'fake news' networks. What happens during the next administration when they don't like what the current network is reporting?
-
It certainly appeared that since Fox came around that it was the monopoly breaker - considering its tendency to be more objective than the other three legacy tv networks.
Fox was killing those guys in viewership and going strong - then, plump. They began acting like the others more and more, hiring actors like Kelly instead of true reporters. Drumming up enough negatives to sit O'Reilly down.
Rupert Murdoch turned operations over to his two sons who are very Liberal. They started wrecking the place.
Now, they are little better than the alternatives, and their credibility has tanked as a result, allowing the others to catch back up.
Too bad, I thought we had the market forces breaking that monopoly.
I did too, but it just goes to show how quickly our fortunes can turn. The folk that can afford to operate in this zone of wealthy are usually liberal, and they will often put social acceptance among their "peers" as being more important to them than objectivity.
-
I think there is no concept of unintended consequences anymore. There's no forward thought to what happens the next time liberals (the ones who call themselves liberals instead of trying to hide it) gain the majority.
@RoosGirl
I don't think they care. They're on a high, having too much fun watching 'splodey heads 'splode, as a scholar once said.
-
If we leave things as they are, they will resume what was briefly interrupted by the current man we have who fights.
@DiogenesLamp
Not fight..." flails."
Trump flails.
-
And for the record...as of 2015 NBC owns and operates 11 stations and has affiliate agreements with 222 other stations across the country.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NBC_television_affiliates_(by_U.S._state)
And some people just want to talk about "cake".
-
Luckily we have you to translate for us.
:laugh: Only here to help, dear.
-
@DCPatriot
Exactly. Trump is just getting them all spun up to report on 'fake news'. He knows exactly how to play the MSM.
Now, as you point out, he has fake news channels doing story after story on fake news. It's kind of hilarious in a way.
Earlier I saw people enjoying some fake irony. (because they were using their assumptions and applying them to us.)
It's a shame they aren't noticing the real irony. :)
-
Wow. 10 pages of absolute shit generated in one day. Doesn't anyone here have an effing job? This bullshit that Donny threw out has absolutely no bearing on anything even remotely important to anyone's lives. It's Class A minutia.
This actually seems mildly important to me over this NBC bullshit, but then again I am not on Medicaid, Medicare or use a Voodoo Doctor for my healthcare so I guess that is why it makes no noise on this forum.....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-11/trump-sign-executive-order-obamacare-tomorrow-morning
-
@DiogenesLamp
You have a lot to learn, so I'll keep it in mind.
I'll take knowledge wherever I can find it, so I look forward to the time when you eventually convey some worthwhile information.
-
Trump is claiming that NBC is lying about him saying that the US needs to expand its nuclear arsenal.
I don't care about the specifics. What is significant to me is that Trump has launched people into thinking about a situation that I have been trying to get people to grasp for nearly a decade.
Don't focus on a tree, look at the forest.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Not fight..." flails."
Trump flails.
Thank you for that accurate clarification.
-
@RoosGirl
I don't think they care. They're on a high, having too much fun watching 'splodey heads 'splode, as a scholar once said.
You think we are playing checkers. We are playing chess. *You* are playing checkers.
-
@DiogenesLamp
Not fight..." flails."
Trump flails.
For some reason that D@mned fool just keeps on winning!
-
Wow. 10 pages of absolute shit generated in one day. Doesn't anyone here have an effing job? This bullshit that Donny threw out has absolutely no bearing on anything even remotely important to anyone's lives. It's Class A minutia.
This actually seems mildly important to me over this NBC bullshit, but then again I am not on Medicaid, Medicare or use a Voodoo Doctor for my healthcare so I guess that is why it makes no noise on this forum.....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-11/trump-sign-executive-order-obamacare-tomorrow-morning
Dammit Frank, we're on a roll. Don't interrupt this very important topic. Unless you would like to explain what Voodoo Doctors are available in my area, and then I'm all ears.
-
If I remember right, Trump made some noise a while back about altering libel laws to go after alleged "fake news" outlets. And his supporters just yawned.
@Applewood[/member
@CatherineofAragon
Yes, he wanted to change the laws so he could sue them. He would like to shut down all news except Fox and then he would find something wrong with them, and shut them down, then he would be the only source of news and his news is fake every day. Luckily, he can't do jack with news organizations.
He is a freaking basket case and is going to start a war with North Korea with his mouth. That is important, not his fight with football players and Republican Senators. He will start another chaos shortly. "Chaos Trump."
-
Wow. 10 pages of absolute shit generated in one day. Doesn't anyone here have an effing job? This bullshit that Donny threw out has absolutely no bearing on anything even remotely important to anyone's lives. It's Class A minutia.
This actually seems mildly important to me over this NBC bullshit, but then again I am not on Medicaid, Medicare or use a Voodoo Doctor for my healthcare so I guess that is why it makes no noise on this forum.....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-10-11/trump-sign-executive-order-obamacare-tomorrow-morning
NATS forced a Game 5...... Strasburg, 12K in seven innings.
-
Dammit Frank, we're on a roll. Don't interrupt this very important topic. Unless you would like to explain what Voodoo Doctors are available in my area, and then I'm all ears.
Might I suggest Dr Bombay. He still makes house calls.....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uek7eNq4MkE/S9-5l6BN0AI/AAAAAAAAClE/oQtnr8ndZtA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Gold+in+Them+Thar+Pills.jpg)
-
I don't care about the specifics. What is significant to me is that Trump has launched people into thinking about a situation that I have been trying to get people to grasp for nearly a decade.
Don't focus on a tree, look at the forest.
I care about specifics that make the premise of the entire argument that has been going back and forth a lie. I care about lies.
But, if you want me to look at the forest, the we will agree to disagree that the government has any business threatening a private business for reporting things the government doesn't like them reporting.
-
Might I suggest Dr Bombay. He still makes house calls.....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uek7eNq4MkE/S9-5l6BN0AI/AAAAAAAAClE/oQtnr8ndZtA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Gold+in+Them+Thar+Pills.jpg)
Oh man that glassware lights me up!
-
Might I suggest Dr Bombay. He still makes house calls.....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_uek7eNq4MkE/S9-5l6BN0AI/AAAAAAAAClE/oQtnr8ndZtA/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Gold+in+Them+Thar+Pills.jpg)
This is a good opportunity for me to mention that I am married to Elizabeth Montgomery's second cousin who looks very much like her. Yes, her mother's name was "Montgomery", and yes her famous cousin Elizabeth used to show up at their family gatherings.
I almost never talk about my personal life, but I am some what pleased with myself about this. I used to have the hots for Elizabeth when I was young, and I ended up with the next best thing.
:)
-
I care about specifics that make the premise of the entire argument that has been going back and forth a lie. I care about lies.
You care about lies but you are indignant about this crap? Look around. The whole thing is a lie. The Fed has propped up our economy on a lie based on fake economic numbers based on free money. The govt' is a lie from top to bottom. You don't have to look any further than all the noise we got from the GOP about Obamacare. When the rubber met the road we found out that it was all lies and they love central govt' controls. Look further out. The world economy is basically the same house of cards that the US economy is. You don't have to look any further than Brexit, Catalonia and all the other places that are removing themselves from the shitshows they are tied to. Even the silly Kurds are splintering off on their own which is going to be a powder keg exploding shortly.
What doesn't interest me anymore are the lies. They are too numerous. What interests me is the truth and if it still exists.
-
I care about specifics that make the premise of the entire argument that has been going back and forth a lie. I care about lies.
Apparently except when it comes to ending them.
But, if you want me to look at the forest, the we will agree to disagree that the government has any business threatening a private business for reporting things the government doesn't like them reporting.
We don't disagree about this no matter how much you and your friends keep wrongly insisting that we do, but the threat isn't because they report things the "government doesn't like", it's because they are LYING and CENSORING, which do not serve the public interest in a manner for which their broadcast licenses were granted.
You are aware the public owns the airwaves, are you not? Should not our custodians of this trust insure that it serves the public's interest?
Among other things in my life, I have studied FCC broadcasting regulations, and one of the prohibitions was "false or deceptive transmissions."
-
You care about lies but you are indignant about this crap? Look around. The whole thing is a lie. The Fed has propped up our economy on a lie based on fake economic numbers based on free money. The govt' is a lie from top to bottom. You don't have to look any further than all the noise we got from the GOP about Obamacare. When the rubber met the road we found out that it was all lies and they love central govt' controls. Look further out. The world economy is basically the same house of cards that the US economy is. You don't have to look any further than Brexit, Catalonia and all the other places that are removing themselves from the shitshows they are tied to. Even the silly Kurds are splintering off on their own which is going to be a powder keg exploding shortly.
What doesn't interest me anymore are the lies. They are too numerous. What interests me is the truth and if it still exists.
You cycle back and forth between silly and profound. I like it.
-
This is a good opportunity for me to mention that I am married to Elizabeth Montgomery's second cousin who looks very much like her. Yes, her mother's name was "Montgomery", and yes her famous cousin Elizabeth used to show up at their family gatherings.
I almost never talk about my personal life, but I am some what pleased with myself about this. I used to have the hots for Elizabeth when I was young, and I ended up with the next best thing.
:)
Wow! That's friggin AWESOME!
Glad to finally confirm that someone else is also banging a hot chick.
-
You cycle back and forth between silly and profound. I like it.
Dr Bombay has me off on my meds. You gotta get that right balance between the scotch, Quaaludes and penicillin.
-
You care about lies but you are indignant about this crap? Look around. The whole thing is a lie. The Fed has propped up our economy on a lie based on fake economic numbers based on free money. The govt' is a lie from top to bottom. You don't have to look any further than all the noise we got from the GOP about Obamacare. When the rubber met the road we found out that it was all lies and they love central govt' controls. Look further out. The world economy is basically the same house of cards that the US economy is. You don't have to look any further than Brexit, Catalonia and all the other places that are removing themselves from the shitshows they are tied to. Even the silly Kurds are splintering off on their own which is going to be a powder keg exploding shortly.
What doesn't interest me anymore are the lies. They are too numerous. What interests me is the truth and if it still exists.
I completely agree with everything you say. And I have absolutely no control over any of it. I do have control over my opinion that Fed Gov meddling in yet one more f'ing thing doesn't come anywhere close to making any of the above situation better. And letting go of the ideal of our COTUS, which is what this thing essentially boils down to, ain't gonna happen. I'll probably never be ready to just say 'eff it' and not care what "they" do.
-
Wow! That's friggin AWESOME!
Glad to finally confirm that someone else is also banging a hot chick.
I figured you would get it. You seem to have the proper sort of appreciation for feminine beauty.
:)
-
Wow! That's friggin AWESOME!
Glad to finally confirm that someone else is also banging a hot chick.
You mean besides Trump?
-
I completely agree with everything you say. And I have absolutely no control over any of it. I do have control over my opinion that Fed Gov meddling in yet one more f'ing thing doesn't come anywhere close to making any of the above situation better. And letting go of the ideal of our COTUS, which is what this thing essentially boils down to, ain't gonna happen. I'll probably never be ready to just say 'eff it' and not care what "they" do.
Something which you may not have considered is this: Sometimes when you can't make things better, you can make them better by making them worse.
Grant understood this concept.
“I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”
– Ulysses S. Grant
-
For some reason that D@mned fool just keeps on winning!
You've misspelled 'whining'.
-
Something which you may not have considered is this: Sometimes when you can't make things better, you can make them better by making them worse.
Grant understood this concept.
“I know no method to secure the repeal of bad or obnoxious laws so effective as their stringent execution.”
– Ulysses S. Grant
With as worse as things have gotten they damn sure should be getting better soon. I'm afraid our history teaches us that Fed Gov does not remove its fingers from anything it takes though. I can't think of anything that has gotten better with more regulation.
-
I completely agree with everything you say. And I have absolutely no control over any of it. I do have control over my opinion that Fed Gov meddling in yet one more f'ing thing doesn't come anywhere close to making any of the above situation better. And letting go of the ideal of our COTUS, which is what this thing essentially boils down to, ain't gonna happen. I'll probably never be ready to just say 'eff it' and not care what "they" do.
But you should feel comforted by the fact that it is the Fed Govt' meddling and they are consistently bad at following through and doing anything anymore.
-
Don't focus on a tree, look at the forest.
Ahhh ... So the ends justify the means...
-
You mean besides Trump?
Are you a hot chick? I'm always looking for a spare just in case.
-
Are you a hot chick? I'm always looking for a spare just in case.
Are we talking about temper or looks?
-
Are we talking about temper or looks?
I want the whole package.
-
I want the whole package.
Too bad for you then, I'm nobody's spare.
-
Too bad for you then, I'm nobody's spare.
Fair enough. What do you have on the table to move you up to the expensive seats?
-
Fair enough. What do you have on the table to move you up to the expensive seats?
Bitch please.
-
Dr Bombay has me off on my meds. You gotta get that right balance between the scotch, Quaaludes and penicillin.
Balance is for those thing djt grabs.
-
Bitch please.
Hey. Just curious about things. How do you look in Loubs? How fast can you immobilize a man with a 4ft piece of hemp? Do you put mayo on your burger?
-
Hey. Just curious about things. How do you look in Loubs? How fast can you immobilize a man with a 4ft piece of hemp? Do you put mayo on your burger?
1. Louboutins? Pfft, overpriced and overstyled Uggs (http://images.us.christianlouboutin.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/1200x/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/3/1/6/1/christianlouboutin-glorymount-3161027_CN33_1_1200x1200_1470391335.jpg)
2. Speed is unimportant in such things.
3. Is this some sort of gross euphemism for something?
-
What "risk"?
As @DiogenesLamp eloquently spelled out, NBC, CNN, and others are censoring information that is very damaging to the DEM Party.
...and too many Hollywood 'stars' who remained silent knowing about his reputation and proclivities.
They do this for the sole reason of affecting elections and assisting the Left push their Agenda.
...robbing us of "Consent".
That is something, for which the American People would get behind a President. And would it be 'Populist'? Or Constitutionally mandated he do somthing about it?
Precedent. Precedent when the burgeoning internet is replacing the MSM for where people get news. Precedent that another Obama or Hillary could use to clamp down iwth.
What influence do they have? Despite their best efforts the GOP runs the country and the Dems are in shambles.
Like I said, the only people the MSM seems to influence is our GOP congress critters. If they'd quit being scared and get off their butts to do something, they could put the Dem party away for decades.
-
1. Louboutins? Pfft, overpriced and overstyled Uggs (http://images.us.christianlouboutin.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/1200x/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/3/1/6/1/christianlouboutin-glorymount-3161027_CN33_1_1200x1200_1470391335.jpg)
2. Speed is unimportant in such things.
3. Is this some sort of gross euphemism for something?
1. Ugg (sound of exasperation)
2. Awesome answer
3. I hate mayo except in deviled eggs. If you put it on burgers I will be disgusted and have to hit the ignore button.
-
1. Ugg (sound of exasperation)
2. Awesome answer
3. I hate mayo except in deviled eggs. If you put it on burgers I will be disgusted and have to hit the ignore button.
You probably put sweet relish in your deviled eggs which is more reason to put someone on ignore than mayo on a burger. However, to answer your question, the dried out crap burgers you get from any restaurant need mayo. A well made, homemade burger with beef that has the correct fat ratio is flavorful and juicy enough not to need it.
-
1. Louboutins? Pfft, overpriced and overstyled Uggs (http://images.us.christianlouboutin.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/1200x/602f0fa2c1f0d1ba5e241f914e856ff9/3/1/6/1/christianlouboutin-glorymount-3161027_CN33_1_1200x1200_1470391335.jpg)
2. Speed is unimportant in such things.
3. Is this some sort of gross euphemism for something?
This thread is turning into late 80's USA Up All Night.
Which is an improvement.
-
You probably put sweet relish in your deviled eggs which is more reason to put someone on ignore than mayo on a burger. However, to answer your question, the dried out crap burgers you get from any restaurant need mayo. A well made, homemade burger with beef that has the correct fat ratio is flavorful and juicy enough not to need it.
A) The only thing that goes on a deviled egg is paprika and an olive. If I see sweet relish out at a picnic I throw it away to save others from the indignity.
B) High rollers like me do not eat "crap burgers" so I have no need for mayo.....but I was reading a Redbook at the Dentists office and found you can use mayo to get gum out of hair. I also learned that you can make 8 different meals out of a bag of rice, a rutabega and a can of Campbell's Beef Consume.
-
This thread is turning into late 80's USA Up All Night.
Which is an improvement.
Ah shit. You found us out. I am indeed Gilbert Gottfried and Roos is in reality Rhonda Shear.
(http://www.vegasnews.com/wp-content/uploads/8_14_10_HSN_kabik-125-12-570.jpg)
If you could keep this under your hat it would be appreciated. We don't want the other posters to treat us differently because we're A list celebs.
-
A) The only thing that goes on a deviled egg is paprika and an olive. If I see sweet relish out at a picnic I throw it away to save others from the indignity.
B) High rollers like me do not eat "crap burgers" so I have no need for mayo.....but I was reading a Redbook at the Dentists office and found you can use mayo to get gum out of hair. I also learned that you can make 8 different meals out of a bag of rice, a rutabega and a can of Campbell's Beef Consume.
I'm a low roller. Can I use mayo to get the hair out of my gum when I leave on the bedpost overnight?
-
A) The only thing that goes on a deviled egg is paprika and an olive. If I see sweet relish out at a picnic I throw it away to save others from the indignity.
B) High rollers like me do not eat "crap burgers" so I have no need for mayo.....but I was reading a Redbook at the Dentists office and found you can use mayo to get gum out of hair. I also learned that you can make 8 different meals out of a bag of rice, a rutabega and a can of Campbell's Beef Consume.
First of all, no paprika and no olive; that stuff on deviled eggs is so white trash. The most delicious deviled egg is mayo, *dill* relish, a very small dash of dry mustard powder and Nature's Season. That is it. You make egg salad with the same ingredients.
I think I'd rather slit my wrists than get meal advice from Redbook. I didn't realize that high rollers went to dentists that had shitty mag like Redbook in the waiting room. Mine has Garden & Gun and Architectural Digest.
-
I think I'd rather slit my wrists than get meal advice from Redbook. I didn't realize that high rollers went to dentists that had shitty mag like Redbook in the waiting room. Mine has Garden & Gun and Architectural Digest.
Alright. You got me. It wasn't a Redbook at the dentist. It was a 22 year old Hustler at my bookies.....but the advice still seems sound.
BTW your eggs sound downright unAmerican. You raised in some sort of hippie commune?
-
You raised in some sort of hippie commune?
What of it?
-
I'm a low roller. Can I use mayo to get the hair out of my gum when I leave on the bedpost overnight?
Wow, mayo flavored gum sounds incredible.
-
What of it?
Just feeling you out. You still know anyone from the old neighborhood? My pot dealer got busted last week and I need a new connection.
-
Wow, mayo flavored gum sounds incredible.
(http://replygif.net/i/1096.gif)
-
I'm a low roller. Can I use mayo to get the hair out of my gum when I leave on the bedpost overnight?
If your gums are growing hair, you need to let the mash set another night.
-
(http://replygif.net/i/1096.gif)
LOL I shit you not, my mother, who is normally a pretty good cook is describing this dip that a friend of hers makes that is soooo delicious. She starts telling me it is a mixture of some unfathomable amount of mayo, diced onions and mozzarella cheese that you then bake in the oven. So that's a big nope for me.
My husband will not eat anything with mayo even near it.
-
My husband will not eat anything with mayo even near it.
Obviously a man of discriminating tastes.
-
For some reason that D@mned fool just keeps on winning!
Treading water in the swamp may just be winning in his case.
-
Today’s journalists have abdicated their duty under the constitution. There’s no penumbra in the first amendment that would protect the press from deliberate lying to the public.
Broadcasters must meet certain obligations to the public in order to renew their licenses. So, why shouldn’t a news network be held to a simple standard of veracity?
Well, better late than never. We have been listening to increasing levels of lies since Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam War "Lost" even as Marines were finishing off the last major cadre of VC in Hue.
-
What a moron.
You looking for a job as SoS? It will likely be available in a few weeks, a month tops.
-
36% is still a very small percentage. The bulk of that concentrated in New York and LA with Chigaco in the mix as well.
Ok so even if I agree with the premise that is a big chunk (I don't) the second and third order effects by suck a stupid move would put HUNDREDS of locally owned and operated stations out if business.
Where is the sense in that simply because Trump is throwing a tantrum?
Once again, I am not defending what Trump did. He is effectively censoring.
-
@driftdiver
Why not? You've said before that posting negative things about Trump damages him, so apparently we on this forum have more power than we ever imagined.
@CatherineofAragon
I think I said it was boring. Now I'm not suggesting you are boring, just the constant fixation with everything is bad the sky is falling trump is a buffooon gets old after the first year or so.
-
Once again, I am not defending what Trump did. He is effectively censoring.
@IsailedawayfromFR no I know you're not. Trust me my quarrel on this isn't with you.
-
Well, better late than never. We have been listening to increasing levels of lies since Walter Cronkite declared the Vietnam War "Lost" even as Marines were finishing off the last major cadre of VC in Hue.
@Smokin Joe
If it weren't for the media we would have 'won' the war in Vietnam.
-
Trump is correct for calling out NBC. Broadcasters must meet certain obligations to the public in order to renew their licenses. So, why shouldn’t a news network be held to a simple standard of veracity?
If they are committing libel, then he can sue. But yanking the licenses is dictator stuff.
With the One Rump, the right has lost all moral authority, at least for the people who defended him. If Douche Limpballs loses his broadcast license under a leftist president, he has nobody to blame but himself, because he supported the One Rump. All the idiot loudmouths on AM stations frankly will have no moral authority.
Not to mention the fact that the One Rump doesn't know what he's talking about, there are only licenses for local affiliate broadcasters. There are no cable TV licenses. But you knew that.
-
@Smokin Joe
If it weren't for the media we would have 'won' the war in Vietnam.
Have you noticed the wall-to-wall news coverage of the public corruption trial of senator Menendez (D), NJ? Of course not! The airwaves are dead silent. If he had (R) after his name the court proceedings would have preempted daytime soaps and been televised live on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and probably FOX.
Why would I bring this up? Because the media’s power to ignore (thanks, @DCPatriot) is equally destructive of Americans’ freedoms as are their FAKE NEWS stories.
-
Have you noticed the wall-to-wall news coverage of the public corruption trial of senator Menendez (D), NJ? Of course not! The airwaves are dead silent. If he had (R) after his name the court proceedings would have preempted daytime soaps and be televised live on NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and probably FOX.
Why would I bring this up? Because the media’s power to ignore (thanks, @DCPatriot) is equally destructive of Americans’ freedoms as are their FAKE NEWS stories.
So you would force the media to cover stories it is supposedly ignoring? And what would happen when a Democrat President came to power? Would I be forced to hear about gender equality and climate change all day long on conservative platforms?
-
Rose McGowan’s Twitter account suspended: ‘There are powerful forces at work’
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/10/GettyImages-2251400-640x480.jpg)
Oct. 12 (UPI) — Rose McGowan was informed Wednesday that her Twitter account has been suspended as the actress continued to speak out against Harvey Weinstein and others for their sexual misconduct.
“TWITTER HAS SUSPENDED ME. THERE ARE POWERFUL FORCES AT WORK. BE MY VOICE. #ROSEARMY,” McGowan wrote on Instagram to inform her followers of what happened to her Twitter account.
McGowan also shared a photo of the notification Twitter sent her stating that she would not be able to tweet, retweet or like other tweets for 12 hours.
“We have determined this account violated the Twitter Rules, so we’ve temporarily limited some of your account features,” the message from the social media company read.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/rose-mcgowans-twitter-account-suspended-there-are-powerful-forces-at-work/
But of course *WE* will be able to rely on an internet that is controlled 90% by left wing people in Silicon Valley.
-
What influence do they have? Despite their best efforts the GOP runs the country and the Dems are in shambles.
This statement overlooks what I have become aware is a real problem; Too many GOP are Democrats in disguise.
We actually have only a small number of people in Congress that are actually GOP.
-
This statement overlooks what I have become aware is a real problem; Too many GOP are Democrats in disguise.
We actually have only a small number of people in Congress that are actually GOP.
Exactly. Even if the Republicans could get airtime, their lack of a message makes that airtime less than worthless.
-
Treading water in the swamp may just be winning in his case.
I think surprising/scaring the local swamp dwellers is also key to improving things.
(http://patriotrising.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/trump-swamp15.jpg)
-
But of course *WE* will be able to rely on an internet that is controlled 90% by left wing people in Silicon Valley.
What outlet have you founded?
-
So you would force the media to cover stories it is supposedly ignoring? And what would happen when a Democrat President came to power? Would I be forced to hear about gender equality and climate change all day long on conservative platforms?
No one seems to want to address this. It seem to me a worse problem than the current situation.
-
Rose McGowan’s Twitter account suspended: ‘There are powerful forces at work’
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2017/10/GettyImages-2251400-640x480.jpg)
http://www.breitbart.com/news/rose-mcgowans-twitter-account-suspended-there-are-powerful-forces-at-work/
But of course *WE* will be able to rely on an internet that is controlled 90% by left wing people in Silicon Valley.
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user245717/imageroot/2017/10/04/2017.10.12affleck.JPG)
-
What outlet have you founded?
You are making this about me? Let's just accept the premise that I am worthless, and turn our attention back to the problem that great forces are at work to censor the internet.
I don't see attacking me for not solving the problem all by my lonesome as a relevant point in this discussion.
-
What outlet have you founded?
@Suppressed
That is a bizarre statement.
-
(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user245717/imageroot/2017/10/04/2017.10.12affleck.JPG)
Yeah? So? Everyone's a hypocrite except for me.
-
No one seems to want to address this. It seem to me a worse problem than the current situation.
The media already serves as the mouthpiece of the left. You somehow think they could do more of this than they already do?
Looking at your theoretical argument, If the right gains power and forces the media to spew propaganda for the right, then that would be a change from what they are doing now. When the left resumes power, they would simply return to what they were doing before the right gained power.
One of the things I have suggested is that we simply use the power of government to force media corporations to refrain from discriminating against conservatives in their hiring and promotion practices.
They accept this idea when it comes to blacks, I'm just saying we can make them institute an affirmative action hiring policy for conservatives.
Conservatives make up something like 45% of the nation, so the media corporation's employment should reflect numbers that represent a staff made up of similar percentages.
Not having the "correct" quota of conservatives on your staff can constitute a violation of anti-discrimination laws. Big fines for discrimination can be imposed.
What's wrong with this approach? (Other than that we are using a Liberal principle to achieve this result.)
-
This statement overlooks what I have become aware is a real problem; Too many GOP are Democrats in disguise.
We actually have only a small number of people in Congress that are actually GOP.
This is true. Yet the GOP is a winning brand, and there is a golden opportunity to pick up a number of seats in '18. At least a dozen are argueably on the table.
That means getting good people in primaries who are conservative and either beating the incumbent or getting the nomination and winning the general.
If we walk in next year with 60+ seats, then it's going to require 10 or more defectors rather than 3 (McCain, Collins, Murkowski). That's a great deal harder to make excuses for when bills don't get enough votes.
-
So you would force the media to cover stories it is supposedly ignoring? And what would happen when a Democrat President came to power? Would I be forced to hear about gender equality and climate change all day long on conservative platforms?
Excellent point and the answer to your two questions is yes.
People don't seem to grasp the law of unintended consequences.
-
So you would force the media to cover stories it is supposedly ignoring? And what would happen when a Democrat President came to power? Would I be forced to hear about gender equality and climate change all day long on conservative platforms?
Why should the only recourse be, for a willfully damaging news story based upon lies and innuendos from anonymous sources, to force them to rebut it on their own networks?
How does one reach the audience of the affected with sinister lies, meant to keep their viewers from knowing the TRUTH?
Do you force them to cover previously ignored stories? NO!
You charge them with willful intent to deceive the People of the USA and then you prove it in a public trial.
President Trump is merely snapping his fingers to bring everyone's attention to the matter.
-
Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.
NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?
NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?
In whose interest is that?
Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?
-
Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.
NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?
NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?
In whose interest is that?
Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?
AP spiked stories about Russian genocide in the 1930's in Siberia and the NYT downplayed the NAZI Holocaust for all of WWII.
This is nothing new. Just like media having a Liberal bent is as predictable as the sun coming up.
If this was Obama threatening Fox your attitude would be completely different...in fact it probably was every time he badmouthed FNC.
You're all about revenge.
The First Amendment protects NBC even when they are acting the way the are. It doesn't just protect speech you agree with...but that with which you disagree with as well.
-
Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.
NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?
NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?
In whose interest is that?
Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?
Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or otherwise “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking. Most conservatives would have screamed bloody murder had Obama threatened this on Fox News but many Trump supporters are all-in when Donald effectively threatens censorship. It seems to me that you either have conservative/Constitutional principles or you don’t.
-
Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or other “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking. Most conservatives would have screamed bloody murder had Obama threatened this on Fox News but many Trump supporters are all-in when Donald effectively threatens censorship. It seems to me that you either have conservative/Constitutional principles or you don’t.
That's the bottom line.
Revenge, getting even, censorship, and "fairness" are not conservative principles.
-
Reminds me of the young woman who knows her boyfriend is a dirty rotten scoundrel. He cheats on her, treats her like dirt, humiliates her in front of her friends. But, she just can’t let go and stays with him through all the abuse.
“Lie to me again, Johnny.”
-
Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or other “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking. Most conservatives would have screamed bloody murder had Obama threatened this on Fox News but many Trump supporters are all-in when Donald effectively threatens censorship. It seems to me that you either have conservative/Constitutional principles or you don’t.
:amen: :amen:
The constitution is a suicide pact.
-
Here is a question for Trump’s critics defending NBC’s freedom to print lies.
NBC has a news blackout on the Harvey Weinstein story. Any guesses why?
NBC Universal (parent company of NBC) does millions in business with the Weinstein company. No big deal, you say? They’re just exercising their power to ignore, you say?
In whose interest is that?
Still trust NBC to uphold the public’s interest?
Fascinating how you twist what others have said into a "you-hate-Trump-so-you-love-NBC-and-defend-their-lies" tommyrot.
I guess those ridiculous false ad hominems are all you've got when you have to defend a direct violation of the First Amendment. :shrug:
-
Reminds me of the young woman who knows her boyfriend is a dirty rotten scoundrel. He cheats on her, treats her like dirt, humiliates her in front of her friends. But, she just can’t let go and stays with him through all the abuse.
“Lie to me again, Johnny.”
While what you are advocating is that the young woman go in direct violation of the law to stop her boyfriend.
SOME of us actually believe in the law, and want it upheld.
@aligncare
-
Open up the market and allow anyone to play who wants to.
That will never happen. A few years back 1999 ish, Congress told the FCC to
allow low power broadcasters (under 100 watts) to operate without a license.
I immediately bought all the equipment I would need to operate a 40 watt
station. I also bought a beer joint to put it in. I was going to be rich radio
station/beer joint. Well guess what, the BIG broadcasters flipped out. No way
they could complete against 10,000 jpsbs broadcast original content. They
lobbied Congress and the ban on anything over a 1/4 watt was restored. I got
stuck with 5,000 in useless equipment and a run down beer joint. Thanks a lot
Congress.
-
@Smokin Joe
If it weren't for the media we would have 'won' the war in Vietnam.
Precisely.
-
You are not a moron. You just say moron things like this.
Trump is exactly right to do this. I have been trying to get people to threaten these propaganda bastards for years, and Trump is finally the man with enough guts to do it!
The media corporations are our enemy. They are the propaganda corps for the left in this nation, and they have been manipulating elections with their lies, their omissions, and their spin, and it's way past time we did a frontal assault on their legitimacy and their continued lawful operation in this country.
Yes, pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with. I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me. I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them, I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them, I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats.
These are our enemies, and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election, and probably a lot longer than that.
We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.
I would like to quote your post a hundred times on this thread because it is absolutely true.
The media has way too much power to lie, to slant, to ignore and to shape our perception of reality.
They have to be curtailed from lying. I would make the ability to sue the media easier to do. Right now, it's almost impossible because one has to prove intent to harm and that is a nebulous thing to try and prove.
But it's totally obvious that there is both intent to harm and harm done.
-
This is true. Yet the GOP is a winning brand, and there is a golden opportunity to pick up a number of seats in '18. At least a dozen are argueably on the table.
That means getting good people in primaries who are conservative and either beating the incumbent or getting the nomination and winning the general.
If we walk in next year with 60+ seats, then it's going to require 10 or more defectors rather than 3 (McCain, Collins, Murkowski). That's a great deal harder to make excuses for when bills don't get enough votes.
As long as people continue to be 'pragmatic' and vote party, we will continue to get politicians. The ENTIRE reason the congress is paralyzed right now is because of pragmatism being the word, rather than Conservatism. Vote for men who will undoubtedly stand for Conservative principles, and you will begin to tip the balance the other way.
We NEED tried and true, true-blue, rock-ribbed, Conservative statesmen, and literally nothing else will do.
Until the American people understand that, nothing will change.
this current government is a symptom (including Tump).
-
AP spiked stories about Russian genocide in the 1930's in Siberia and the NYT downplayed the NAZI Holocaust for all of WWII.
This is nothing new. Just like media having a Liberal bent is as predictable as the sun coming up.
If this was Obama threatening Fox your attitude would be completely different...in fact it probably was every time he badmouthed FNC.
You're all about revenge.
The First Amendment protects NBC even when they are acting the way the are. It doesn't just protect speech you agree with...but that with which you disagree with as well.
Yes!! Revenge. I want revenge against a slanted media which has lied to us for years, covered up for Hillary and Obama and trashed Trump with every breath.
What do we know about Obama after 9 years in the public eye? Zip, zero, nada. His secrets (and I know they are many) are still safe in the closet behind the coats and boots. Why? Because this media loves and protects him. Yes, I want to hurt them.
And what about that beloved couple, The Clinton's. Murderers, rapists, cheaters, liars or just lovable good old boys and girls. Depends on the media, of course.
Yes, I would LOVE some revenge. Make them prove the truth of what they print. Make them give equal time to people who want to refute their stories. Grind them into dust and salt the ground.
-
You are making this about me? Let's just accept the premise that I am worthless, and turn our attention back to the problem that great forces are at work to censor the internet.
I don't see attacking me for not solving the problem all by my lonesome as a relevant point in this discussion.
Nice try to weasel out.
You were the one whining about how a high percentage of the media is left-wing, yet you've done nothing to change that. Rather than lift a finger, your first reaction is to try to tear down America's Constitution.
Let's just accept the premise that I am worthless
No. Because attacking America's foundation is worse than worthless.
I encourage you to rethink your position.
-
During the election, we were told to ignore the odors of fascism that seemed to be wafting from some corners of the Trump campaign.
Now, we're told to breathe deeply and inhale the full-fledged stench of government-controlled media.
-
I would like to quote your post a hundred times on this thread because it is absolutely true.
The media has way too much power to lie, to slant, to ignore and to shape our perception of reality.
They have to be curtailed from lying. I would make the ability to sue the media easier to do. Right now, it's almost impossible because one has to prove intent to harm and that is a nebulous thing to try and prove.
But it's totally obvious that there is both intent to harm and harm done.
That cannot - CANNOT - be done with regulation. All you are doing is setting up the Office of Propaganda. If you find it so repugnant, then encourage libel and slander suits. That is what is supposed to keep them flying right and telling the truth.
-
That cannot - CANNOT - be done with regulation. All you are doing is setting up the Office of Propaganda. If you find it so repugnant, then encourage libel and slander suits. That is what is supposed to keep them flying right and telling the truth.
Well, that's what I said, isn't it?
I suggested making the standard for suing low enough so that it is possible to do so.
And, you don't find it repugnant that the media has lied to us for years? I do. If you're from TOS, remember the joy in the land when Dan Rather was outed for blatantly lying about George W. Bush. One of TOS's finest moments.
As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power. What do we know about Obama? Nothing.
What do we know about Sarah Palin? Everything, including where she does her laundry.
If only the left put as much value on the right to bear arms as they do on free speech.
How many laws have been made abridging the right to bear arms in some ways? Yeah, right.
And how many laws have been passed abridging some of the total rights of the media to lie, scam, slant and omit?
-
Yes!! Revenge. I want revenge against a slanted media which has lied to us for years, covered up for Hillary and Obama and trashed Trump with every breath.
You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge? Really? That is at least as cringe-worthy as just about anything Obama or Clinton has ever done.
-
You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge? Really? That is at least as cringe-worthy as just about anything Obama or Clinton has ever done.
It's all about the feels, baby.
-
It's all about the feels, baby.
I'm appalled. Just about everything the Never Trump people have been warning us about Trump, right there in that one little word, "revenge." Government enforced revenge. **nononono*
-
”As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power. What do we know about Obama? Nothing.
“What do we know about Sarah Palin? Everything, including where she does her laundry.”
I love these two lines!
Any constitutionalist should be feeling their blood boil.
The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.
-
I'm appalled. Just about everything the Never Trump people have been warning us about Trump, right there in that one little word, "revenge." Government enforced revenge. **nononono*
Chilling, isn't it?
-
The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.
There isn't one party rule over the media. Conservatives these days have as many or more choices than they have ever had.
-
There isn't one party rule over the media. Conservatives these days have as many or more choices than they have ever had.
Yeah, but didn't you see that 36% of households get the MSM channels in their living rooms? You know how you fix that? The gov't should impose required watching/listening times over a variety of channels.
-
Yeah, but didn't you see that 36% of households get the MSM channels in their living rooms? You know how you fix that? The gov't should impose required watching/listening times over a variety of channels.
We need to add visual sensors to TVs so we can monitor audience viewing for enforcement of the mandatory watching/listening.
-
Well, that's what I said, isn't it?
I suggested making the standard for suing low enough so that it is possible to do so.
It is possible to do so.
And, you don't find it repugnant that the media has lied to us for years? I do. If you're from TOS, remember the joy in the land when Dan Rather was outed for blatantly lying about George W. Bush. One of TOS's finest moments.
OF COURSE it offends me. And yes, I was there. I was on the very thread when it happened. THAT is how you beat the press. Magnify that process and keep them honest.
As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power. What do we know about Obama? Nothing.
What do we know about Sarah Palin? Everything, including where she does her laundry.
If only the left put as much value on the right to bear arms as they do on free speech.
How many laws have been made abridging the right to bear arms in some ways? Yeah, right.
And how many laws have been passed abridging some of the total rights of the media to lie, scam, slant and omit?
But those laws are existing already. Letting government mess with the press is exactly the wrong thing to do.
What will come of it will be the Office of Propaganda, mark my words.
-
We need to add visual sensors to TVs so we can monitor audience viewing for enforcement of the mandatory watching/listening.
Those sensors could be used for a lot of great things; making sure people are exercising enough, making sure they're eating the right things, reading the right books,etc. The possibilities are endless!
-
First 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.
It does NOT say that agencies of the FedGov have no role. The FCC was formed in 1934, and has regulated airwaves since then.
Under the current system, I just read that "White House staff says that Trump sometimes eats ice cream right from the container late at night....and leaves the spoon in the sink!!"
Could we go for a record number of posts, on that scandal?
FCC
"The Federal Communications Commission regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. An independent U.S. government agency overseen by Congress, the Commission is the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s communications law and regulations."
-
Those sensors could be used for a lot of great things; making sure people are exercising enough, making sure they're eating the right things, reading the right books,etc. The possibilities are endless!
:beer: :beer:
(Getting in the beer before the Well Being Gestapo bans it.)
-
You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge? Really? That is at least as cringe-worthy as just about anything Obama or Clinton has ever done.
Did I say that? Show me where I said that.
I said I want revenge.
But government has passed a lot of laws regulating and abridging the right to bear arms.
So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?
-
I am deeply offended by media lies, especially when those lies threaten my children’s future in an America which was handed down to us by the greatest generation relatively unchanged.
Today a 95 percent leftist media, plugged in to the democrat money machine, threatens that.
“Madam President Clinton” came close to being our reality. And that would have threatened the America that I inherited and love.
-
It is possible to do so.
OF COURSE it offends me. And yes, I was there. I was on the very thread when it happened. THAT is how you beat the press. Magnify that process and keep them honest.
But those laws are existing already. Letting government mess with the press is exactly the wrong thing to do.
What will come of it will be the Office of Propaganda, mark my words.
Oh, come on. We already have the Office of Propaganda. It's called the New York Times.
I am not afraid of requiring the press to be both free and fair and not lie. They lie every day. Sometimes they do it blatantly and sometimes they are more subtle. They can shape opinion so easily by totally ignoring some things, emphasizing others and shading the truth.
How about requiring the press to print disclaimers ? Would that hurt you? Are you afraid that will throw us into the pit of evil?
-
”As I said in an earlier post, the media DOES have too much power. What do we know about Obama? Nothing.
“What do we know about Sarah Palin? Everything, including where she does her laundry.”
I love these two lines!
Any constitutionalist should be feeling their blood boil.
The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.
Thank you. Me, too.
-
Did I say that? Show me where I said that.
I said I want revenge.
But government has passed a lot of laws regulating and abridging the right to bear arms.
So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?
Where did I get that? I quoted you. If I misspelled something, I guess I'm mixed up. If you don't think Big Government is what's required to pass the regulations you say are needed, then who is supposed to fill that function? If not Big Government, then who are you asking to be the instrument for your revenge? And, your last question...is that a serious question? "So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?"
I can't even begin to answer that one.
-
Where did I get that? I quoted you. If I misspelled something, I guess I'm mixed up. If you don't think Big Government is what's required to pass the regulations you say are needed, then who is supposed to fill that function? If not Big Government, then who are you asking to be the instrument for your revenge? And, your last question...is that a serious question? "So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?"
I can't even begin to answer that one.
Regulating bakers - bad. Regulating newspapers - good.
-
I am not afraid of requiring the press to be both free and fair and not lie.
That inevitably means a federally designated arbiter of truth. What happens when that 'Bureau of Truth' gets hijacked and bent to do the will of the Democrats next time?
You are literally advocating a Federal office of inquisition.
How about requiring the press to print disclaimers ? Would that hurt you? Are you afraid that will throw us into the pit of evil?
Knock yourself out. Probably just as useful as the disclaimers and warnings on a pack of cigarettes... Or the EULA you don't read when installing software.
-
Where did I get that? I quoted you. If I misspelled something, I guess I'm mixed up. If you don't think Big Government is what's required to pass the regulations you say are needed, then who is supposed to fill that function? If not Big Government, then who are you asking to be the instrument for your revenge? And, your last question...is that a serious question? "So why are you so terrified about some regulations being passed to regulate the press?"
I can't even begin to answer that one.
Why not? Why can't you begin to answer that one?
Laws and regulations are passed all the time. A lot of them have been extremely harmful to the country.
Some of the environmental regulations have been a huge overreach and hurt people.
What about Obamacare? Does that terrify you.
I'm not suggesting that government control the media. I'm just suggesting that a few regulations regarding truth in media wouldn't hurt either one of us.
The truth shall set you free.
-
I don’t eat baked goods. But, I consume news. Both affect me, but not in the same way.
What are we talking about here? A bakers dozen in Seattle? Your comparing that to the epidemic of propaganda and political lies tearing red and blue states apart?
I think a sense of proportion is called for here.
-
I'm not suggesting that government control the media. I'm just suggesting that a few regulations regarding truth in media wouldn't hurt either one of us.
The truth shall set you free.
Wow. Just wow. Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?" Who decides what the truth is?
-
That inevitably means a federally designated arbiter of truth. What happens when that 'Bureau of Truth' gets hijacked and bent to do the will of the Democrats next time?
You are literally advocating a Federal office of inquisition.
Knock yourself out. Probably just as useful as the disclaimers and warnings on a pack of cigarettes... Or the EULA you don't read when installing software.
Well, duh. How DID we kill cigarettes. The media did help there. They made it 'not cool' to smoke.
I'm not talking about that kind of disclaimer. I'm talking about allowing feedback. But, of course, the media would only print positive feedback ... I'll have to work on that.
But saying I want an 'arbiter of truth' is just another lie. I want truth and I don't trust one arbiter.
Stop arguing with me. I'm right and you know it.
-
I don’t eat baked goods. But, I consume news. Both affect me, but not in the same way.
What are we talking about here? A bakers dozen in Seattle? Your comparing that to the epidemic of propaganda and political lies tearing red and blue states apart?
I think a sense of proportion is called for here.
I agree. This idea of crushing the freedom of the press is far, far more destructive than who can put what on a cake.
-
Stop arguing with me. I'm right and you know it.
I know no such thing. But, I do know you guys are scaring the crap out of me. And, I highly doubt I will comply with your demand to not argue with you about this. You will have many voices not willing to STFU at your command.
-
Wow. Just wow. Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?" Who decides what the truth is?
Zackly.
-
Wow. Just wow. Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?" Who decides what the truth is?
Did I suggest a truth czar? I did not. I suggested a few regulations to hold the media's feet to the fire.
They should not be able to lie and slant the truth.
So, you don't know what the truth is? The truth is what is true. There now.
-
Wow. Just wow. Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?" Who decides what the truth is?
A better word to use is “facts.”
-
I know no such thing. But, I do know you guys are scaring the crap out of me. And, I highly doubt I will comply with your demand to not argue with you about this. You will have many voices not willing to STFU at your command.
Clearly pro-Trumpers love liberty as much as Democrats do... which isn't a whole lot.
-
A better word to use is “facts.”
OK, I have no trouble amending that. "Who would you appoint as "Fact Czar?" Who decides? What branch of the Government?
-
True “facts” are determined in court every day.
-
Stop arguing with me. I'm right and you know it.
No, you're not. Here's a good touchstone:
We're truing to make the federal government LESS powerful... To shrink it down to it's proper Constitutional boundaries. This is not doing that.
The arbiter of truth, right now, is the civil court. I like it like that.
-
The lying has to stop.
-
The lying has to stop.
Not by way of federal coercion.
You are becoming what you are supposed to fight against.
-
True “facts” are determined in court every day.
Poor example. The courts are becoming less reliable every day, as they stray from the Constitution and a nation of laws, to becoming a nation of men.
-
Not by way of federal coercion.
You are becoming what you are supposed to fight against.
They don't want "freedom of the press," they want to be the ones pulling the levers of the press. Some freedom.
-
As long as people continue to be 'pragmatic' and vote party, we will continue to get politicians. The ENTIRE reason the congress is paralyzed right now is because of pragmatism being the word, rather than Conservatism. Vote for men who will undoubtedly stand for Conservative principles, and you will begin to tip the balance the other way.
We NEED tried and true, true-blue, rock-ribbed, Conservative statesmen, and literally nothing else will do.
Until the American people understand that, nothing will change.
this current government is a symptom (including Tump).
:hands:
-
The Media Research Center had a bumper sticker a number of years back, “Don’t believe the lying media.”
Well, it took Donald Trump to bring it to the nation’s attention. And God bless him for doing so.
We are finally having that national conversation.
-
Why should the only recourse be, for a willfully damaging news story based upon lies and innuendos from anonymous sources, to force them to rebut it on their own networks?
How does one reach the audience of the affected with sinister lies, meant to keep their viewers from knowing the TRUTH?
Do you force them to cover previously ignored stories? NO!
You charge them with willful intent to deceive the People of the USA and then you prove it in a public trial.
I could live with that if the issue was only about damaging stories. What about even more damaging non-stories? (Stories they refused to run and because they refused to run them, it caused damage.)
The media does more damage by refusing to cover a story than they do by pushing fake stories. How likely would the public have been to reelect Obama if they only knew of the information we were seeing on the conservative websites?
Obama more or less singlehandedly created ISIS, and he is more responsible than anyone else for it's atrocities. Who in the network media pointed out Obama's involvement in creating ISIS?
Nobody did. How much blood shed and treasure did this cost? It was immense.
President Trump is merely snapping his fingers to bring everyone's attention to the matter.
This is plain to see for some of us, but many of us want to focus on a tree instead of the larger forest.
-
The Media Research Center had a bumper sticker a number of years back, “Don’t believe the lying media.”
Well, it took Donald Trump to bring it to the nation’s attention. And God bless him for doing so.
We are finally having that national conversation.
Where have you been? We've been 'having this conversation' at the top of our lungs, for 30 years or better.
The difference being in your case (all y'all), you advocate the liberal idea that the ends justify the means. and that is never true.
-
The lying has to stop.
So don't buy it. Don't watch it.
Same rule as I use with programs containing gratuitous faggotry: JUST DON'T WATCH. Break that rule just once, I am done with the show. I don't watch cable news. I buy only a rare newspaper. I subscribe to very few magazines (mostly technical journals).
Sure, they will put it out there, but I'm not buying it. There are already laws against slander and libel. Use them. Censorship is for Communists.
-
AP spiked stories about Russian genocide in the 1930's in Siberia and the NYT downplayed the NAZI Holocaust for all of WWII.
This is nothing new. Just like media having a Liberal bent is as predictable as the sun coming up.
That it has persisted does not make it acceptable. It is in fact unacceptable in a society like ours.
You are asserting argumentum ad antiquitatem.
If this was Obama threatening Fox your attitude would be completely different...in fact it probably was every time he badmouthed FNC.
Obama wouldn't necessarily threaten publicly. He would do it the "Chicago Way" which means he would send them a message that said "Nice little network you've got here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it."
You're all about revenge.
The First Amendment protects NBC even when they are acting the way the are. It doesn't just protect speech you agree with...but that with which you disagree with as well.
It is not protecting our speech at all. The purpose of "speech" is to influence listeners. They have millions every night, and are therefore very influential. We are kept away from the listeners by the actions of the Federal Government who gave them exclusive access and monopoly to the broadcasting channels.
The government is therefore suppressing our freedom of speech by depriving us of the crowds to which the networks broadcast.
-
Same rule as I use with programs containing gratuitous faggotry
Sooo... Your post infers a 'non-gratuitous faggotry'... Do tell...
:eatdrink:
:silly:
No really... good post.
:beer:
-
Whether I like or trust a news source or not, I still don’t want big government revoking or otherwise “challenging” licenses to news sources that they deem are unfair, lying, or simply not to their liking.
Here we go again. People still thinking this is about "licenses."
(http://assets.patriotpost.us/images/2015-04-02-b47f33a5_large.jpg)
It is about "licenses" in the same manner forcing people to bake a homosexual cake is about "cake."
News flash! It isn't about cake!
-
That's the bottom line.
Revenge, getting even, censorship, and "fairness" are not conservative principles.
Dying isn't a conservative principle either, but if we don't do something about the propaganda and censorship, we will be eventually left with no other choice but to die.
When Abraham Lincoln was confronted with a set of seemingly incompatible principles, this is what he did.
I did understand however, that my oath to preserve the constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government -- that nation -- of which that constitution was the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tried to preserve the constitution, if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together.
-
Sooo... Your post infers a 'non-gratuitous faggotry'... Do tell...
:eatdrink:
:silly:
No really... good post.
:beer:
LOL! Gratuitous faggotry is faggotry that was installed to try to normalize the presence of homosexuality without contributing to or being essential in any way to the plot. That gets shut down immediately, and the show is not watched again, in the case of a series. (Fear the Walking Dead was one. The guys could have just been bros.)
:shrug:
Non-gratuitous faggotry is essential to the plot--in which case I'm not going to watch, anyway. :tongue2:
-
No, you're not. Here's a good touchstone:
We're truing to make the federal government LESS powerful... To shrink it down to it's proper Constitutional boundaries. This is not doing that.
The arbiter of truth, right now, is the civil court. I like it like that.
I'm on board with that.
But I love the fact that Trump started his. He's dumb, but then again, he's not so dumb.
He brought huge attention to media bias.
Just look at how many people are all het up.
-
Dying isn't a conservative principle either, but if we don't do something about the propaganda and censorship, we will be eventually left with no other choice but to die.
When Abraham Lincoln was confronted with a set of seemingly incompatible principles, this is what he did.
Rush is always calling MSNBC and CNN mouth-pieces for the Democrat party.
I thought all Trump said about NBC was about being "challenged", I'll re-read his words, however, we know that just plugging for one party is political speech and I thought that some guidelines do have to be followed if one is doing that.
You talked about Cruz hate over at TOS but I think you are responding to some typical negativity here that qualifies as that against Trump that's pretty common here.
-
I'm on board with that.
But I love the fact that Trump started his. He's dumb, but then again, he's not so dumb.
He brought huge attention to media bias.
Just look at how many people are all het up.
Meh.
It is ever so.
Flailing around about it is much ado about nothing.
-
Meh.
It is ever so.
Flailing around about it is much ado about nothing.
Meh, too. All these pages and no resolution.
Still, I think it is a topic worthy of discussion.
-
Dying isn't a conservative principle either, but if we don't do something about the propaganda and censorship, we will be eventually left with no other choice but to die.
When Abraham Lincoln was confronted with a set of seemingly incompatible principles, this is what he did.
I'm well aware of what Lincoln did. The despot's heel is on thy shore
Maryland, My Maryland...
-
If we’re really to the point where so-called conservatives are calling for more government regulation of the free press, I’ve truly lost hope for our republic. God help us........Please!
-
Just to swing back to the OP for a moment.
That story that Trump wanted a tenfold increase in our nuclear arsenal? A lie. Thousand percent, a lie, and Trump called them out on it.
But, tomorrow Big Media gets to start up another lie, and another after that. But Trump won’t take it lying down. Pres. Trump has won a lot of battles so far. Let’s see how this one goes as it plays out.
-
Meh, too. All these pages and no resolution.
Still, I think it is a topic worthy of discussion.
That's right.
:beer:
-
If we’re really to the point where so-called conservatives are calling for more government regulation of the free press, I’ve truly lost hope for our republic. God help us........Please!
QFT.
-
Meh, too. All these pages and no resolution.
Still, I think it is a topic worthy of discussion.
If for no other reason than to remind ourselves why it's a bad idea. **nononono*
-
Just to swing back to the OP for a moment.
That story that Trump wanted a tenfold increase in our nuclear arsenal? A lie. Thousand percent, a lie, and Trump called them out on it.
But, tomorrow Big Media gets to start up another lie, and another after that. But Trump won’t take it lying down. Pres. Trump has won a lot of battles so far. Let’s see how this one goes as it plays out.
Then he's going to have to take these lies on retail, as they come up. He can't create a situation of wholesale media crushing. No.
-
If we’re really to the point where so-called conservatives are calling for more government regulation of the free press, I’ve truly lost hope for our republic. God help us........Please!
Ditto
-
Just to swing back to the OP for a moment.
That story that Trump wanted a tenfold increase in our nuclear arsenal? A lie. Thousand percent, a lie, and Trump called them out on it.
But, tomorrow Big Media gets to start up another lie, and another after that. But Trump won’t take it lying down. Pres. Trump has won a lot of battles so far. Let’s see how this one goes as it plays out.
It was not a lie. The "ten fold" part might not be accurate, but I posted an interview that Reuters did with him back in January where he said the nuclear arsenal needed to be increased.
-
Just to swing back to the OP for a moment.
That story that Trump wanted a tenfold increase in our nuclear arsenal? A lie. Thousand percent, a lie, and Trump called them out on it.
But, tomorrow Big Media gets to start up another lie, and another after that. But Trump won’t take it lying down. Pres. Trump has won a lot of battles so far. Let’s see how this one goes as it plays out.
QFT
If all Trump said is "they can be challenged", then the laws probably already exist (just like with immigration) versus those riding on their high horse, accusing others of wanting more regulation, etc. The usual garden variety of accusations from the self-righteous.
-
Just to swing back to the OP for a moment.
That story that Trump wanted a tenfold increase in our nuclear arsenal? A lie. Thousand percent, a lie, and Trump called them out on it.
But, tomorrow Big Media gets to start up another lie, and another after that. But Trump won’t take it lying down. Pres. Trump has won a lot of battles so far. Let’s see how this one goes as it plays out.
Breaking story next:
"White House staff says that Trump sometimes eats ice cream right from the container late at night....and leaves the spoon in the sink!!"
CNN: "Sources close to MSNBC report a WH insider, is appalled and want the spoons cleaned, as stated in the Constitution."
MSNBC: "Sources close to CNN, call it a scandal of immense proportions never before seen in the WH kitchens. GOP official confirms his disgust over wealthy Trump, stealing bites of government ice cream. Calls for committee hearings, about Trump family freeloading."
HINT: "Ten fold" does NOT equal "increased" Not today and not last January.
Ten fold is a LIE, a word I do not often use.
-
I know a lady, her eyesight got so bad, they took her license away, I guess in that way, it was challenged per existing laws but...
(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/the-high-horse-tia.jpg)
Whatever allows others to look down on others, "so-called conservatives".
:silly:
-
Just to swing back to the OP for a moment.
That story that Trump wanted a tenfold increase in our nuclear arsenal? A lie. Thousand percent, a lie, and Trump called them out on it.
But, tomorrow Big Media gets to start up another lie, and another after that. But Trump won’t take it lying down. Pres. Trump has won a lot of battles so far. Let’s see how this one goes as it plays out.
How do we know the NBC story was a lie? Because Trump says it was? Has he demanded proof of the story, such as a videotape or audiotape of the event where these remarks allegedly were made? Does he have possession of evidence to refute the story?
Seems to me Trump makes this fake news allegation only when something potentially embarrassing to him is reported. I've seen a lot of "fake news" relevant to the Las Vegas massacre, but I don't see Trump squawking about that. He is only interested in any reporting that impacts negatively on him.
By the way, taking to Twitter to complain is not "winning." If he has a problem with the way a story is presented, he or his counsel should be dealing with the news outlet directly and professionally. Demand proof. Present concrete evidence that the story is a lie. Otherwise, he just cements his reputation of being a whiny little kid.
-
As long as people continue to be 'pragmatic' and vote party, we will continue to get politicians. The ENTIRE reason the congress is paralyzed right now is because of pragmatism being the word, rather than Conservatism.
Congress is paralyzed with fear of what the media will do to them if they do the job their constituents sent them there to do.
They would get endless media rants about how they hate poor people, women, children and they are also racist! The F***ing media runs this country, and too many people are too dense to realize what has been going on around them for a long time.
Why did we lose Vietnam? Because the ginned up fake scandal convinced the population that we needed more Democrats to control that crooked Richard Nixon. Democrats had no interest in keeping the agreement we made to secure peace in Vietnam, they cut off aid, and the NVA eventually took advantage and conquered the rest of the Country.
Lying media upended the lives of millions of people and damaged the sacrifices and world respect of the United States.
Vote for men who will undoubtedly stand for Conservative principles, and you will begin to tip the balance the other way.
We NEED tried and true, true-blue, rock-ribbed, Conservative statesmen, and literally nothing else will do.
Until the American people understand that, nothing will change.
this current government is a symptom (including Tump).
Till the American people can see reasons for doing this on their television screens, nothing will change. Because the Liberal media censors will never let these reasons for doing so be seen on their monopoly controlled television channels nothing will change.
We have a logjam on the flow of information to the American people. We need to bust the log jam and let the information flow freely.
-
If the media were winning Trump wouldn't be President.
The power to decide what is truth and what is not is supposed to rest with the people. Not the government. Not the media.
I don't want the government or the media defining what is "truth". This is just another example of why a number of Trump "conservatives" aren't conservative at all. Just another flavor of big government running roughshod over peoples lives.
-
If the media were winning Trump wouldn't be President.
The power to decide what is truth and what is not is supposed to rest with the people. Not the government. Not the media.
I don't want the government or the media defining what is "truth". This is just another example of why a number of Trump "conservatives" aren't conservative at all. Just another flavor of big government running roughshod over peoples lives.
Правда (Pravda) translates as "Truth". For those of us who recall the Cold War and the days of Nikitia Kruschev beating a shoe on the podium, we know what that implies (lies the State wants you to hear).
If there is a lack of Conservative material in the media, then Conservatives need to produce and market that material.
-
Nice try to weasel out.
Don't you mean nice try on your part to deflect?
You were the one whining about how a high percentage of the media is left-wing, yet you've done nothing to change that.
And you know this how?
Rather than lift a finger, your first reaction is to try to tear down America's Constitution.
That is an accusation made by you people who do not want to really grasp the problem we face. You aren't grasping the role that "free speech" is intended to play in a society, and why the founders thought it needed to be an enumerated right.
Why is free speech necessary? I don't think you know. You just run on mantras and cliches, but you don't bore down to the bedrock theory of why we need freedom of speech. To you it is just the way things always were, and it sounds good, so you pay lip service to the idea.
What purpose is "free speech" intended to serve in our system of governance?
No. Because attacking America's foundation is worse than worthless.
If you think that, then stop defending those people who are doing it.
I encourage you to rethink your position.
I encourage you to do the initial thinking on your position. You don't seem to understand the purpose for which Freedom of Speech is necessary.
-
I know a lady, her eyesight got so bad, they took her license away, I guess in that way, it was challenged per existing laws but...
(http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large-5/the-high-horse-tia.jpg)
Whatever allows others to look down on others, "so-called conservatives".
:silly:
It's rare to see a post so devoid of any kind of sense as this one I'm quoting. WTF?
-
During the election, we were told to ignore the odors of fascism that seemed to be wafting from some corners of the Trump campaign.
Now, we're told to breathe deeply and inhale the full-fledged stench of government-controlled media.
You offered that delusion back then, now you inform us all you that you checked with yourself, and found yourself to be absolutely right about what you had previously believed.
Confirmation bias.
At this point i'm ready to say "F*** controlling it. Just burn the whole sonnofab*tch down. " Kill Television in total, and let people get their news from newspapers.
The thing wouldn't even exist but for government approved licenses, and the naive among us don't want "government" involved in what was the very creation of government.
-
That cannot - CANNOT - be done with regulation. All you are doing is setting up the Office of Propaganda. If you find it so repugnant, then encourage libel and slander suits. That is what is supposed to keep them flying right and telling the truth.
The post was about destroying what is existing by using the powers of government to wound and cripple it.
The argument was not so much a matter of how it was done, but rather a pointing out of the necessity of doing it. If you want to drop an asteroid on it, that's fine with me too, but the point is allowing this propaganda system to continue with no meaningful opposition is a recipe for social and fiscal destruction.
You made a decent argument that market forces are damaging it, and if this is the eventual result than I will be okay with that, but I am however so concerned that this beast be slain that my go to position on it is "I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure."
-
You think Big Government is the right tool for the job of revenge?
When the only tool you've got is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.
-
When the only tool you've got is a hammer, all your problems start to look like nails.
You say that like it's a positive attribute?
-
You say that like it's a positive attribute?
I thought maybe it was irony?
-
The founders wanted a marketplace of ideas, a free exchange of fire on the battlefield of logic and reason—not one party rule over the spread, or suppression, of information.
A concept which the cliche throwers can't seem to wrap their minds around. They are so fixated on how things have always been done, that they don't realize this system is violating the very reason for which the founders thought Freedom of Speech was so essential.
If both sides can't reach the public, one side is defacto denied freedom of speech.
-
I thought maybe it was irony?
I'm seriously shaking my head over that one. If the only tool one has is Big Government, it's time to find a better toolbox.
-
There isn't one party rule over the media. Conservatives these days have as many or more choices than they have ever had.
The DANGER from one party control of the dominant media is not that conservatives will be unable to find information.
The DANGER is that a misinformed public will act on incorrect or a lack of correct information.
-
The DANGER from one party control of the dominant media is not that conservatives will be unable to find information.
The DANGER is that a misinformed public will act on incorrect or a lack of correct information.
It's really hard to argue with that, but I find the choice of weapon under discussion to do something about it very dubious.
-
At this point i'm ready to say "F*** controlling it. Just burn the whole sonnofab*tch down. " Kill Television in total, and let people get their news from newspapers.
Like WaPo and the NYT? Maybe the National Enquirer?
Or print magazines like:
AARP Magazine
Costco Connection
Game Informer
Better Homes and Gardens
Reader's Digest (Best digested in the back of the dirty book store)
Good Housekeeping
National Geographic
Family Circle
People
Woman's Day
(Those are the top ten, based on issues distributed, (in order from most to least) in print magazines).
http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-ten-best-selling-magazines-in-the-united-states/ (http://www.therichest.com/business/the-top-ten-best-selling-magazines-in-the-united-states/)
With the complete conversion to alarmist warmist nonsense in National Geographic, there isn't a lot there for a conservative to go on, although Reader's Digest used to be fairly conservative (I haven't seen one in a couple of decades, I think the Mail Mule eats them).
The thing wouldn't even exist but for government approved licenses, and the naive among us don't want "government" involved in what was the very creation of government.
Government didn't create the electromagnetic spectrum, it licensed it.
Demand Conservative TeeVee and it will happen, but you need to abandon the Liberal Teevee first. I think the niche is open since Fox shifted a little to leftward.
Unless you think ideology must be imposed by force, let ideas compete in the marketplace. You sound like a liberal wanting to shut down Conservative talk radio. Face it though, TV lends itself to liberals who sit on their arses and watch it. Radio appeals to Conservatives who are likely to be doing something and need to keep their eyes on that while they can listen to the radio. It is the fundamental reason for the media disparity.
-
Yeah, but didn't you see that 36% of households get the MSM channels in their living rooms? You know how you fix that? The gov't should impose required watching/listening times over a variety of channels.
When you have devolved to mockery, you are unable to put forth a real argument.
Demanding that both sides have access to the people is not tantamount to the government forcing people to watch something.
In the candidates debates, I assume you would think it ridiculous if we had a "debate" where only the Democrat candidate was allowed to speak.
Well I've got news for you. With the media, Every freaking day is a political debate with the Opposition putting forth their points, and occasionally one of their pet monkeys claiming to be on our side offering up a weak pathetic rebuttal if any sort of rebuttal is allowed at all.
-
It's really hard to argue with that, but I find the choice of weapon under discussion to do something about it very dubious.
Not to mention DANGERous......
And a great way to have the government in control of everything we hear and read.
A la PRAVDA, as @Smokin Joe so aptly mentioned above.
THAT is what is being advocated here.
-
It's really hard to argue with that, but I find the choice of weapon under discussion to do something about it very dubious.
I could start broadcasting with 1500 Watts of power this afternoon IF I was allowed into those portions of the spectrum! I'm not!
-
OF COURSE it offends me. And yes, I was there. I was on the very thread when it happened. THAT is how you beat the press. Magnify that process and keep them honest.
Your suggest we wait until the stars align, and then we can occasionally win one small victory amidst the long trail of tragic losses?
We got lucky with Dan Rather. There are so many other instances in which the lies were never rebutted.
-
Not to mention DANGERous......
And a great way to have the government in control of everything we hear and read.
A la PRAVDA, as @Smokin Joe so aptly mentioned above.
THAT is what is being advocated here.
Certainly NOT what I'm advocating! There are millions of people out there at this moment who could compete with the big boys in radio and television IF the fed gov would allow them to do it. I happen to be one of them!
-
Regulating bakers - bad. Regulating newspapers - good.
Someone pulled a dishonest switcheroo on something I said earlier. I said "Music" they switched the word to "entertainment".
I don't think any discussion of newspapers has been advanced by anyone so far. I have consistently spoken of the Television broadcasting monopoly created by the Government and under the control of left wing interests.
I think everyone else is also on this same page, but now you assert we are trying to regulate "newspapers."
Dishonest. Very dishonest.
-
Your suggest we wait until the stars align, and then we can occasionally win one small victory amidst the long trail of tragic losses?
We got lucky with Dan Rather. There are so many other instances in which the lies were never rebutted.
It wasn't luck, it was someone catching a classic case of Liberal overreach. They will do it again, and we'll bring down another one. Lather (and they will get lathered up, that's when they lose it), rinse, and repeat.
-
Certainly NOT what I'm advocating! There are millions of people out there at this moment who could compete with the big boys in radio and television IF the fed gov would allow them to do it. I happen to be one of them!
In 1963, Smith took his act to the border when the Inter-American Radio Advertising's Ramon Bosquez hired him and sent him to the studio and transmitter site of XERF-AM at Ciudad Acuña in Mexico, a station whose high-powered border blaster signal could be picked up across much of the United States. In an interview with writer Tom Miller, Smith described the reach of the XERF signal: "We had the most powerful signal in North America. Birds dropped dead when they flew too close to the tower. A car driving from New York to L.A. would never lose the station."[5] Most of the border stations broadcast at 250,000 watts, five times the U.S. limit, meaning that their signals were picked up all over North America, and at night as far away as Europe and the Soviet Union. It was at XERF that Smith developed his signature style (with phrases like "Who's this on the Wolfman telephone?") and widespread fame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfman_Jack
-
That inevitably means a federally designated arbiter of truth.
Requiring the media to reflect the political makeup of the public at large constitutes a "federally designated arbiter of truth"?
How does it do that? We accept the premise for Blacks and Women. Why is it such a far stretch to demand equal representation for Conservatives? Why should the media be permitted to employ 95% Liberals and 5% Libertarians?
Conservatives make up 40% (or more) of the populace, and without discrimination, they would make up 40% of the broadcasting system staff.
If Affirmative Action laws were used to accomplish this result, would this somehow make the Federal Government the "Arbiter of Truth"?
Not suggesting this is the only way to break the log jam, just pointing out that this is one possible way to do it without creating a government ministry of truth.
It disproves the theory that a "ministry of truth" is necessary.
-
Wow. Just wow. Who, may I ask, would you appoint to be the "Truth Czar?" Who decides what the truth is?
Like a record stuck in a groove. Doesn't hear a d@mn thing I'm saying.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk7xzzzwDiI
-
Those stations were exceedingly expensive to operate and maintain which is why they are no more!
-
Requiring the media to reflect the political makeup of the public at large constitutes a "federally designated arbiter of truth"?
How does it do that? We accept the premise for Blacks and Women. Why is it such a far stretch to demand equal representation for Conservatives? Why should the media be permitted to employ 95% Liberals and 5% Libertarians?
Conservatives make up 40% (or more) of the populace, and without discrimination, they would make up 40% of the broadcasting system staff.
If Affirmative Action laws were used to accomplish this result, would this somehow make the Federal Government the "Arbiter of Truth"?
Not suggesting this is the only way to break the log jam, just pointing out that this is one possible way to do it without creating a government ministry of truth.
It disproves the theory that a "ministry of truth" is necessary.
This sounds like "Net Neutrality" for the television. I don't approve.
-
When you have devolved to mockery, you are unable to put forth a real argument.
Demanding that both sides have access to the people is not tantamount to the government forcing people to watch something.
In the candidates debates, I assume you would think it ridiculous if we had a "debate" where only the Democrat candidate was allowed to speak.
Well I've got news for you. With the media, Every freaking day is a political debate with the Opposition putting forth their points, and occasionally one of their pet monkeys claiming to be on our side offering up a weak pathetic rebuttal if any sort of rebuttal is allowed at all.
No, when *I* devolve to mockery it means I'm tired of the same bullshit being repeated ad nauseum.
-
I agree. This idea of crushing the freedom of the press is far, far more destructive than who can put what on a cake.
"Four legs good! Two legs baaaaaad!"
-
No, when *I* devolve to mockery it means I'm tired of the same bullshit being repeated ad nauseum.
Hear Hear!!!!!
-
Those stations were exceedingly expensive to operate and maintain which is why they are no more!
Were they? I just remembered hearing Wolfman Jack when I was a kid and being fascinated that he was broadcasting out of Mexico.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nk7xzzzwDiI
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTMzMjYzMTMyM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTk5NDA5Mg@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,673,1000_AL_.jpg)
-
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTMzMjYzMTMyM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwOTk5NDA5Mg@@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,673,1000_AL_.jpg)
That movie was not good. I hear it was the reason Seymour Hoffman killed himself.
-
That movie was not good. I hear it was the reason Seymour Hoffman killed himself.
Well, that figures - I liked it.
-
Congress is paralyzed with fear of what the media will do to them if they do the job their constituents sent them there to do.
No they are not. They are in collusion. Republican does not mean Conservative. They want big gov. They just think they can do it better than the dems.
-
That movie was not good. I hear it was the reason Seymour Hoffman killed himself.
@Frank Cannon
You have no room to talk about movies, and a hearty eff you to you regarding Saw. I tried to watch it during nap time today and about 10 minutes in I realized you had played a really nasty joke on me.
-
Were they? I just remembered hearing Wolfman Jack when I was a kid and being fascinated that he was broadcasting out of Mexico.
The Transmitters were so large they actually had isles for maintenance people to access the innards!
http://ominous-valve.com/wlw.html
http://j-hawkins.com/wlw500kpics.shtml
-
@Frank Cannon
You have no room to talk about movies, and a hearty eff you to you regarding Saw. I tried to watch it during nap time today and about 10 minutes in I realized you had played a really nasty joke on me.
Saw is a GD gem my dear woman. Pardon me for not realizing you were immune to quality entertainment.
(https://images.moviepilot.com/image/upload/c_fill,h_470,q_auto:good,w_620/saw-1-7-jpeg-162920.jpg)
-
Saw is a GD gem my dear woman. Pardon me for not realizing you were immune to quality entertainment.
(https://images.moviepilot.com/image/upload/c_fill,h_470,q_auto:good,w_620/saw-1-7-jpeg-162920.jpg)
It may have been a good idea on paper, but it was the acting that classifies the movie as Horror.
-
It may have been a good idea on paper, but it was the acting that classifies the movie as Horror.
Well if you want to step it up, watch the Conjuring. Two words for that: Vera Farmiga!
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Playboy+E+Bates+Motel+Comic+Con+Party+Arrivals+XnYc18uu1Xlx.jpg)
-
Well if you want to step it up, watch the Conjuring. Two words for that: Vera Farmiga!
I just looked it up on IMDB. I can't watch movies like that; demonic possession stuff seriously freaks me out.
-
Requiring the media to reflect the political makeup of the public at large constitutes a "federally designated arbiter of truth"?
No, Now you're talking fairness doctrine and quotas. SHEESH!
How does it do that? We accept the premise for Blacks and Women.
Who's this 'WE' ??
I am not for it. And it offends me that you are. Conservatives believe in merit.
-
I just looked it up on IMDB. I can't watch movies like that; demonic possession stuff seriously freaks me out.
Well if that is too much for you watch Running Scared. Paul Walker bangs Vera Farmiga on a washing machine.....
(https://i0.wp.com/clothesonfilm.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Running-Scared_Vera-Farmiga_gun_CU.bmp.jpg?fit=800%2C379)
-
Like a record stuck in a groove. Doesn't hear a d@mn thing I'm saying.
Maybe it hears you fine, and because of that, thinks it's a stupid idea that should be strangled in the cradle at the first available opportunity. Just maybe. And, it's entirely possible it wasn't talking to YOU.
-
I went to journalism school in California in the late 70s. My classmates were liberal, the university was liberal. Those graduates are the news editors and copy writers of today, and they are liberals. Of the potential hires in national newsrooms, the candidates are NY/LA/SF liberals.
Where do we find the conservatives? There just aren’t enough Hillsdale journalism grads.
-
I went to journalism school in California in the late 70s. My classmates were liberal, the university was liberal. Those graduates are the news editors and copy writers of today, and they are liberals. Of the potential hires in national newsrooms, the candidates are NY/LA/SF liberals.
Where do we find the conservatives? There just aren’t enough Hillsdale journalism grads.
It sounds to me like we need a new center of broadcasting. Not on one of the coasts, but somewhere in the middle.
-
Well if that is too much for you watch Running Scared. Paul Walker bangs Vera Farmiga on a washing machine.....
Sounds uncomfortable.
(http://www.diy-household-tips-tricks-and-hints.com/image-files/old_fashioned_washboard.jpg)
-
Everybody wants to go to Columbia school of journalism. They crank out liberal journalists by the boatload. Those are the hires that make it to National newsrooms.
This is going to be a tough nut to crack, to break the stranglehold of the liberal media.
-
Sounds uncomfortable.
(http://www.diy-household-tips-tricks-and-hints.com/image-files/old_fashioned_washboard.jpg)
No you Silly Billy. It was an electric washing machine.....
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1PelVfX_RU/Vp6PylzC5bI/AAAAAAAACe4/fFf3K_bSMH8/s1600/first+washing+machine+thor.jpg)
-
No you Silly Billy. It was an electric washing machine.....
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-N1PelVfX_RU/Vp6PylzC5bI/AAAAAAAACe4/fFf3K_bSMH8/s1600/first+washing+machine+thor.jpg)
LOL "The Thor"
-
Everybody wants to go to Columbia school of journalism. They crank out liberal journalists by the boatload. Those are the hires that make it to National newsrooms.
This is going to be a tough nut to crack, to break the stranglehold of the liberal media.
No one said it wasn't. As I tried to point out earlier, though, I'd expect Conservative media to do better on Radio, because radio does not require a person to be looking at a screen. You can listen while doing other things. Television wants all your attention, as a medium, and that is incompatible with doing ahything but watching.
Print, aside from the interwebs, is a mess, but so much of what passes for writing in a newspaper should have been left on the bathroom wall or in the margins of someone's coloring book that it is seldom worth the price of admission. Assuredly, Conservatives have our good writers who could easily rival the drivel in Time and Newsweek.
The Liberals have been building their media empire since the advent of television, and far longer in print. Once there was a difference between Huntley and Brinkley and that Cronkite fellow, but now the same story is used with the same talking points and the same phraseology across the spectrum--the only question is what face you want to see it pour out of, or what 'rack' you are looking at when it does--because that is about all the difference.
So it will take a new angle to build a Conservative media if you want TV, but I probably would not start in markets that are used to and in love with the coastal urban liberal media. That doesn't mean RFD TV, but something from a smaller town, with a little more blue collar attitude might play very well because people would be better able to identify with it than East/West Coast big city.
But then I could be wrong, too.
-
LOL "The Thor"
Gas is best. (https://i.pinimg.com/564x/75/86/a8/7586a8cfc2a1531666bb83c2b6be38f8.jpg)
And it's a Maytag!
-
I just checked in to see what this thread had disintegrated to after a few hours.
Just as I suspected.
-
Those two should just get a room.
-
I just checked in to see what this thread had disintegrated to after a few hours.
Just as I suspected.
Not our best work, but pretty good, huh?
@Frank Cannon
-
Gas is best. (https://i.pinimg.com/564x/75/86/a8/7586a8cfc2a1531666bb83c2b6be38f8.jpg)
And it's a Maytag!
I really should stop complaining about having to do laundry. ^-^
-
I really should stop complaining about having to do laundry. ^-^
Whaddya mean? This was the gadget that set women free!
-
I really should stop complaining about having to do laundry. ^-^
Do you know what tin pants are?
Basically super heavy canvass oilcloth pants.
You don't wash em much... Because they suck to re-oil.
So pretty much, you wash em when they start to give you a rash.
If you've never had to wash a pair of tin pants with 3 months worth of gank on em...
yeah..
-
Do you know what tin pants are?
Basically super heavy canvass oilcloth pants.
You don't wash em much... Because they suck to re-oil.
So pretty much, you wash em when they start to give you a rash.
If you've never had to wash a pair of tin pants with 3 months worth of gank on em...
yeah..
No, I have never had to do that!
-
Well if you want to step it up, watch the Conjuring. Two words for that: Vera Farmiga!
(http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Playboy+E+Bates+Motel+Comic+Con+Party+Arrivals+XnYc18uu1Xlx.jpg)
@Frank Cannon
You need to watch Bates Motel, then. Vera Farmiga is a combination of beautiful and crazy. Love her.
-
@Frank Cannon
You need to watch Bates Motel, then. Vera Farmiga is a combination of beautiful and crazy. Love her.
I really enjoyed that show.
-
Not by way of federal coercion.
You are becoming what you are supposed to fight against.
@roamer_1
They're all for shutting the press up right now, but in a few years when a Democrat gets into office, see how they like it then.
-
@roamer_1
They're all for shutting the press up right now, but in a few years when a Democrat gets into office, see how they like it then.
That is exactly right!
-
@roamer_1
They're all for shutting the press up right now, but in a few years when a Democrat gets into office, see how they like it then.
Never give your enemies a weapon you don't want pointed back at you.
-
I really enjoyed that show.
@RoosGirl
Right? It never lost momentum or bored you, and the acting was incredible.
-
I really should stop complaining about having to do laundry. ^-^
Who are you kidding. An uppity bitch like you has people for cleaning and laundry. You throw your clothes on the floor one day and they are clean and hung up the next.
-
@Frank Cannon
You need to watch Bates Motel, then. Vera Farmiga is a combination of beautiful and crazy. Love her.
Listen lady. I was on that show from beginning to end. I was going to bail on the last season because they killed off Norma, but luckily they figured a way to keep her in.
-
If we’re really to the point where so-called conservatives are calling for more government regulation of the free press, I’ve truly lost hope for our republic. God help us........Please!
Amen. Not Conservative or American. I came across this tonight. I thought about posting as a thread but this issue has been rehashed for 18 pages. And now it has become a horror story.
Ben Sasse and Sean Hannity Throw Down Over Sean’s Career and Sasse’s Values
Posted at 7:30 pm on October 12, 2017 by Caleb Howe
Yesterday, President of the United States Donald Trump threatened the free exercise of speech in a tweet about, of course, “fake news”. Conservative Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse saw it differently and said so, also on Twitter. Then Trump talk show host Sean Trumppity Trump tweeted on Twitter about it.
We all know already what President Trump said. Here is what Senator Sasse said about what Trump said:
Ben Sasse
? ?@BenSasse
Mr. President:
Are you recanting of the Oath you took on Jan. 20 to preserve, protect, and defend the 1st Amendment?
7:03 PM - Oct 11, 2017
And here is what Hannity said about what Sasse said about what Trump said:
Sean Hannity
? ?@seanhannity
One of the biggest mistakes in my career was supporting @BenSasse Just useless. https://twitter.com/bensasse/status/918296123269189632 …
7:37 PM - Oct 11, 2017
https://www.redstate.com/absentee/2017/10/12/ben-sasse-sean-hannity-throw-seans-career-sasses-values/
-
It's okay Mr Hannity, I haven't watched your channel since before Meghan Kelly left.
Who is useless now?
-
Lest we forget, Sasse's ACU score is 100. Not many of those out there.
-
Sean Hannity
? ?@seanhannity
One of the biggest mistakes in my career was supporting @BenSasse Just useless. https://twitter.com/bensasse/status/918296123269189632 …
First time I agree with Sean 100%. There is a reason Sasse has one of the thinnest Wiki pages. It's because he has done nothing. Not a thing.
-
First time I agree with Sean 100%. There is a reason Sasse has one of the thinnest Wiki pages. It's because he has done nothing. Not a thing.
It's hard to soar with Eagles when you work with turkeys.
-
First time I agree with Sean 100%. There is a reason Sasse has one of the thinnest Wiki pages. It's because he has done nothing. Not a thing.
I really don't care one way or the other about Ben Sasse; he's a politician, he's conservative, yay. But Sean Hannity? He's the biggest douche bag on this planet. Now he's playing Trump copycat with his tweets? BFD.
-
But Sean Hannity? He's the biggest douche bag on this planet.
I don't know about that. He's got a bit of a chubby face, but I'll bet I've got 10# (beer muscle) on him.
-
I don't know about that. He's got a bit of a chubby face, but I'll bet I've got 10# (beer muscle) on him.
I stand corrected @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer is the biggest douche bag on the planet. Congratulations! Sean Hannity is the second biggest.
-
I stand corrected @InHeavenThereIsNoBeer is the biggest douche bag on the planet. Congratulations! Sean Hannity is the second biggest.
Shit. Looks like I lost ANOTHER contest.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/500x/49451281/ok-i-admit-it-i-am-defeated.jpg)
-
(http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mish/31677_b.png)
-
(http://static.safehaven.com/authors/mish/31677_b.png)
I wonder how many of those are losing money?
Where does the New York Times and the Washington Post fit in there? Are they in the 10%?
-
Here’s how the whole broadcast license thing works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license
While NBC the network doesn’t have a license (they own a few individual stations that do), it does have a business license, which raises some interesting possibilities.
-
Here’s how the whole broadcast license thing works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license
In addition to a broadcast license, NBC would have to have a business license, which raises some interesting possibilities.
Nah. We have been assured that it is just a matter of contributing to the right politicians and things go smoothly. It's called "The price of doing business in New York City", and applies all too often elsewhere as well.
-
Here’s how the whole broadcast license thing works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_license)
While NBC the network doesn’t have a license (they own a few individual stations that do), it does have a business license, which raises some interesting possibilities.
Either way it is time to get rid of them.
-
Saw on "Good Morning America" just this morning one of the propaganda agents who portrays himself as News Anchor say in reference to Trump signing an executive order on Obamacare:
"Trump is going to hurt millions of poor people just because he wants to. "
"Just because he wants to. "
And some of you think threatening to pull their licenses for such blatant political campaigning is beyond the pale?
-
Saw on "Good Morning America" just this morning one of the propaganda agents who portrays himself as News Anchor say in reference to Trump signing an executive order on Obamacare:
"Trump is going to hurt millions of poor people just because he wants to. "
"Just because he wants to. "
And some of you think threatening to pull their licenses for such blatant political campaigning is beyond the pale?
They are nothing but blatant propagandist! Liars all!
-
They are nothing but blatant propagandist! Liars all!
If I am not mistaken three or four companies own 80% of the viewed content on TV.
-
Saw on "Good Morning America" just this morning one of the propaganda agents who portrays himself as News Anchor say in reference to Trump signing an executive order on Obamacare:
"Trump is going to hurt millions of poor people just because he wants to. "
"Just because he wants to. "
And some of you think threatening to pull their licenses for such blatant political campaigning is beyond the pale?
I also heard some insurance expert on NPR use that exact same phraseology.
So, the BS narrative is set. However, they’re facing a very different President this time. One that’s got small thumbs and a phone – and he tweets. Boy, does he tweet. LOL!
-
They are nothing but blatant propagandist! Liars all!
I knew a lady who worked behind the scenes at the local TV station who had the utmost contempt for "newsreaders". Face it folks, these people are only someone presentable, with the right voice and a well crafted sense of 'gravitas' who can act as a loudspeaker for the teleprompter or the voice in their ear.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/355278-tapper-if-obama-threatened-broadcasting-licenses-there-would-be-torches-in-the
Tapper: If Obama threatened broadcasting licenses, there would be 'torches in the street'
-
Saw on "Good Morning America" just this morning one of the propaganda agents who portrays himself as News Anchor say in reference to Trump signing an executive order on Obamacare:
"Trump is going to hurt millions of poor people just because he wants to. "
"Just because he wants to. "
And some of you think threatening to pull their licenses for such blatant political campaigning is beyond the pale?
You are not going to get a lot of disagreement the media is biased as all get out. Most of us have known that for the past half-century at least. The problem arises when you want to use the blunt instrument of Big Government to exact revenge for you. Find another way to fix it, one that won't empower the next leftist in charge.
-
http://thehill.com/homenews/media/355278-tapper-if-obama-threatened-broadcasting-licenses-there-would-be-torches-in-the
Tapper: If Obama threatened broadcasting licenses, there would be 'torches in the street'
Why would Obama have done that, Jake? You people never had an unkind word to say about him.
-
I really don't care one way or the other about Ben Sasse; he's a politician, he's conservative, yay. But Sean Hannity? He's the biggest douche bag on this planet. Now he's playing Trump copycat with his tweets? BFD.
So, I read this and thought, what a wrongheaded thing to say. Kim Jong-un deserves that distinction.
As for Sean Hannity, he’s the second best thing to happen to conservatives behind Rush Limbaugh. He doesn’t just talk the conservative talk, he lives it.
After pushing for Ben Sasse during his election, Sean manned up when Sasse turned out to be a loud mouth empty suit (or empty shorts, if you prefer) stood up to him and called Sasse out.
-
Why would Obama have done that, Jake? You people never had an unkind word to say about him.
Obama didn't merely threaten many things I and many others absolutely hated, he CODIFIED them.
He was constantly promoting Net Neutrality - almost the same thing. Not as a throw away line, as policy.
Nice try Tapper.
-
If I am nor mistaken three or four companies own 80% of the viewed content on TV.
@jpsb
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
-
Obama didn't merely threaten many things I and many others absolutely hated, he CODIFIED them.
He was constantly promoting Net Neutrality - almost the same thing. Not as a throw away line, as policy.
Nice try Tapper.
Yes, but they LIKED it. Name one journalist not named "Rosen" who was upset Obama/Holder made up something to get a warrant for his stuff. They all thought he deserved whatever he got because he worked for FNC.
-
Soros has ties to the major networks as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations.html
Soros basically funds the leftist mainstream media. The Media Research Center chronicled back in 2011 how Soros has ties to over 30 news outlets in the mainstream media. For instance, at the time of the MRC report, the Soros-funded Pro-Publica's Journalism Advisory Board featured the following journalists:
Jill Abramson - New executive editor of The New York Times;
Kerry Smith - The senior vice president for editorial quality of ABC News;
Cynthia A. Tucker - The editor of the editorial page of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Abramson, who has since been fired from the Times, is now a columnist for The Guardian. Tucker is no longer the editor at the AJC, but is a syndicated columnist and commentator.
The following members of the media have also been on the boards or advisory boards of Soros groups as well:
Christiane Amanpour - Anchor of ABC's Sunday morning political affairs program, ''This Week with Christiane Amanpour.'' A reliable lefty, she has called tax cuts ''giveaways,'' the Tea Party ''extreme,'' and Obama ''very Reaganesque;''
Matt Thompson - Editorial product manager at National Public Radio and an adjunct faculty member at the prominent Poynter Institute.
Ben Sherwood - ABC News president and former ''Good Morning America'' executive producer;
Kathleen Hall Jamieson - Author and the Walter H. Annenberg Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania;
Michele Norris - Host of NPR's newsmagazine ''All Things Considered,'' public radio's longest-running national program.
Phil Bronstein, director of content development and editor-at-large for Hearst Newspapers;
David Boardman, The Seattle Times;
Len Downie, former Executive Editor of the Washington Post, now VP;
George Osterkamp, CBS News producer.
Amanpour is now the CNN's chief international correspondent and host of Amanpour. Thompson is now the deputy editor of The Atlantic, Norris now works for the The Race Card Project. Bronstein has since left Hearst for a bigger role at Soros-funded Center for Investigative Reporting, and Boardman is now the Dean of the School of Media and Communication at Temple University.
Additionally, the CRI lists The Washington Post, Salon, CNN and ABC News as "media partners."
Soros also funds the Clinton-allied Media Matters organization, which numerous media outlets – including The Los Angeles Times and The New York Times – have used for content.....
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8427/9-things-you-need-know-about-george-soros-aaron-bandler
-
Yes, but they LIKED it. Name one journalist not named "Rosen" who was upset Obama/Holder made up something to get a warrant for his stuff. They all thought he deserved whatever he got because he worked for FNC.
Like statists everywhere they never expect to be on the outside looking in.
-
Government didn't create the electromagnetic spectrum, it licensed it.
It created the government protected monopoly for people who use the electromagnetic spectrum.
Your point is like saying "Government didn't create the river, it just decides who gets to use it."
Everyone should get to use it.
-
It wasn't luck, it was someone catching a classic case of Liberal overreach. They will do it again, and we'll bring down another one. Lather (and they will get lathered up, that's when they lose it), rinse, and repeat.
You think we should wait for more cases of "overreach"? Well what if they don't?
This is another "When the Stars Align" strategy, and I don't wish to trust in magic.
-
So, I read this and thought, what a wrongheaded thing to say. Kim Jong-un deserves that distinction.
As for Sean Hannity, he’s the second best thing to happen to conservatives behind Rush Limbaugh. He doesn’t just talk the conservative talk, he lives it.
After pushing for Ben Sasse during his election, Sean manned up when Sasse turned out to be a loud mouth empty suit (or empty shorts, if you prefer) stood up to him and called Sasse out.
Kim is geosigi gamja sonyeon
-
This sounds like "Net Neutrality" for the television. I don't approve.
Okay, I've looked up "Net Neutrality". According to Wikipedia it appears to mean that internet must be available to everyone and that people cannot restrict or refuse to carry traffic because they don't like the content.
What exactly is wrong with that idea?
-
I keep having to go back and check my calendar. It just feels like 1984 is right around the corner.
-
No, when *I* devolve to mockery it means I'm tired of the same bullshit being repeated ad nauseum.
You can stop repeating it whenever you chose. It's up to you.
-
Kim is geosigi gamja sonyeon
Que?
-
You think we should wait for more cases of "overreach"? Well what if they don't?
This is another "When the Stars Align" strategy, and I don't wish to trust in magic.
I think you will find astronomical movements occur with mathematical precision. They always push too far. It is a combination of impatience and hubris, and they are not without either.
-
Que?
Roughly translated "penis potato young man". In Southron it's "dick tater boy"
-
@jpsb
(http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4fd9ee1e6bb3f7af5700000a/media-infographic.jpg)
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6
Great infographic.....and I wanted to post it again because it is ten miles long.
-
No, Now you're talking fairness doctrine and quotas. SHEESH!
My recollection was that the "Fairness Doctrine" was an effort to kill talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh by forcing them to carry Liberal opinion too. We didn't like it and for good reason.
But forcing the people who own the Television broadcasting system to allow our voice on the broadcasting network would be worth giving up Talk Radio dominance.
In terms of gains versus losses, we would come out way ahead.
-
You can stop repeating it whenever you chose. It's up to you.
Your cleverness is inspiring.
-
Roughly translated "penis potato young man". In Southron it's "dick tater boy"
LOL. You kids got's some fun vernacular down there.
-
So, I read this and thought, what a wrongheaded thing to say. Kim Jong-un deserves that distinction.
As for Sean Hannity, he’s the second best thing to happen to conservatives behind Rush Limbaugh. He doesn’t just talk the conservative talk, he lives it.
After pushing for Ben Sasse during his election, Sean manned up when Sasse turned out to be a loud mouth empty suit (or empty shorts, if you prefer) stood up to him and called Sasse out.
@aligncare
Hannity is the biggest joke on the internet---among conservatives. No one ever accused him of being bright, but for some reason, since he became an abject Trump sycophant, he's deteriorated into something amusing and pathetic in equal amounts.
He frequently posts bizarre, cursing rants on his Twitter page. The screeds are misspelled, sometimes in caps, and often contain crazed references to his martial arts prowess. In no rational world could he be considered an asset to a movement.
I met him once. I expect his near-dwarfism is a factor in his agitation.
-
Great infographic.....and I wanted to post it again because it is ten miles long.
I hate you, Frank.
-
Maybe it hears you fine, and because of that, thinks it's a stupid idea that should be strangled in the cradle at the first available opportunity.
Or maybe it hasn't spent enough effort or intellect on analyzing the overall problem sufficiently to understand what is going on, and so therefore isn't informed enough to weigh the various options properly.
Also perhaps it is not comprehending the various suggestions because it keeps immediately jumping into that same worn groove I mentioned previously.
Just maybe. And, it's entirely possible it wasn't talking to YOU.
If it wasn't broadcasting on a public channel then no one could mistake it for talking to the public at large.
-
I hate you, Frank.
Careful. I may have 5 or 6 more separate comments about that post.
-
It sounds to me like we need a new center of broadcasting. Not on one of the coasts, but somewhere in the middle.
I have also been saying that for quite awhile. Get the News "services" out of New York, and get the "entertainment services" out of Los Angeles, and a lot of the problem with bias would simply go away.
I have also advocated moving the capitol from Washington DC to someplace in the middle of Kansas, preferably a wheat field or something.
-
My recollection was that the "Fairness Doctrine" was an effort to kill talk radio shows like Rush Limbaugh by forcing them to carry Liberal opinion too. We didn't like it and for good reason.
But forcing the people who own the Television broadcasting system to allow our voice on the broadcasting network would be worth giving up Talk Radio dominance.
In terms of gains versus losses, we would come out way ahead.
And you think that weapon would never be turned against us. There's a Sam Elliot meme out there somewhere that applies. Experience has taught you nothing at all, so I shouldn't be surprised talking to you is not any different from talking to a wall. Bye.
-
Your cleverness is inspiring.
Yeah, but his grammar sucks.
-
@jpsb
@Bigun
Thanks I downloaded that image and will use it from time to time.
-
@roamer_1
They're all for shutting the press up right now,
Stop deliberately misstating our position. Nobody is trying to shut up the press, we are trying to get equal time on their monopoly controlled channels.
Does my ability to talk make you be quiet? No? So stop asserting something that is 100% false and a disgusting accusation to boot!
but in a few years when a Democrat gets into office, see how they like it then.
I will be happy with our side getting equal time and access under a Democrat administration too. Who knows? If the public can hear our side, then perhaps there won't be any more Democrat Presidents for awhile, and when there eventually is, perhaps he will be far more conservative than the kookbat leftests we have been getting so far.
-
That is exactly right!
It is exactly wrong, just as I pointed out in my previous message.
My ability to speak on this forum does not silence you or anyone else. The ability of conservatives to get equal time on the Television broadcasting monopoly will not cause Liberals to be silenced. It will cause those people who have been silenced under the current system to finally have an equal voice!
-
Never give your enemies a weapon you don't want pointed back at you.
I don't mind an "equal access on the television monopoly" weapon pointed back at me.
Right now they have 95% access or more. Increasing their access down to 30 or 40% sounds like a fair scheme to me.
-
I also heard some insurance expert on NPR use that exact same phraseology.
There is a video on you tube showing how they mocked the chances of Trump winning the Presidency. I think it has five different news anchors using exactly the same verbiage to describe Trump as a Clown.
It's as if they were all reading off of the same teleprompter.
So, the BS narrative is set. However, they’re facing a very different President this time. One that’s got small thumbs and a phone – and he tweets. Boy, does he tweet. LOL!
People do not grasp the value of him throwing these bombs. The media never had bombs thrown at it before. It sometimes provokes them into shrillness and overreach.
-
@aligncare
Hannity is the biggest joke on the internet---among conservatives. No one ever accused him of being bright, but for some reason, since he became an abject Trump sycophant, he's deteriorated into something amusing and pathetic in equal amounts.
He frequently posts bizarre, cursing rants on his Twitter page. The screeds are misspelled, sometimes in caps, and often contain crazed references to his martial arts prowess. In no rational world could he be considered an asset to a movement.
I met him once. I expect his near-dwarfism is a factor in his agitation.
Yeah, big joke. If Sean’s such a joke why is his TV show crushing the competition?
Every now and again it’s good to pull back and question your own assumptions. Let some fresh air in. Of course, it doesn’t always work if you’re rooted in NeverTrump land.
-
Yeah, big joke. If Sean’s such a joke why is his TV show crushing the competition?
He's King Shit on Turd Island. On a good day he may pull in 4 million viewers. Granted that is about double his competition, but there are 350+ million potential viewers in the country. That means he pulls in .01% of Americans to his show.
-
It's as if they were all reading off of the same teleprompter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A)
There are others lots of them
-
Yeah, big joke. If Sean’s such a joke why is his TV show crushing the competition?
Every now and again it’s good to pull back and question your own assumptions. Let some fresh air in. Of course, it doesn’t always work if you’re rooted in NeverTrump land.
Hannity has roughly the same number of viewers as WWE. That smell coming in is men in spandex, not fresh air.
-
It is exactly wrong, just as I pointed out in my previous message.
My ability to speak on this forum does not silence you or anyone else. The ability of conservatives to get equal time on the Television broadcasting monopoly will not cause Liberals to be silenced. It will cause those people who have been silenced under the current system to finally have an equal voice!
But no, that isn't what will happen, even as other equality testing means never have worked.
Unintended consequences.
Fed deciding the defining parameters of what is called 'Conservative'. AND WHAT ISN'T. Who is, and who isn't.
The FED designing Conservative content - Be very careful what you wish for.
You are handing your own ass into the hands of the very people who hate you.
Yeah.. that'll work out fine.
-
You are not going to get a lot of disagreement the media is biased as all get out. Most of us have known that for the past half-century at least. The problem arises when you want to use the blunt instrument of Big Government to exact revenge for you. Find another way to fix it, one that won't empower the next leftist in charge.
Years ago I was a delegate to a platform committee meeting for my State's Republican party. At the time it was chaired by someone that nobody knew at the time, but who is now the governor of our State.
There was a two day discussion about what to put into the State's party platform, and as my group was mostly focused on gun rights, I proposed that we urge the State Legislature to issue licenses so that the public could carry concealed weapons.
OMG! You would have thought I had proposed cutting off the heads of puppies. A bunch of virtue signaling delegates immediately rose to proclaim their undying opposition to any such proposal, because "By God! People have a *RIGHT* to carry guns, and don't need PERMISSION from the State Legislature to do so!"
I pointed out that while I may agree with them on this, neither the public, the legislature, nor the law enforcement people were ready to acknowledge this right, and so therefore that is a non starter from the git-go.
They were having none of it. They wanted all or nothing. They absolutely refused to accept any notion that required any official act from the state. This went on and on for about an hour, and I finally outsmarted the stupid F***ers.
I said "How about this verbiage? "We urge the State Legislature to find a means by which law abiding citizens can lawfully carry firearms."
They all found that language acceptable, and the proposal was passed and incorporated into the platform.
I immediately said under my breath: " And the way the legislature is going to do this is by issuing licenses."
My state passed such a law two years later, and the governor I helped elect at that time signed it. Members of my group were present at the signing ceremony and we still have the pictures.
I understand the principle involved, but I also recognized the reality of the time period. Nobody was going to accept unrestricted carrying of weapons without some sort of over sight, and people could bitch all they wanted about their rights under the second amendment, but doing what they wanted was simply a bridge too far for the public to accept.
My thinking at the time was that establishing the actual practice of carrying weapons would have a long term good effect on society, and more firmly establish the idea in the public's mind that this is acceptable.
It turned out well.
Now you may think this has nothing at all to do with the current discussion, but you would be wrong. Once again I see people refusing to deal with the reality of a situation, and instead they are piously quoting cliches about how much they are against something when they could instead be suggesting any other method for resolving the problem.
"Virtue Signaling" is not helpful. Yes, we all know how much you all dearly love our rights and our principles, but waving the flag ignores the fact that we are in a dire situation and we need to get out of it.
Toss out some ideas.
-
I don't mind an "equal access on the television monopoly" weapon pointed back at me.
Right now they have 95% access or more. Increasing their access down to 30 or 40% sounds like a fair scheme to me.
Wouldn't forcing the networks to issue a prominent disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast undercutting their pretense to objectivity obtain the same ultimate objective without running afoul of the 1A? The FTC requires the same thing in ads, packaging and labeling already.
Forcing the news organizations, including FNC, to admit their product doesn't necessarily reflect the entire truth up front would be all that would be needed, IMO.
-
Obama didn't merely threaten many things I and many others absolutely hated, he CODIFIED them.
He was constantly promoting Net Neutrality - almost the same thing. Not as a throw away line, as policy.
Nice try Tapper.
What is the downside of "net neutrality"? It is a subject on which I have apparently overlooked something. The Wikipedia entry on it sounds rather benign, but obviously there is something wrong with it, else so many people would not be objecting to the idea.
What is the bad side of this idea?
-
Like statists everywhere they never expect to be on the outside looking in.
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) is fond of saying: "You spent 8 years weaponizing the government all to turn it over to Trump."
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A)
There are others lots of them
There is no such thing as actual news reporting in the USA today! Instead we have leftist propaganda 24/7/365 called news!
-
Sure, Sean is repetitive with his talking points. Which gets boring. But, there’s method to the repetition. That’s what’s required to break though political noise and stagnated thinking. Sean’s objective is to change minds.
A smart change agent will tell you (the audience) what he’s about to tell you, then tell you what he wants to tell you, and then tell you what it was he just told you. Public speaking 101.
-
Your cleverness is inspiring.
A person has to create their own entertainment whenever they are able.
:)
-
What is the downside of "net neutrality"? It is a subject on which I have apparently overlooked something. The Wikipedia entry on it sounds rather benign, but obviously there is something wrong with it, else so many people would not be objecting to the idea.
What is the bad side of this idea?
Besides the fact that the left never does anything that would enhance the free and open exchange of information, under the euphemism 'Net Neutrality' President Obama was essentially calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility making it subject to heavy regulations as if they’re monopolies. This makes the FCC the final authority over Internet pricing, products and services.
More governmental control, not less. Definitely not what we want.
Borrowed from this - http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/11/11/why-obama-is-wrong-on-net-neutrality.html
-
Hannity has roughly the same number of viewers as WWE. ...
Gotta link for this?
-
And you think that weapon would never be turned against us. There's a Sam Elliot meme out there somewhere that applies. Experience has taught you nothing at all, so I shouldn't be surprised talking to you is not any different from talking to a wall. Bye.
They own 99% of the content and air time already. How are they going to turn our getting a greater share of air time and content against us?
-
Gotta link for this?
Be curious and go look it up like I did.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH8dejYGa5A)
There are others lots of them
They are all sock puppets for the Deep State Crony Capitalists that currently influence the Government and the population.
-
Gotta link for this?
You don't need a link for it. The info is everywhere. The cable newsers are constantly pushing their numbers.
This week Hannity averaged about 3.2 million viewers with a bump to 3.6 for Trump on Wednesday. WWE got 3.6 million viewers last week.
-
But no, that isn't what will happen, even as other equality testing means never have worked.
What equality testing means? I've said over and over again that to allow the government to play editor on content is colossally foolish.
So far the only proposal I have suggested is that it prevent discrimination against hiring of conservatives in the media corporations.
The government would not regulate content. The government would not enforce equality of content. They would simply require equal application of the law as stated in the 14th amendment.
I think the fact of having conservatives in the production process would create balance inherently, because if Liberals tried to get away with the sh*t they currently do, the Conservatives would object to it, and it would therefore not air. By the same token, news stories that conservatives believe should be shown, would be shown, because they would be in position to make such determinations.
Unintended consequences.
With a system that is already 99% over on the enemy's side. Any disruptions, any "unintended consequences" will degrade what exists now. I count that as a good thing.
Fed deciding the defining parameters of what is called 'Conservative'. AND WHAT ISN'T. Who is, and who isn't.
That is the concept you people keep trying to force on us and claim it's "our" idea. No, that is *NOT* what we want, and it is not what any of us has proposed. You just keep asserting that's what we want, and it isn't.
The FED designing Conservative content - Be very careful what you wish for.
I don't wish for that. I know it's what a lot of you want to believe about us, but it is incorrect, and if you would bother to actually understand what we are saying, you would realize your cliched arguments are not what we are advocating.
You are handing your own ass into the hands of the very people who hate you.
Yeah.. that'll work out fine.
That's what we have now. Degrading the status quo can only improve the situation.
-
I have also been saying that for quite awhile. Get the News "services" out of New York, and get the "entertainment services" out of Los Angeles, and a lot of the problem with bias would simply go away.
I have also advocated moving the capitol from Washington DC to someplace in the middle of Kansas, preferably a wheat field or something.
Good idea. Why should all our news come from the mecca of liberalism where those people feed on each other's idiocy in an incestuous feast. They all cocktail party together and reinforce the party line and make each other feel pretty, oh, so pretty.
As for California and Hollywood, the Weinstein mess clearly indicates what a cesspool that area has become. The few good people there are literally afraid to speak out and with good reason. If you aren't in the club, you aren't hired.
-
I don't mind an "equal access on the television monopoly" weapon pointed back at me.
Right now they have 95% access or more. Increasing their access down to 30 or 40% sounds like a fair scheme to me.
But, what has that monopoly got them? Their histronics have completely worked against them, look at CNN if there's any doubt. Every time the MSM opens their mouths, they make the Dems an even smaller bicoastal party.
I have the exact same sentiment as you toward the MSM, and there'd be nothing I'd rather do than slap them down, but they are on their way out the door. Fewer and fewer people get their news from them and more and more from the internet. The govt going after them now would be like going after the buggy whip industry after the Model T was already in production.
The reality is if that is done, then the precedent it creates could be used to go after online journalism. The first Democrat President we have will then go after every right wing publication out there. It creates a virus that will spread to another totally different media platform once it gets a foot hold.
To me the last thing we want to do is go after the dying horse the liberals have hitched themselves to. Don't give them a lifeline as they flush themselves.
-
So far the only proposal I have suggested is that it prevent discrimination against hiring of conservatives in the media corporations.
That requires a precise definition of what 'Conservatism' is and isn't... Because you need to know what a Conservative is in order to ensure they get the special treatment.
WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THAT DEFINITION?
And within that definition COMES the definition of Conservative content, and all the rest.
And within that definition, what are the chances that actual Conservatism gets to be Conservatism?
Slim to none. Them log cabin boys would get the gig, and everyone will celebrate the liberals being SO inclusive!
The government would not regulate content. The government would not enforce equality of content. They would simply require equal application of the law as stated in the 14th amendment.
How?
I think the fact of having conservatives in the production process would create balance inherently, because if Liberals tried to get away with the sh*t they currently do, the Conservatives would object to it, and it would therefore not air. By the same token, news stories that conservatives believe should be shown, would be shown, because they would be in position to make such determinations.
LOL! no. That isn't how that works.
With a system that is already 99% over on the enemy's side. Any disruptions, any "unintended consequences" will degrade what exists now. I count that as a good thing.
That is precisely what makes consequences unintended... when you proscribe intention.
That is the concept you people keep trying to force on us and claim it's "our" idea. No, that is *NOT* what we want, and it is not what any of us has proposed. You just keep asserting that's what we want, and it isn't.
No, I ascribe nothing more to you than what you describe... But I am far seeing, almost to a fault. What you want is incidental. What you'll get is what matters.
I don't wish for that. I know it's what a lot of you want to believe about us, but it is incorrect, and if you would bother to actually understand what we are saying, you would realize your cliched arguments are not what we are advocating.
I understand it perfectly.
I also understand about camel's noses.
That's what we have now. Degrading the status quo can only improve the situation.
Precisely wrong.
-
Wouldn't forcing the networks to issue a prominent disclaimer at the beginning of each broadcast undercutting their pretense to objectivity obtain the same ultimate objective without running afoul of the 1A? The FTC requires the same thing in ads, packaging and labeling already.
I have long wished the FEC would force them to label their news casters with their party's affiliation.
But such a thing would never happen, and if it did, all the news liars would simply register "Independent" while still voting and promoting Democrat.
Forcing the news organizations, including FNC, to admit their product doesn't necessarily reflect the entire truth up front would be all that would be needed, IMO.
I would love that, and it might even work if such a thing could be done, but I do not believe any such thing could be done, or that they wouldn't take immediate steps to negate it.
-
Stop deliberately misstating our position. Nobody is trying to shut up the press, we are trying to get equal time on their monopoly controlled channels.
Does my ability to talk make you be quiet? No? So stop asserting something that is 100% false and a disgusting accusation to boot!
I will be happy with our side getting equal time and access under a Democrat administration too. Who knows? If the public can hear our side, then perhaps there won't be any more Democrat Presidents for awhile, and when there eventually is, perhaps he will be far more conservative than the kookbat leftests we have been getting so far.
@DiogenesLamp
I realize that flying high on outrage is your fuel, but it doesn't work with me. Get it? I'll call you out every time I see fit.
You made clear what you want. So you can just stop.
Yes, pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with. I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me. I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them, I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them, I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats.
These are our enemies, and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election, and probably a lot longer than that.
We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.
-
But, what has that monopoly got them? Their histronics have completely worked against them, look at CNN if there's any doubt. Every time the MSM opens their mouths, they make the Dems an even smaller bicoastal party.
I have the exact same sentiment as you toward the MSM, and there'd be nothing I'd rather do than slap them down, but they are on their way out the door. Fewer and fewer people get their news from them and more and more from the internet. The govt going after them now would be like going after the buggy whip industry after the Model T was already in production.
The reality is if that is done, then the precedent it creates could be used to go after online journalism. The first Democrat President we have will then go after every right wing publication out there. It creates a virus that will spread to another totally different media platform once it gets a foot hold.
To me the last thing we want to do is go after the dying horse the liberals have hitched themselves to. Don't give them a lifeline as they flush themselves.
Let's stop fearing the next democrat president and deal with our current situation. The media IS losing power and audience but, remember, their domination was complete, and slowly losing some of it does not mean they are not a clear and present danger.
Their influence permeates our thoughts in ways we don't even realize. Entertainment movies and TV shows push their agenda, sometimes in subliminal ways and sometimes with outright propaganda.
I'm not sure of exactly what we can do to stop them but I'm in favor of whatever can be done.
-
Yeah, big joke. If Sean’s such a joke why is his TV show crushing the competition?
Every now and again it’s good to pull back and question your own assumptions. Let some fresh air in. Of course, it doesn’t always work if you’re rooted in NeverTrump land.
@aligncare
Trump fans love Hannity. I think Steve Deace referred to them as "the cursing grandmothers."
What assumptions are you talking about? The nutty Twitter rants I've seen with my own eyes? His completely abandonment of the Constitution in favor of licking Trump's boots?
It's pretty fresh over here. Smells like flowers, in fact.
-
I have long wished the FEC would force them to label their news casters with their party's affiliation.
But such a thing would never happen, and if it did, all the news liars would simply register "Independent" while still voting and promoting Democrat.
I would love that, and it might even work if such a thing could be done, but I do not believe any such thing could be done, or that they wouldn't take immediate steps to negate it.
Well its being done in dozens of other areas by law in the name of truth in advertising.
There need be no criteria for the disclaimer. The base assumption should be everyone and every network is biased by nature and should not lead consumers to believe that what they are receiving is objective, complete truth as they have been pretending to do for decades.
-
What equality testing means? I've said over and over again that to allow the government to play editor on content is colossally foolish.
So far the only proposal I have suggested is that it prevent discrimination against hiring of conservatives in the media corporations.
The government would not regulate content. The government would not enforce equality of content. They would simply require equal application of the law as stated in the 14th amendment.
I think the fact of having conservatives in the production process would create balance inherently, because if Liberals tried to get away with the sh*t they currently do, the Conservatives would object to it, and it would therefore not air. By the same token, news stories that conservatives believe should be shown, would be shown, because they would be in position to make such determinations.
With a system that is already 99% over on the enemy's side. Any disruptions, any "unintended consequences" will degrade what exists now. I count that as a good thing.
That is the concept you people keep trying to force on us and claim it's "our" idea. No, that is *NOT* what we want, and it is not what any of us has proposed. You just keep asserting that's what we want, and it isn't.
I don't wish for that. I know it's what a lot of you want to believe about us, but it is incorrect, and if you would bother to actually understand what we are saying, you would realize your cliched arguments are not what we are advocating.
That's what we have now. Degrading the status quo can only improve the situation.
And here we see a perfect example why Sean Hannity repeats himself so much. Political positions are like house-sized boulders. It takes repeated runs at it with heavy equipment to dislodge it.
-
@aligncare
Trump fans love Hannity. I think Steve Deace referred to them as "the cursing grandmothers."
What assumptions are you talking about? The nutty Twitter rants I've seen with my own eyes? His completely abandonment of the Constitution in favor of licking Trump's boots?
It's pretty fresh over here. Smells like flowers, in fact.
They seem to think the weapon they want to create and wield will never be turned against them the instant a Democrat comes to power. Cute of them, isn't it? ^-^
-
@DiogenesLamp
I realize that flying high on outrage is your fuel, but it doesn't work with me. Get it? I'll call you out every time I see fit.
You made clear what you want. So you can just stop.
Yes, pulling their licenses is exactly the appropriate thing to threaten these bastards with. I would be threatening Federal prosecutions if it were up to me. I'd have the FEC all over them, I'd have the EEOC all over them, I would be having the Justice Department bringing anti-trust lawsuits against them, I would be using whatever power I could bring to bear in an effort to cut their financial throats.
These are our enemies, and they have been our enemies since at least the Nixon/Kennedy election, and probably a lot longer than that.
We need to stick a knife in them anywhere we can.
@CatherineofAragon
You know, it seems like POTUS could at least direct some investigations into illegal activities by the networks if he thought something was actually going on that was illegal. I mean, the only reason I can think of threaten someone with losing their "license" is because they've done something illegal and not just because they've done something you don't like. Maybe he'll do that when the Hillary investigation concludes.
-
@CatherineofAragon
You know, it seems like POTUS could at least direct some investigations into illegal activities by the networks if he thought something was actually going on that was illegal. I mean, the only reason I can think of threaten someone with losing their "license" is because they've done something illegal and not just because they've done something you don't like. Maybe he'll do that when the Hillary investigation concludes.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/87/87be47290fcc3fa02dc0d6fae882c5c96dff7ff1301e8bc81a4e3fb8d1c171fe.jpg)
-
@aligncare
Trump fans love Hannity. I think Steve Deace referred to them as "the cursing grandmothers."
What assumptions are you talking about? The nutty Twitter rants I've seen with my own eyes? His completely abandonment of the Constitution in favor of licking Trump's boots?
It's pretty fresh over here. Smells like flowers, in fact.
Ah. Which explains why you hate Hannity
-
Let's stop fearing the next democrat president and deal with our current situation. The media IS losing power and audience but, remember, their domination was complete, and slowly losing some of it does not mean they are not a clear and present danger.
Their influence permeates our thoughts in ways we don't even realize. Entertainment movies and TV shows push their agenda, sometimes in subliminal ways and sometimes with outright propaganda.
I'm not sure of exactly what we can do to stop them but I'm in favor of whatever can be done.
But it's having zero political effect. I will argue that they are conservatives best friend because their increasing radicalism is driving people away from them and to the other side. Let's use that momentum as political ju jitsu.
The national GOP really needs to focus efforts on cleaning it's own house and getting particularly Senators that will get the agenda passed. Three reforms - 1) welfare, 2) immigration, and 3) national right-to-work and we'd gut the Dems entire machinery.
-
It is exactly wrong, just as I pointed out in my previous message.
My ability to speak on this forum does not silence you or anyone else. The ability of conservatives to get equal time on the Television broadcasting monopoly will not cause Liberals to be silenced. It will cause those people who have been silenced under the current system to finally have an equal voice!
Just bake the damned cake!
You would impose your ideals on some one else's creativity.
Either the Libmedia has the right to put what they want on their stations, the baker can refuse to bake the cake or not.
The bottom line is that when you (or anyone else) starts choosing who has the right to their own stuff and when the government can force them to say or do something they don't like, then there are no effing Rights for ANYONE.
I may not like their 'message'. I hate their lies. I am disgusted by their contempt for me and mine and all we stand for, but
I REFUSE TO VIOLATE THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RIGHTS BY SUPPORTING FORCING THEM TO LET ME USE THEIR STUFF TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR---BECAUSE DOING SO WILL ENTITLE THEM TO DO THE SAME TO ME WITH ANYTHING I HAVE AND NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY RIGHTS.
If we want Conservative media, it is up to us to fill that niche. If the country wants it, it will be wildly successful and immensely profitable. (Imagine a place where actresses would not be molested just so they can work.)
-
And here we see a perfect example why Sean Hannity repeats himself so much. Political positions are like house-sized boulders. It takes repeated runs at it with heavy equipment to dislodge it.
And people like Sean Hannity. He's not my cup of cocoa but he meets the needs of a LOT of people and not just grandmas.
The country is conservative. If we could eliminate New York and California ... or just California, the country is very conservative. The election of Trump should prove that to anybody.
I wish Fox News would have stayed more conservative. I think their audience would grow but there's some odd show biz dynamics going on over there.
-
Just bake the damned cake!
You would impose your ideals on some one else's creativity.
Either the Libmedia has the right to put what they want on their stations, the baker can refuse to bake the cake or not.
The bottom line is that when you (or anyone else) starts choosing who has the right to their own stuff and when the government can force them to say or do something they don't like, then there are no effing Rights for ANYONE.
I may not like their 'message'. I hate their lies. I am disgusted by their contempt for me and mine and all we stand for, but
I REFUSE TO VIOLATE THE ENTIRE CONCEPT OF RIGHTS BY SUPPORTING FORCING THEM TO LET ME USE THEIR STUFF TO SAY WHAT I WANT TO HEAR---BECAUSE DOING SO WILL ENTITLE THEM TO DO THE SAME TO ME WITH ANYTHING I HAVE AND NO ONE WILL HAVE ANY RIGHTS.
If we want Conservative media, it is up to us to fill that niche. If the country wants it, it will be wildly successful and immensely profitable. (Imagine a place where actresses would not be molested just so they can work.)
I believe @DiogenesLamp is simply asking for fairness. I think too many people have been abused, particularly in the last 8 years before Trump by oppressive government.
And I think too many people are afraid of what that kind of government can do. It only can if we let it.
I'm more in favor of a truth doctrine. Let all slanted stories about Trump have to meet a truth standard. We can define truth.
For example, it's true that Trump ordered immediate aid for Puerto Rico. It's true that the bitch of a mayor decided it would be to her political advantage to attack him unfairly. It's true that Trump responded in a way that too many of us call un-Presidential. But ... how else would his side have come out? The MSM would never have come to his defense.
And, now, when he declares a home truth ... that we cannot help them forever, he is portrayed as heartless.
-
@CatherineofAragon
You know, it seems like POTUS could at least direct some investigations into illegal activities by the networks if he thought something was actually going on that was illegal. I mean, the only reason I can think of threaten someone with losing their "license" is because they've done something illegal and not just because they've done something you don't like. Maybe he'll do that when the Hillary investigation concludes.
I'm glad @DiogenesLamp is here. He does not feed on outrage. He is measured and articulate and makes good points.
He is a much-needed voice for conservatism on this forum.
-
I believe @DiogenesLamp is simply asking for fairness. I think too many people have been abused, particularly in the last 8 years before Trump by oppressive government.
And I think too many people are afraid of what that kind of government can do. It only can if we let it.
I'm more in favor of a truth doctrine. Let all slanted stories about Trump have to meet a truth standard. We can define truth.
For example, it's true that Trump ordered immediate aid for Puerto Rico. It's true that the bitch of a mayor decided it would be to her political advantage to attack him unfairly. It's true that Trump responded in a way that too many of us call un-Presidential. But ... how else would his side have come out? The MSM would never have come to his defense.
And, now, when he declares a home truth ... that we cannot help them forever, he is portrayed as heartless.
I'm all for fairness, too, and we certainly don't have it.
What I'm against is using the blunt instrument of Government Regulation to bring it about. The Government will change sides against us in an instant when the next Democrat takes control of the Executive, and the unfairness we now decry will become worse when it's the law of the land. Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of a renewed "Fairness Doctrine." They've used it to silence our side before, and they'll do it again at the drop of a microphone.
We must find another way.
-
What's needed in the NEWS business is the equivalent of UBER and LYFT!
Don't take any licenses away! Just make them worthless with competition!
-
I'm glad @DiogenesLamp is here. He does not feed on outrage. He is measured and articulate and makes good points.
He is a much-needed voice for conservatism on this forum.
WTH? This is a conservative forum? No wonder I've been beating my head against the wall.
-
I believe @DiogenesLamp is simply asking for fairness.
That's the point.
It isn't about fairness.
It can't be about fairness.
Dreaming that it is, is simply drinking the liberal koolaid.
Shit ain't fair. Get used to it.
And giving the federal government even more power to enforce even more 'fairness' is antithetical to Conservative principles.
End_of_story.
-
What's needed in the NEWS business is the equivalent of UBER and LYFT!
Don't take any licenses away! Just make them worthless with competition!
I don't understand why it isn't happening. Online media is ripe and ready to take over broadcast/cable. Some enterprising genius just needs to create the platform, then write the new rules.
-
What's needed in the NEWS business is the equivalent of UBER and LYFT!
Don't take any licenses away! Just make them worthless with competition!
Great idea. I am chomping at the bit to get my news network up and going. It is a winner of an idea.
Topless News!!!! Smokin' hot chicks, but they would have various foreign accents to add credibility. The news will have a right bent, a left bent and a center bent......
(http://www.24newslanka.com/Data/News_Images/1456911485_5769518_24newslanka_2.jpg)
-
That's the point.
It isn't about fairness.
It can't be about fairness.
Dreaming that it is, is simply drinking the liberal koolaid.
Shit ain't fair. Get used to it.
And giving the federal government even more power to enforce even more 'fairness' is antithetical to Conservative principles.
End_of_story.
That is a totally illogical post. But thanx for trying.
-
That is a totally illogical post. But thanx for trying.
No, it is precisely TRUE.
-
Great idea. I am chomping at the bit to get my news network up and going. It is a winner of an idea.
Topless News!!!! Smokin' hot chicks, but they would have various foreign accents to add credibility. The news will have a right bent, a left bent and a center bent......
(http://www.24newslanka.com/Data/News_Images/1456911485_5769518_24newslanka_2.jpg)
I would say they should wear reading glasses to help with the credibility thing, but I don't think anyone would notice.
-
They seem to think the weapon they want to create and wield will never be turned against them the instant a Democrat comes to power. Cute of them, isn't it? ^-^
Speaking of Hannity (a few posts ago), I have to admire him. He is so much better than those pundits who swayed with the wind, like Ann Coulter. He really liked Trump from the beginning and he didn't forsake him when it became fashionable to do so.
I don't watch him but lots of people do, and I do respect him.
-
Great idea. I am chomping at the bit to get my news network up and going. It is a winner of an idea.
Topless News!!!! Smokin' hot chicks, but they would have various foreign accents to add credibility. The news will have a right bent, a left bent and a center bent......
(http://www.24newslanka.com/Data/News_Images/1456911485_5769518_24newslanka_2.jpg)
Bring it Frank! Let's see what the market thinks!
-
Found this to be interesting reading on TOS. Doesn’t appear to have a citation, but it looks like it may be from a FCC website:
Broadcast Journalism
Introduction. As noted above, in light of the fundamental importance of the free flow of information to our democracy, the First Amendment and the Communications Act bar the FCC from telling station licensees how to select material for news programs, or prohibiting the broadcast of an opinion on any subject. We also do not review anyone’s qualifications to gather, edit, announce, or comment on the news; these decisions are the station licensee’s responsibility. Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion.
Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if:
the station licensee knew that the information was false,
broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm, and
it was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.
In this context, a “crime” is an act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law, and a “catastrophe” is a disaster or an imminent disaster involving violent or sudden events affecting the public. The broadcast must cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties, and the public harm must begin immediately. If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. Additional information about the hoax rule can be found on the FCC’s website at Broadcasting False Information.
News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own.
However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”
The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see Broadcast Journalism Complaints.
Political Broadcasting: Candidates for Public Office. In recognition of the particular importance of the free flow of information to the public during the electoral process, the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules impose specific obligations on broadcasters regarding political speech.
Reasonable Access. The Communications Act requires that broadcast stations provide “reasonable access” to candidates for federal elective office. Such access must be made available during all of a station’s normal broadcast schedule, including television prime time and radio drive time. In addition, federal candidates are entitled to purchase all classes of time offered by stations to commercial advertisers, such as preemptible and non-preemptible time. The only exception to the access requirement is for bona fide news programming (as defined below), during which broadcasters may choose not to sell airtime to federal candidates. Broadcast stations have discretion as to whether to sell time to candidates in state and local elections.
Equal Opportunities. The Communications Act requires that, when a station provides airtime to a legally qualified candidate for any public office (federal, state, or local), the station must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act also provides that the station “shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast” by the candidate. The law exempts from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by candidates during bona fide news programming, defined as an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview, or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary) or on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities).
In addition, a station must sell political advertising time to certain candidates during specified periods before a primary or general election at the lowest rate charged for the station’s most favored commercial advertiser. Stations must maintain and make available for public inspection, in their public inspection files, a political file containing certain documents and information, discussed at page 28 of this Manual. For additional information about the political rules, see Political Programming.
-
Found this to be interesting reading on TOS. Doesn’t appear to have a citation, but it looks like it may be from a FCC website:
Broadcast Journalism
Introduction. As noted above, in light of the fundamental importance of the free flow of information to our democracy, the First Amendment and the Communications Act bar the FCC from telling station licensees how to select material for news programs, or prohibiting the broadcast of an opinion on any subject. We also do not review anyone’s qualifications to gather, edit, announce, or comment on the news; these decisions are the station licensee’s responsibility. Nevertheless, there are two issues related to broadcast journalism that are subject to Commission regulation: hoaxes and news distortion.
Hoaxes. The broadcast by a station of false information concerning a crime or catastrophe violates the FCC's rules if:
the station licensee knew that the information was false,
broadcasting the false information directly causes substantial public harm, and
it was foreseeable that broadcasting the false information would cause such harm.
In this context, a “crime” is an act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law, and a “catastrophe” is a disaster or an imminent disaster involving violent or sudden events affecting the public. The broadcast must cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties, and the public harm must begin immediately. If a station airs a disclaimer before the broadcast that clearly characterizes the program as fiction and the disclaimer is presented in a reasonable manner under the circumstances, the program is presumed not to pose foreseeable public harm. Additional information about the hoax rule can be found on the FCC’s website at Broadcasting False Information.
News Distortion. The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own.
However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”
The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see Broadcast Journalism Complaints.
Political Broadcasting: Candidates for Public Office. In recognition of the particular importance of the free flow of information to the public during the electoral process, the Communications Act and the Commission’s rules impose specific obligations on broadcasters regarding political speech.
Reasonable Access. The Communications Act requires that broadcast stations provide “reasonable access” to candidates for federal elective office. Such access must be made available during all of a station’s normal broadcast schedule, including television prime time and radio drive time. In addition, federal candidates are entitled to purchase all classes of time offered by stations to commercial advertisers, such as preemptible and non-preemptible time. The only exception to the access requirement is for bona fide news programming (as defined below), during which broadcasters may choose not to sell airtime to federal candidates. Broadcast stations have discretion as to whether to sell time to candidates in state and local elections.
Equal Opportunities. The Communications Act requires that, when a station provides airtime to a legally qualified candidate for any public office (federal, state, or local), the station must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act also provides that the station “shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast” by the candidate. The law exempts from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by candidates during bona fide news programming, defined as an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview, or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary) or on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities).
In addition, a station must sell political advertising time to certain candidates during specified periods before a primary or general election at the lowest rate charged for the station’s most favored commercial advertiser. Stations must maintain and make available for public inspection, in their public inspection files, a political file containing certain documents and information, discussed at page 28 of this Manual. For additional information about the political rules, see Political Programming.
Looks like all that we need is some real enforcement of existing rules!
-
I would say they should wear reading glasses to help with the credibility thing, but I don't think anyone would notice.
Great idea. I know I would notice. RBF chicks with glasses are awesome. Adds to the intimidation.
-
Looks like all that we need is some real enforcement of existing rules!
It does, doesn’t it.
The only reason I can see why enforcement never happens is Democrat administrations don’t want it enforced because the slanting favors them, and Republicans, well they’re gutless.
-
Found this to be interesting reading on TOS. Doesn’t appear to have a citation, but it looks like it may be from a FCC website:
(snip)
If that's true, then you already have the tools at your disposal you say you should have. The FCC needs to be pressured to do their job.
-
If that's true, then you already have the tools at your disposal you say you should have. The FCC needs to be pressured to do their job.
Until very recently the FCC was filled with ultra leftist appointees! Hopefully that will change even further in the future!
-
Until very recently the FCC was filled with ultra leftist appointees! Hopefully that will change even further in the future!
As far as I know, they still are.
-
Great idea. I know I would notice. RBF chicks with glasses are awesome. Adds to the intimidation.
I've always been a sucker for the "Hot Librarian" look....
-
As far as I know, they still are.
https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership
-
If that's true, then you already have the tools at your disposal you say you should have. The FCC needs to be pressured to do their job.
Back to my previous comment. This is just another twitter bitch session that accomplishes nothing other than making Trump look like an ignoramus to anyone who has even a mediocre interest in conservative, small government. But hey, as long as it gets his WWE base riled up, twitter on!
-
No, it is precisely TRUE.
In one of C.S. Lewis's novels, a princess who has been treated badly by her sister complains to her priest.
"Life isn't fair," she wails.
"Lucky for us, my child." he says.
-
https://www.fcc.gov/about/leadership
Two Trumps (one of them is the Chairman), Two Obama's and one Obama who was renamed by Trump. :shrug:
-
Back to my previous comment. This is just another twitter bitch session that accomplishes nothing other than making Trump look like an ignoramus to anyone who has even a mediocre interest in conservative, small government. But hey, as long as it gets his WWE base riled up, twitter on!
Over 560 posts on this thread alone.... (Well, a good share of them are Frank hitting on you, but that's OK, it made it entertaining.)
-
Two Trumps (one of them is the Chairman), Two Obama's and one Obama who was renamed by Trump. :shrug:
Yeah! I don't get the renaming of the Obama one either!
Maybe Trump didn't fully understand the import of that when he did it. Most likely got some really bad advice form his counselors!
-
Back to my previous comment. This is just another twitter bitch session that accomplishes nothing other than making Trump look like an ignoramus to anyone who has even a mediocre interest in conservative, small government. But hey, as long as it gets his WWE base riled up, twitter on!
Roosey, you are sorely misinformed:
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-07-20/trump-cutting-hundreds-of-planned-regulations (https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-07-20/trump-cutting-hundreds-of-planned-regulations)
Jul 20, 2017 - Trump is culling hundreds of proposed regulations, a move meant to boost economic growth. ... Federal agencies have withdrawn 469 proposed regulations compared to a fall 2016 report when Barack ...
******
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges)
Aug 2, 2017 - Newsom resembles many Trump nominees to the federal bench. He has excellent formal qualifications, including a degree from Harvard Law School, a Supreme Court clerkship, and a ...
-
In one of C.S. Lewis's novels, a princess who has been treated badly by her sister complains to her priest.
"Life isn't fair," she wails.
"Lucky for us, my child." he says.
Indeed. So be careful what you wish for.
-
Indeed. So be careful what you wish for.
I always am. And you, my friend, you be careful also.
-
Roosey, you are sorely misinformed:
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-07-20/trump-cutting-hundreds-of-planned-regulations (https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-07-20/trump-cutting-hundreds-of-planned-regulations)
Jul 20, 2017 - Trump is culling hundreds of proposed regulations, a move meant to boost economic growth. ... Federal agencies have withdrawn 469 proposed regulations compared to a fall 2016 report when Barack ...
******
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges)
Aug 2, 2017 - Newsom resembles many Trump nominees to the federal bench. He has excellent formal qualifications, including a degree from Harvard Law School, a Supreme Court clerkship, and a ...
Are you changing the subject? It seems like you're changing the subject. I thought we were talking about a dumbass twitter rant about the unfair media; the unfair media that should have its "license" confiscated, instead of using existing laws to address any illegality. I'm sure you understand why it would remind me of a different dumbass twitter rant about why "Crooked Hillary" isn't being investigated.
-
Roosey, you are sorely misinformed:
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-07-20/trump-cutting-hundreds-of-planned-regulations (https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2017-07-20/trump-cutting-hundreds-of-planned-regulations)
Jul 20, 2017 - Trump is culling hundreds of proposed regulations, a move meant to boost economic growth. ... Federal agencies have withdrawn 469 proposed regulations compared to a fall 2016 report when Barack ...
******
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges (https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/trumps-real-personnel-victory-more-conservative-judges)
Aug 2, 2017 - Newsom resembles many Trump nominees to the federal bench. He has excellent formal qualifications, including a degree from Harvard Law School, a Supreme Court clerkship, and a ...
Yep! But try telling anything good about Trump to a NTer. And, yeah, they claim to applaud him when he does anything good but they never seem to notice anything good.
-
Besides the fact that the left never does anything that would enhance the free and open exchange of information, under the euphemism 'Net Neutrality' President Obama was essentially calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a utility making it subject to heavy regulations as if they’re monopolies. This makes the FCC the final authority over Internet pricing, products and services.
If that is what it was going to do, then that does go too far, but forcing the internet to be a "common carrier" without all the rest of that, seems reasonable to me.
More governmental control, not less. Definitely not what we want.
Borrowed from this - http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/11/11/why-obama-is-wrong-on-net-neutrality.html
We want a negative feedback system. We don't want a positive feedback system.
-
Yep! But try telling anything good about Trump to a NTer. And, yeah, they claim to applaud him when he does anything good but they never seem to notice anything good.
@Emjay, that's just not correct. Try this one, for instance: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285806.0/topicseen.html
-
Are you changing the subject? It seems like you're changing the subject. I thought we were talking about a dumbass twitter rant about the unfair media; the unfair media that should have its "license" confiscated, instead of using existing laws to address any illegality. I'm sure you understand why it would remind me of a different dumbass twitter rant about why "Crooked Hillary" isn't being investigated.
What I am saying is you made a dumb statement about conservatives and small government. And I proved you wrong about Donald Trump and small government.
-
It does, doesn’t it.
The only reason I can see why enforcement never happens is Democrat administrations don’t want it enforced because the slanting favors them, and Republicans, well they’re gutless.
Seems to be the case on several topics.
Immigration, being another.
Republicans are simply terrified of the media, casting them as "bad people."
-
But, what has that monopoly got them? Their histronics have completely worked against them, look at CNN if there's any doubt. Every time the MSM opens their mouths, they make the Dems an even smaller bicoastal party.
And what a coincidence that this backfiring on them has seemingly only started recently, say in just about the period Trump has been campaigning. Weird, huh?
I remember during Obama, there was no backfiring on them. Neither during George W Bush's or Clinton's presidency was there any backfiring on them, but just since the era of Trump began, the media has suddenly been subjected to a lot of backfiring.
I have the exact same sentiment as you toward the MSM, and there'd be nothing I'd rather do than slap them down, but they are on their way out the door. Fewer and fewer people get their news from them and more and more from the internet. The govt going after them now would be like going after the buggy whip industry after the Model T was already in production.
They may be a wounded lion, but they are still a lion. They have done great damage since they helped kick Nixon out of the Whitehouse, (and even earlier) and perhaps they are dying of old age now, but for decades they have successfully manipulated elections and the people, and we should not take any chances that they will recover.
The reality is if that is done, then the precedent it creates could be used to go after online journalism.
There is no bandwidth issues on the internet that create a natural monopoly of too much spectrum under the control of too few players. Any monopoly on the internet will be caused by the people who own the infrastructure deliberately censoring views they don't like, in the manner Goolag, Fascist book, and Twitfest have already done.
The first Democrat President we have will then go after every right wing publication out there. It creates a virus that will spread to another totally different media platform once it gets a foot hold.
Force everyone to be "common carriers" and this becomes impossible. A Democrat President can rant and rave, but he won't be allowed to interfere with traffic.
To me the last thing we want to do is go after the dying horse the liberals have hitched themselves to. Don't give them a lifeline as they flush themselves.
They are using the behemoths that control the internet now to re institute the same sort of control they now have with the monopoly broadcasting networks.
Did you see where the hosting company informed "Gab" that they would not longer provide service for them?
-
What I am saying is you made a dumb statement about conservatives and small government. And I proved you wrong about Donald Trump and small government.
Listen, I understand that you're a NeverRoosGirl, but you clearly have misunderstood what I wrote.
-
That requires a precise definition of what 'Conservatism' is and isn't... Because you need to know what a Conservative is in order to ensure they get the special treatment.
WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THAT DEFINITION?
And within that definition COMES the definition of Conservative content, and all the rest.
And within that definition, what are the chances that actual Conservatism gets to be Conservatism?
Slim to none. Them log cabin boys would get the gig, and everyone will celebrate the liberals being SO inclusive!
In the old days, newspapers used to be clearly affiliated with party, and it was understood in the larger towns that you would have the Democrat newspaper, and you would have the Republican newspaper.
Everyone knew that if you read the Democrat newspaper, you would get news and editorials told from the perspective of a Democrat editor, and of course the exact same thing would occur with the Republican paper.
Since we are just spitballing here, how about this? We leave it up to the parties to nominate or certify Journalists to be members in good standing. The parties already nominate platform committee members, and members for all sorts of committees, so why would it be so difficult for party conventions to nominate their representatives to the media?
Yeah, it's a little far fetched, and perhaps this is an unworkable idea, but how about we think along these lines for awhile. Make the "Fourth Estate" more subject to the process of democracy rather than oligarchy.
-
@Emjay, that's just not correct. Try this one, for instance: http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,285806.0/topicseen.html
I have observed that people of low integrity often renege on promises they make.
-
@DiogenesLamp
I realize that flying high on outrage is your fuel, but it doesn't work with me. Get it? I'll call you out every time I see fit.
And calling other people "Keyboard warriors" and maligning their intent is yours.
You made clear what you want. So you can just stop.
Yes I have, and for some reason people like you keep deliberately lying about it and then pretending outrage at your own fake ideas which you have substituted for mine.
Apparently being clear about what I want doesn't work, and perhaps I need to try something else, but I wasn't quite prepared to deal with people who had no ethical qualms about distorting other peoples statements into one of their own personal bugaboos.
-
Since we are just spitballing here, how about this? We leave it up to the parties to nominate or certify Journalists to be members in good standing. The parties already nominate platform committee members, and members for all sorts of committees, so why would it be so difficult for party conventions to nominate their representatives to the media?
REALLY? That makes the dreadful mistake of concatenating Conservatism with Republicans.
Bad idea.
Do you really want Mitch McConnell and Lindsay Graham defining what Conservatism is?
OMG, what a bad idea.
-
I have to cite one more quote on the topic of fairness.
This one is from Blue Bloods.
One of the kids was complaining at dinner about something going on at school.
"It's not fair," he said.
The Patriach replied, "No, Sean, sometimes life isn't fair ... but YOU can be."
-
The Patriach replied, "No, Sean, sometimes life isn't fair ... but YOU can be."
That's right. The minute it is dictated, and indoctrinated, it can no longer be.
FAIRNESS is a myth.
MERIT is a function upon which to base things.
-
Well its being done in dozens of other areas by law in the name of truth in advertising.
There need be no criteria for the disclaimer. The base assumption should be everyone and every network is biased by nature and should not lead consumers to believe that what they are receiving is objective, complete truth as they have been pretending to do for decades.
Warning labels on "news" media would be a hoot! Much of the problem with them is the belief among the public that they are honest and objective. If they had to run a disclaimer every time they get political, that would inform the public that they are promoting one side's perspective.
-
And what a coincidence that this backfiring on them has seemingly only started recently, say in just about the period Trump has been campaigning. Weird, huh?
Trump is arguably the first since Gingrich to fight back, and when that happens we defeat them. When we don't we lose, like W did in '06. Reality is Dems have only controlled the WH and Congress at the same time 4 years of the last 25 and the GOP hasn't been much of an adversary for most of that.
I remember during Obama, there was no backfiring on them. Neither during George W Bush's or Clinton's presidency was there any backfiring on them, but just since the era of Trump began, the media has suddenly been subjected to a lot of backfiring.
Clinton and Obama both lost their congressional majorities they started with. Bush lost his because he put up no fight whatsoever, and still held it 6 years.
They may be a wounded lion, but they are still a lion. They have done great damage since they helped kick Nixon out of the Whitehouse, (and even earlier) and perhaps they are dying of old age now, but for decades they have successfully manipulated elections and the people, and we should not take any chances that they will recover.
True, but I'm not willing to do anything that's going to be a future precedent that will apply to all media.
There is no bandwidth issues on the internet that create a natural monopoly of too much spectrum under the control of too few players. Any monopoly on the internet will be caused by the people who own the infrastructure deliberately censoring views they don't like, in the manner Goolag, Fascist book, and Twitfest have already done.
Their censorship hasn't seemed to help their cause. While they are big players, the internet is just too big for them to control it. Their political effect is pretty muted.
They are using the behemoths that control the internet now to re institute the same sort of control they now have with the monopoly broadcasting networks.
Did you see where the hosting company informed "Gab" that they would not longer provide service for them?
-
They seem to think the weapon they want to create and wield will never be turned against them the instant a Democrat comes to power. Cute of them, isn't it? ^-^
They don't seem to think the weapon is already created and being used against them right now.
Cute isn't it?
-
Just bake the damned cake!
You would impose your ideals on some one else's creativity.
I don't want "creativity" in the news. I want droll boring recitation of facts that don't get interpreted "creatively" by left wing partisans with a world view they are trying to sell.
"Creativity" in the news makes it not news, it makes it "Propaganda." "News" does not require "creativity."
I also don't want "creativity" in deciding that certain news injurious to the party of government isn't fit to broadcast. I want news that has a potential of informing the public on salient issues to be put before them without "creatively" censoring the content.
Either the Libmedia has the right to put what they want on their stations, the baker can refuse to bake the cake or not.
When the baker has to get a government license for a monopolized cake baking industry, I will argue we need to let everyone bake cakes.
Everyone with a license is part of a cartel that promotes only one type of cake. There is no potential to go to any other broadcaster for a different type of cake, you will only get the Liberal approved cake, and you won't get any other.
-
I'm glad @DiogenesLamp is here. He does not feed on outrage. He is measured and articulate and makes good points.
He is a much-needed voice for conservatism on this forum.
Well thank you. I think, I philosophize, and I solve problems. I'm glad to see my input is appreciated.
-
I'm all for fairness, too, and we certainly don't have it.
What I'm against is using the blunt instrument of Government Regulation to bring it about.
Government created the problem by creating the monopoly. If the government were not already involved, we could simply broadcast on the same channels and override their signals, but the government would stop us if we did that.
The *NECESSITY* is communicating with the public. I don't care how that *NECESSITY* is accomplished.
A man desperate to feed his family will steal bread. It may be illegal, but necessity compels a man to do what he must.
As I said, I don't care if we drop an asteroid on the media broadcasting system. What I care about is destroying the existing monopoly, and any weapon that can be brought to bear against it ought to be used.
The media corps are the "Air Force" for the Democrat party, and until we stop them from bombing and strafing us, we are never going to win the war.
-
That's the point.
It isn't about fairness.
It can't be about fairness.
Dreaming that it is, is simply drinking the liberal koolaid.
Shit ain't fair. Get used to it.
And giving the federal government even more power to enforce even more 'fairness' is antithetical to Conservative principles.
End_of_story.
The government already uses the power to enforce the existing unfairness. But people are okay with that for some strange reason.
-
Listen, I understand that you're a NeverRoosGirl, but you clearly have misunderstood what I wrote.
My apologies. Alas, I quoted the wrong post. I’ll try it again later.
-
Government created the problem by creating the monopoly. If the government were not already involved, we could simply broadcast on the same channels and override their signals, but the government would stop us if we did that.
The *NECESSITY* is communicating with the public. I don't care how that *NECESSITY* is accomplished.
A man desperate to feed his family will steal bread. It may be illegal, but necessity compels a man to do what he must.
As I said, I don't care if we drop an asteroid on the media broadcasting system. What I care about is destroying the existing monopoly, and any weapon that can be brought to bear against it ought to be used.
The media corps are the "Air Force" for the Democrat party, and until we stop them from bombing and strafing us, we are never going to win the war.
I had something to say, but upon reading this I've decided it would be lost on you.
-
The government already uses the power to enforce the existing unfairness. But people are okay with that for some strange reason.
Conservatives are not.
-
Listen, I understand that you're a NeverRoosGirl...
Is that a new club? Can I join up?
-
However, as public trustees, broadcast licensees may not intentionally distort the news: the FCC has stated that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”
The Commission will investigate a station for news distortion if it receives documented evidence of such rigging or slanting, such as testimony or other documentation, from individuals with direct personal knowledge that a licensee or its management engaged in the intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence of the direction to employees from station management to falsify the news. However, absent such a compelling showing, the Commission will not intervene. For additional information about news distortion, see Broadcast Journalism Complaints.
Yes, I knew that was in there because i've read broadcast law for professional reasons. It is exactly like the NFL having a rule that says players must stand for the anthem, and then not enforcing it.
The FCC hasn't enforced any of the rules because the corporations that run these are so big and powerful and they can and do hire expensive lawyers to run interference. The FCC can't touch them without the public will and the executive will to back them up.
A point I hadn't yet brought up about why Trump's tweet about pulling their license might have other positive benefits is because it has the potential to make them clean up their game without anyone actually having to do anything other than saying:
"I'm watching you."
(http://media.tumblr.com/0809497470ae6a3238196da6b1f826cb/tumblr_inline_mkkdsonPq91qz4rgp.gif)
-
Is that a new club? Can I join up?
I thought you were already chapter President....
-
If that's true, then you already have the tools at your disposal you say you should have. The FCC needs to be pressured to do their job.
But NOOOOOO!!!!!! We can't have *GOVERNMENT* interfering with "Freedom of Speech" even if it's lies!!!!!!
We must have totally unregulated unfettered "creativity" in the news media no matter how much destruction and death it visits on the country!
Only Fascists think the government has any business censoring the news or requiring "fairness."
-
But NOOOOOO!!!!!! We can't have *GOVERNMENT* interfering with "Freedom of Speech" even if it's lies!!!!!!
We must have totally unregulated unfettered "creativity" in the news media no matter how much destruction and death it visits on the country!
Only Fascists think the government has any business censoring the news or requiring "fairness."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TgAuQk8eFIk/Ub6N7PiA1EI/AAAAAAAAFzE/rc9cV13fueE/s1600/extreme-facepalm_o_1021673.jpg)
-
Well thank you. I think, I philosophize, and I solve problems. I'm glad to see my input is appreciated.
Not just appreciated, but awestruck by it! Your clarity of thought is admirable. And then getting it all on page as quickly as you do. Say you don’t have newsroom in your background, do you?
-
REALLY? That makes the dreadful mistake of concatenating Conservatism with Republicans.
Bad idea.
The perfect is the enemy of the good. If conservatives cannot influence or even control a party, then they don't deserve representation.
Requiring broadcasting employees to be hired out of a pool of designated Republicans would move the coverage to the right by a lot of percentage points, even if they were of the "libertarian" variety.
Can you imagine if half of the news anchors were like John Stossel?
(http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Stossel_9_9-e1426136318651.jpg)
-
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.XZgL0lk5z1lJxd3UKIeEVQEEEs&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
If conservatives cannot influence or even control a party, then they don't deserve representation.
But, but, butt... that's not FAIR!!!
Requiring broadcasting employees to be hired out of a pool of designated Republicans would move the coverage to the right by a lot of percentage points, even if they were of the "libertarian" variety.
Can you imagine if half of the news anchors were like John Stossel?
And requiring bakers to hire homosexuals would certainly stop that nasty cake problem!
-
I don't want "creativity" in the news. I want droll boring recitation of facts that don't get interpreted "creatively" by left wing partisans with a world view they are trying to sell.
"Creativity" in the news makes it not news, it makes it "Propaganda." "News" does not require "creativity."
I also don't want "creativity" in deciding that certain news injurious to the party of government isn't fit to broadcast. I want news that has a potential of informing the public on salient issues to be put before them without "creatively" censoring the content.
When the baker has to get a government license for a monopolized cake baking industry, I will argue we need to let everyone bake cakes.
Everyone with a license is part of a cartel that promotes only one type of cake. There is no potential to go to any other broadcaster for a different type of cake, you will only get the Liberal approved cake, and you won't get any other.
Hey, I don't want creativity in the news either but it came about by the 24 hour news stations. They cannot simply broadcast news all day and night.
So, they come up with gimmicks, all of which I despise. I hate Outnumbered and The Five and all those panel shows where people just screech at each other.
But as long as they fit a few news shows in, I can just limit my viewing to them.
-
The perfect is the enemy of the good. If conservatives cannot influence or even control a party, then they don't deserve representation.
Requiring broadcasting employees to be hired out of a pool of designated Republicans would move the coverage to the right by a lot of percentage points, even if they were of the "libertarian" variety.
Can you imagine if half of the news anchors were like John Stossel?
(http://www.eurweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Stossel_9_9-e1426136318651.jpg)
That would be wonderful. Even the men on the conservative side are better looking.
-
(https://tse4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.XZgL0lk5z1lJxd3UKIeEVQEEEs&pid=15.1&P=0&w=300&h=300)
But, but, butt... that's not FAIR!!!
And requiring bakers to hire homosexuals would certainly stop that nasty cake problem!
Here are a few truisms that are scorned by some here.
The perfect IS the enemy of the good.
And Trump IS better than Hillary.
-
The perfect IS the enemy of the good.
And the good is the enemy of the good enough...
Zackly how far down that rabbit hole do you want to go FALL?
And Trump IS better than Hillary.
That is yet to be determined.
-
Only Fascists think the government has any business censoring the news or requiring "fairness."
I don't know if you're trying be sarcastic or something, but that's been my point. The solution to Big Government interference is less interference, not more. I'm getting the impression you don't want Big Government out of it, you just want to be the side pushing the buttons and working the levers. Not a very admirable character trait.
-
Back to my previous comment. This is just another twitter bitch session that accomplishes nothing other than making Trump look like an ignoramus to anyone who has even a mediocre interest in conservative, small government. But hey, as long as it gets his WWE base riled up, twitter on!
Okay, above I have the right quote.
Those links I provided you refuted your asinine assertion in bold, I wasn’t changing the subject at all.
You made a dumb statement about conservatives and small government and I proved you wrong. Wrong about Donald Trump and small government. I was documenting his actions in office as opposed to your opinion.
Donald Trump’s actions are those of a conservative. His mouth may be that of a construction worker but that’s okay with me. His heart more than makes up for it.
-
Okay, above I have the right quote.
Those links I provided you refuted your asinine assertion in bold, I wasn’t changing the subject at all.
You made a dumb statement about conservatives and small government and I proved you wrong. Wrong about Donald Trump and small government. I was documenting his actions in office as opposed to your opinion.
Donald Trump’s actions are those of a conservative. His mouth may be that of a construction worker but that’s okay with me. His heart more than makes up for it.
And you are repeating your dumb statement that doesn't take into account the "twitter bitch session that accomplishes nothing". FFS, can we move on now?
-
And the good is the enemy of the good enough...
Zackly how far down that rabbit hole do you want to go FALL?
That is yet to be determined.
Well, Rand Paul is a good example of holding out for the perfect. He's a good guy who has accomplished nothing. When Trump signed the order helping people with obamacare burdens, a thing that Rand Paul had suggested, he would not even look at Trump, blatantly ignoring him. The truth is they ignored each other but if Rand hadn't turned away, Trump would have shaken his hand.
-
Can you imagine if half of the news anchors were like John Stossel?
What? Deaf in one ear because they ask stupid questions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0q44ALM7jo
-
And you are repeating your dumb statement that doesn't take into account the "twitter bitch session that accomplishes nothing". FFS, can we move on now?
I see. So now it’s “stay on topic.” What, no photos of ancient washing machines with which to enlighten us?
-
Well, Rand Paul is a good example of holding out for the perfect. He's a good guy who has accomplished nothing.
What exactly do you base that particular piece of bullshit on?
His ACU rating is way up there - high 90's. That's based upon actual votes.
Even with his more libertarian bend, he has been predictably Conservative.
When Trump signed the order helping people with obamacare burdens, a thing that Rand Paul had suggested, he would not even look at Trump, blatantly ignoring him. The truth is they ignored each other but if Rand hadn't turned away, Trump would have shaken his hand.
Paul gave him credit (praise, even) for the 'insurance across state lines' thing, and claimed he worked closely with Tump on that EO. So what's your bitch?
-
I see. So now it’s “stay on topic.” What, no photos of ancient washing machines with which to enlighten us?
Yeah, let me see if I can hack in to @Frank Cannon facebook again and find a picture of his mom.
-
I see. So now it’s “stay on topic.” What, no photos of ancient washing machines with which to enlighten us?
I'd rather look at vintage washing machines than any more of your GD harpy bullshit posts. You have been going on all day posting nonsensical shit non stop. Don't you have an effing job or a life?
I had time to collect a rent check from a deadbeat, chat with my accountant in his office and drop off a case of beer to my employees in the last hour or two. You on the other hand crank on hour after hour on the computer because you have hate for an inanimate object, that being words printed on a computer screen by a weirdly named poster.
Shut down your computer, join the real world and get an effing clue.
-
What? Deaf in one ear because they ask stupid questions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0q44ALM7jo
Are you suggesting that all of Stossel’s questions are stupid?
Let’s put it to you this way. Did I just ask a stupid question?
-
Are you suggesting that all of Stossel’s questions are stupid?
Let’s put it to you this way. Did I just ask a stupid question?
Stossel is a fake loser. He rails against frivolous lawsuits when he was the generator of one of the biggest in the 80's.
He can screw.
-
What? Deaf in one ear because they ask stupid questions?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0q44ALM7jo
C'mon, Frank. Jealousy is beneath you.
-
I'd rather look at vintage washing machines than any more of your GD harpy bullshit posts. You have been going on all day posting nonsensical shit non stop. Don't you have an effing job or a life?
I had time to collect a rent check from a deadbeat, chat with my accountant in his office and drop off a case of beer to my employees in the last hour or two. You on the other hand crank on hour after hour on the computer because you have hate for an inanimate object, that being words printed on a computer screen by a weirdly named poster.
Shut down your computer, join the real world and get an effing clue.
I don't have a weird name.
-
I'd rather look at vintage washing machines than any more of your GD harpy bullshit posts. You have been going on all day posting nonsensical shit non stop. Don't you have an effing job or a life?
I had time to collect a rent check from a deadbeat, chat with my accountant in his office and drop off a case of beer to my employees in the last hour or two. You on the other hand crank on hour after hour on the computer because you have hate for an inanimate object, that being words printed on a computer screen by a weirdly named poster.
Shut down your computer, join the real world and get an effing clue.
Wow, Frank.
That's a post that fits in with the worst at TOS.
Having a bad day??
-
Trump is arguably the first since Gingrich to fight back, and when that happens we defeat them. When we don't we lose, like W did in '06. Reality is Dems have only controlled the WH and Congress at the same time 4 years of the last 25 and the GOP hasn't been much of an adversary for most of that.
I saw George W roll over and play dead back in the runup to 2006. I saw the media harping about something at the time, I forget now what it was, but I remember at the time that it was designed to get Democrats elected.
No pushback from Bush. No pushback from his Father either. I saw it coming in both 1992 and 2006.
Clinton and Obama both lost their congressional majorities they started with. Bush lost his because he put up no fight whatsoever, and still held it 6 years.
Exactly. Both Clinton and Obama horrified the public who then elected Republicans to hold them in check. Bush just let the media say all sorts of nasty things about him, and the media ginned up a false outrage against him, which of course resulted in Democrats taking back congress. (Was it the Housing loan meltdown crises they were blaming on Bush?)
Their censorship hasn't seemed to help their cause.
I completely disagree with that statement. If I sat down and spent a few hours looking up the details, I bet I could find dozens of examples where media censorship of news benefited Democrats.
The housing Crises for example. It was caused indirectly by Jimmy Carter (yes, his legacy of stupidity has lingered on long past his presidency) Directly by Bill Clinton, and allowed by people like Barney Frank And Chris Dodd.
The media did not report who caused it and why, they didn't report how prominent Democrats in congress enabled it to get so bad, and they did in fact blame it on George W Bush who tried to prevent it but was prevented by Democrats in congress.
As a result, they won a majority in Congress as a prelude to that butthole Obama getting elected.
You don't think censoring the truth helped them and hurt the country?
What about Benghazi? What about Fast and Furious? What about Lois Lerner targeting Republicans? I could go on and on and on.
They have always kept the truth about abortion off the networks. They have always kept the truth about homosexuality off the networks. They have always kept the racial disparity in crime statistics off the networks. They never cover the socialist experiment in Venezuela in the manner it deserves by linking it to socialism/communism. They always play this game of "Name the party" whenever a Democrat has done something wrong or illegal, though they are always quite prominent in pointing out any Republican affiliation, especially if they can find a "RACIST!" angle to pin on it.
Censoring the news is how they do the *MOST* damage, but it is not always evident that the damage has occurred as a result of them censoring the news at the time.
While they are big players, the internet is just too big for them to control it. Their political effect is pretty muted.
They seem to be doing a pretty fair job of it now. Every other day I read about someone they have kicked off of one of the major platforms out there. Google is always demonitizing people for political reasons.
-
I'd rather look at vintage washing machines than any more of your GD harpy bullshit posts. You have been going on all day posting nonsensical shit non stop. Don't you have an effing job or a life?
I had time to collect a rent check from a deadbeat, chat with my accountant in his office and drop off a case of beer to my employees in the last hour or two. You on the other hand crank on hour after hour on the computer because you have hate for an inanimate object, that being words printed on a computer screen by a weirdly named poster.
Shut down your computer, join the real world and get an effing clue.
Thanks much for your suggestion. I’ll take that under advisement. If I’d known you were this touchy about your grandmas machine I would have employed better judgment in posting. While I’ve got you on the line, is there anything else you’d like to talk about? Maybe about that time you sneaked into your sisters room to try on a few frilly bras, no?
Well, I’m here whenever you need me.
-
I had something to say, but upon reading this I've decided it would be lost on you.
It no doubt had something to do with asserting that the status quo of one sided control of the airwaves somehow protects freedom of speech, when in fact it does the very opposite of that.
Speech is controlled. If you are not a member of the "Party of Government" clique, you don't get to communicate will millions of people at a time. You can engage in conversations with the 10 or so people who read your scribblings on the internet, but you won't be allowed to have any real influence at telling the people anything the Crony Capitalist Deep State doesn't want them to hear.
-
I don't have a weird name.
Yes you do. I can't decide if you had a Underoos fetish or if you misspelled "rouse" by mistake when you signed up here.
(https://www.geekalerts.com/u/Supergirl-Underoos-Set.jpg)
-
Conservatives are not.
You wouldn't think they would be, because locking in a lopsided balance of power is exactly how you lose, but I am not hearing any ideas on how to address the problem.
-
Well, I’m here whenever you need me.
Of course you are. You have nowhere else to go.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-nuoN-Rx1xjY/UrCiZURLaoI/AAAAAAAATSw/z5onif9tudY/s1600/george-marks-mature-woman-washing-clothes-by-hand.jpg)
-
Not just appreciated, but awestruck by it! Your clarity of thought is admirable. And then getting it all on page as quickly as you do. Say you don’t have newsroom in your background, do you?
No, but i've been arguing on the internet for about 30 years. :)
And thank you too. What I write seems clear to me, but by the time it is regurgitated back at me by my debate opponents, it is all garbled up into something I don't recognize.
I am apparently not being clear enough. :)
-
And requiring bakers to hire homosexuals would certainly stop that nasty cake problem!
As I told Cyber Liberty, if the government was creating a monopoly on the cake baking industry, you would have a good argument that the licensed bakers should be required to serve all interests.
-
Yes you do. I can't decide if you had a Underoos fetish or if you misspelled "rouse" by mistake when you signed up here.
Mine were WonderWoman.
(https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/superfriends/images/7/7a/Wonder_Woman_and_Underoo_girl.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/246?cb=20111126174025)
-
Hey, I don't want creativity in the news either but it came about by the 24 hour news stations. They cannot simply broadcast news all day and night.
It's been a long time, but I seem to remember back in the 1980s that there was a news station that did only the news. It was an endless rehash of the news that was updated every hour or so as necessary.
Was it CNN?
It seemed professional and it didn't seem biased in any manner that I could perceive at the time, but of course back then I didn't look for any. I naively thought like everyone else that the "news" people were objective and just reported the facts.
-
Mine were WonderWoman.
(https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/superfriends/images/7/7a/Wonder_Woman_and_Underoo_girl.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/246?cb=20111126174025)
Must be when you started developing your skills with a rope.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ab/8d/d7/ab8dd726fb7c435653778247d0ad32d1.jpg)
-
Must be when you started developing your skills with a rope.
You never know what's going to lead to an interesting hobby.
-
I don't know if you're trying be sarcastic or something, but that's been my point. The solution to Big Government interference is less interference, not more. I'm getting the impression you don't want Big Government out of it, you just want to be the side pushing the buttons and working the levers. Not a very admirable character trait.
No, my point is big government is already in it, and is in fact inseparable from it because the licenses which created the monopoly were the creation of Big Government.
So long as big government creates the beast, we will have big government to deal with for any attempts to constrain the beast.
-
It no doubt had something to do with asserting that the status quo of one sided control of the airwaves somehow protects freedom of speech, when in fact it does the very opposite of that.
Speech is controlled. If you are not a member of the "Party of Government" clique, you don't get to communicate will millions of people at a time. You can engage in conversations with the 10 or so people who read your scribblings on the internet, but you won't be allowed to have any real influence at telling the people anything the Crony Capitalist Deep State doesn't want them to hear.
No, I did say what was on my mind, it was nothing like the words you just tried to cram in my mouth. I'd ask you to scroll up to see it, but I already know it would be lost on you.
-
Stossel is a fake loser. He rails against frivolous lawsuits when he was the generator of one of the biggest in the 80's.
He can screw.
You must have seen a side of John Stossel of which I have so far been unaware.
I remember seeing the stories he used to do on ABC, and they were great. I can't remember anyone doing stories from a libertarian perspective before, let alone a conservative one.
What exactly did John Stossel do in the 80s to which you object?
-
No, I did say what was on my mind, it was nothing like the words you just tried to cram in my mouth.
No you didn't say that, but that is the inherent nature or consequence of what you did say.
We have a system of government approved monopolies that are contrary to the purpose for which Freedom of Speech was incorporated and articulated in the US Constitution.
People think it is about "Lèse-majesté", but it is far more important than that. The public's interest cannot be served if the perspective of all sides are not heard.
-
Thanks much for your suggestion. I’ll take that under advisement. If I’d known you were this touchy about your grandmas machine I would have employed better judgment in posting. While I’ve got you on the line, is there anything else you’d like to talk about? Maybe about that time you sneaked into your sisters room to try on a few frilly bras, no?
Well, I’m here whenever you need me.
^-^
-
Know what? I'm bored with this thread. Deathly bored. I know it's bad because I've been reviewing it, and the most interesting stuff over the last dozen or so pages were the pictures of antique washing machines.
The arguments have gotten so stale, people are bickering with their own selves.
For the crime of being boring, I am hereby locking this thread.
-
We sent Mod1 home for drinking on the job. You are all welcome to continue being boring to your heart's content.
-
We sent Mod1 home for drinking on the job. You are all welcome to continue being boring to your heart's content.
Damn funny! Who knew there was a MOD8 :shrug:
I always thought it was like a Defcon rating.
Anyways, I have not read a single post in this tread until now...made my day. Kudos..MOD8 . Sometimes the best is the last... I'll take your review to save me some hours of tediation.
-
We sent Mod1 home for drinking on the job. You are all welcome to continue being boring to your heart's content.
I think the moment is past.
-
What exactly did John Stossel do in the 80s to which you object?
Asked a wrestler a bunch of insulting questions to elicit a violent response for the cameras. After he succeded in that and got knocked on his ass Stossel set about suing the wrestler in a multi million dollar frivolous lawsuit. He ended up getting $450K. Then when his career is in the shitter he re-brands himself as some sort of Libertarian crusader after being the ultra Left guy on 20/20 and sets about calling for tort reform because lawsuits like his one in the 80's are clogging the system.
He is a proven fraud. Feel free to cozy up to him all you like. I'm far more discerning.
-
We sent Mod1 home for drinking on the job. You are all welcome to continue being boring to your heart's content.
MOD 1 deserves a medal for reading some of this crap. He could have heard more sophisticated banter by going to the seediest bar in town at closing time and edging over to the drunk couple.
-
I think the moment is past.
Dead and buried. Shouldn't have been resurrected. Now a Zombie Thread.
-
It's like deja vu.
-
It's like deja vu.
All over again.
-
MOD 1 deserves a medal for reading some of this crap. He could have heard more sophisticated banter by going to the seediest bar in town at closing time and edging over to the drunk couple.
@Emjay
Why are you degrading yourself in this filthy dive, babe?
-
Asked a wrestler a bunch of insulting questions to elicit a violent response for the cameras. After he succeded in that and got knocked on his ass Stossel set about suing the wrestler in a multi million dollar frivolous lawsuit. He ended up getting $450K. Then when his career is in the shitter he re-brands himself as some sort of Libertarian crusader after being the ultra Left guy on 20/20 and sets about calling for tort reform because lawsuits like his one in the 80's are clogging the system.
He is a proven fraud. Feel free to cozy up to him all you like. I'm far more discerning.
Iirc didn't he just ask if wrestling was real?
Not assault worthy imo.
-
Iirc didn't he just ask if wrestling was real?
Not assault worthy imo.
IIRC it was Gerardo (Geary Rivers) who did that not John Stossel.
-
IIRC it was Gerardo (Geary Rivers) who did that not John Stossel.
No it was Stossel and a wrestler by the name of Dave Schultz. Happened back state at MSG in 1984.
-
No it was Stossel and a wrestler by the name of Dave Schultz. Happened back state at MSG in 1984.
I was not aware that Stossel had done the same thing Geraldo did previously and got the crap beat out of him for his efforts!
-
I was not aware that Stossel had done the same thing Geraldo did previously and got the crap beat out of him for his efforts!
I didn't know Geraldo got beaten up. The only injury I recall he got was when he got hit by a chair on his show, on camera, and got a broken nose. But I had seen the video of Stossel before, and it was a "wrestler" who was peeved at a question about whether it was "real." It was a pretty obvious assault and battery.
Apparently they really hate getting asked that, I had one almost take a swing at me for that reason at a TV station I worked at back in the 70's. They were pretty obviously fakes back then.
-
I didn't know Geraldo got beaten up. The only injury I recall he got was when he got hit by a chair on his show, on camera, and got a broken nose. But I had seen the video of Stossel before, and it was a "wrestler" who was peeved at a question about whether it was "real." It was a pretty obvious assault and battery.
Apparently they really hate getting asked that, I had one almost take a swing at me for that reason at a TV station I worked at back in the 70's. They were pretty obviously fakes back then.
My youngest son was really into wrestling when he was very young so I took him to an event here at the local fairgrounds and purposefully hung around in the parking lot until those guys who had seemingly been trying to kill each other a few minutes before began to come out laughing and joking with each other and getting into the same cars with each other! I guess I ruined the illusion for him.
-
I was not aware that Stossel had done the same thing Geraldo did previously and got the crap beat out of him for his efforts!
Yeah the guy kept repeating something along the lines of "does that feel fake" as he was whacking Stossel upside the head.
I remember seeing it when it aired on 20/20 back in the day when Hugh Down and Barbara Walters were still hosting it.
-
Yeah the guy kept repeating something along the lines of "does that feel fake" as he was whacking Stossel upside the head.
I remember seeing it when it aired on 20/20 back in the day when Hugh Down and Barbara Walters were still hosting it.
IIRC Geraldo's was when he had a late night show on TV. Long ago but can't put a year on it.
-
IIRC Geraldo's was when he had a late night show on TV. Long ago but can't put a year on it.
I've met him a couple times in person...once when his show was live at Ft. Hamilton and the next year at the Fox Studios.
He treated his staff like crap when the cameras were off. As someone in the business I wasn't impressed.
Saw the Rev. Al during that time too when he used to be a guest on Jerry's show...tried to be nice and say hi to him...he's a bitter little troll too.
-
Saw the Rev. Al during that time too when he used to be a guest on Jerry's show...tried to be nice and say hi to him...he's a bitter little troll too.
I've seen your picture, and we both know what lil' Al's problem was with you....
-
I've seen your picture, and we both know what lil' Al's problem was with you....
@Cyber Liberty
LOL! :silly: Good point.
-
Yes thats worked so well these last few decades.
We all remember how Bush lost complete control of the "debate" around 2005 or so. As did his father, before him.
Trump won't make that mistake. His peculiar personality won't allow it. And, it benefits him greatly because he always has the media/Democrat cabal off balance and reflexively striking out at every new perceived outrage. He's rope-a-doping his political opposition, even if it's just his nature and if they don't know it yet.
-
We all remember how Bush lost complete control of the "debate" around 2005 or so. As did his father, before him.
Trump won't make that mistake. His peculiar personality won't allow it. And, it benefits him greatly because he always has the media/Democrat cabal off balance and reflexively striking out at every new perceived outrage. He's rope-a-doping his political opposition, even if it's just his nature and if they don't know it yet.
Take this latest Trump scandal. Which scandal you ask? You know the one where yesterday Trump is taking swipes at Mitch McConnell early in the day and then later in the day has nothing but praise for Mitch McConnell and their relationship. See, Trump has no core principles! Say the NeverTrumpers.
How many times must I explain, Trump is always in negotiation mode. Think of it as good cop–bad cop. Trump always throws out some trash talk about a negotiating partner beforehand, putting them back on their heels. Then in meeting he comes in with a softer posture. There’s a method to Trump’s actions and until NeverTrump accepts that, they will always be in a perpetual state of outrage over Trump’s “lack of principles.”
It has nothing to do with his core principles, only that he intends to win the better deal for his demands.
-
Take this latest Trump scandal. Which scandal you ask? You know the one where yesterday Trump is taking swipes at Mitch McConnell early in the day and then later in the day has nothing but praise for Mitch McConnell and their relationship. See, Trump has no core principles! Say the NeverTrumpers.
How many times must I explain, Trump is always in negotiation mode. Think of it as good cop–bad cop. Trump always throws out some trash talk about a negotiating partner beforehand, putting them back on their heels. Then in meeting he comes in with a softer posture. There’s a method to Trump’s actions and until NeverTrump accepts that, they will always be in a perpetual state of outrage over Trump’s “lack of principles.”
It has nothing to do with his core principles, only that he intends to win the better deal for his demands.
Anytime I've seen good cop/bad cop played it's by two different people, not one bi-polar person.
-
Take this latest Trump scandal. Which scandal you ask? You know the one where yesterday Trump is taking swipes at Mitch McConnell early in the day and then later in the day has nothing but praise for Mitch McConnell and their relationship. See, Trump has no core principles! Say the NeverTrumpers.
How many times must I explain, Trump is always in negotiation mode. Think of it as good cop–bad cop. Trump always throws out some trash talk about a negotiating partner beforehand, putting them back on their heels. Then in meeting he comes in with a softer posture. There’s a method to Trump’s actions and until NeverTrump accepts that, they will always be in a perpetual state of outrage over Trump’s “lack of principles.”
It has nothing to do with his core principles, only that he intends to win the better deal for his demands.
12 dimensional chess again...
*****rollingeyes*****
-
12 dimensional chess again...
*****rollingeyes*****
No. Not chess, just negotiation skills. Some people like Trump excel at it. It’s the reason he’s been successful in business and in life: he hits what he aims for.
-
No. Not chess, just negotiation skills. Some people like Trump excel at it. It’s the reason he’s been successful in business and in life: he hits what he aims for.
@aligncare
You keep saying this over and over again, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of President Trump's great negotiating skills being translated into him hitting what he's aiming for, particularly legislatively. Although I didn't vote for Trump, I really thought (assumed, hoped, looked forward to) him bringing a fresh perspective, creative ideas, using his bully pulpit, and leveraging his self-touted negotiation skills on things like repeal and replace, tax reform, and selling the Constitutional Amendment he promised to propose on Term Limits. Rather than working with the party he’s supposed to be leading, he’s fighting with them. That doesn’t bode well for his legislative agenda IMO, and we’re already seeing evidence of that.
What evidence are you seeing that President Trump has leveraged his self-described great negotiating skills to hit what he's aiming for (particularly legislatively)? I was really looking forward to it, but I'm just not seeing some evidence that you apparently are seeing.
-
@aligncare
You keep saying this over and over again, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of President Trump's great negotiating skills being translated into him hitting what he's aiming for, particularly legislatively. Although I didn't vote for Trump, I really thought (assumed, hoped, looked forward to) him bringing a fresh perspective, creative ideas, using his bully pulpit, and leveraging his self-touted negotiation skills on things like repeal and replace, tax reform, and selling the Constitutional Amendment he promised to propose on Term Limits. Rather than working with the party he’s supposed to be leading, he’s fighting with them. That doesn’t bode well for his legislative agenda IMO, and we’re already seeing evidence of that.
What evidence are you seeing that President Trump has leveraged his self-described great negotiating skills to hit what he's aiming for (particularly legislatively)? I was really looking forward to it, but I'm just not seeing some evidence that you apparently are seeing.
If this is his great negotiating skills on display...it's no wonder his companies have had to file for bankruptcy so many times.
-
@aligncare
You keep saying this over and over again, but I'm just not seeing the evidence of President Trump's great negotiating skills being translated into him hitting what he's aiming for, particularly legislatively. Although I didn't vote for Trump, I really thought (assumed, hoped, looked forward to) him bringing a fresh perspective, creative ideas, using his bully pulpit, and leveraging his self-touted negotiation skills on things like repeal and replace, tax reform, and selling the Constitutional Amendment he promised to propose on Term Limits. Rather than working with the party he’s supposed to be leading, he’s fighting with them. That doesn’t bode well for his legislative agenda IMO, and we’re already seeing evidence of that.
What evidence are you seeing that President Trump has leveraged his self-described great negotiating skills to hit what he's aiming for (particularly legislatively)? I was really looking forward to it, but I'm just not seeing some evidence that you apparently are seeing.
I keep saying it because it’s true. I’ve read dozens of articles about his life in business written prior to his running for president that detailed projects that were successfully completed because of his negotiating skills, back when no one was calling him racist, Nazi or misogynist.
As head of the Trump Corporation he was negotiating deals to build skyscrapers, golf resorts and hundreds of projects worldwide against stiff opposition from governments, environmentalists, and local civic groups, and he won most of those battles. He was also negotiating deals for himself with networks as a TV personality.
As to your point about legislative success, that’s a non sequitur. Trump is not the leader of the legislative branch and no one would want a president writing legislation. A president’s agenda is often stalled by congress and Trump’s agenda is no different, except that in his case this republican president has faced the stiffest opposition to his presidency since Ronald Reagan was nearly equally opposed by the media, the democrats and many in his own party.
But in his capacity as head of the executive branch Trump’s performance has been stellar. So, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the negotiating skills of a man who wrote the best seller the Art of the Deal, and proved himself in the business world.
-
YouTube Admits Censoring Independent News Channels
https://youtu.be/xepABu61OU4
-
12 dimensional chess again...
*****rollingeyes*****
For some reason that D@mned fool just keeps on winning.
-
But in his capacity as head of the executive branch Trump’s performance has been stellar.
Name one thing he's done so far that could be pointed to as "stellar".
So, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the negotiating skills of a man who wrote the best seller the Art of the Deal,
Except he didn't write it...he had a ghost writer by the name of Tony Schwartz write the book.
and proved himself in the business world.
Hmmmm
Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2011/04/29/fourth-times-a-charm-how-donald-trump-made-bankruptcy-work-for-him/#375fd4317ffa
-
I keep saying it because it’s true. I’ve read dozens of articles about his life in business written prior to his running for president that detailed projects that were successfully completed because of his negotiating skills, back when no one was calling him racist, Nazi or misogynist.
As head of the Trump Corporation he was negotiating deals to build skyscrapers, golf resorts and hundreds of projects worldwide against stiff opposition from governments, environmentalists, and local civic groups, and he won most of those battles. He was also negotiating deals for himself with networks as a TV personality.
As to your point about legislative success, that’s a non sequitur. Trump is not the leader of the legislative branch and no one would want a president writing legislation. A president’s agenda is often stalled by congress and Trump’s agenda is no different, except that in his case this republican president has faced the stiffest opposition to his presidency since Ronald Reagan was nearly equally opposed by the media, the democrats and many in his own party.
But in his capacity as head of the executive branch Trump’s performance has been stellar. So, I guess we’ll just have to disagree about the negotiating skills of a man who wrote the best seller the Art of the Deal, and proved himself in the business world.
So, no examples as President, of Trump using his great negotiating skills to achieve a goal. Got it! Just as I thought.
-
Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story
(http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Trump-Tells-Reporters-About-The-Real-Russia-Story.png)
“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.
Thank you very much, everybody.”
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs
-
Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story
(http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Trump-Tells-Reporters-About-The-Real-Russia-Story.png)
“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.
Thank you very much, everybody.”
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs
A disgrace of the first order! NO doubt about it!
-
Trump Tells Reporters About The ‘Real’ Russia Story
(http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Trump-Tells-Reporters-About-The-Real-Russia-Story.png)
“Not a story where they talk about collusion, and there was none, it was a hoax. Your real Russia story is uranium, and how they got all of that uranium. Vast percentage of what we have. That is, to me, one of the big stories of the decade, not just now, of the decade. The problem is that the mainstream media does not want to cover that story because that affects people that they protect. So they don’t like covering that story. But the big story is uranium and how Russia got 20 percent of our uranium, and frankly, it’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. And it’s a disgrace that the fake news won’t cover it. It’s so sad.
Thank you very much, everybody.”
http://www.commonsenseevaluation.com/2017/10/19/trump-tells-reporters-real-russia-story/#sthash.csOPYHMw.CYi4MlRl.dpbs
He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."
-
He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."
And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?
-
And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?
Of course not. Look, I can see you're fixing to start shoving words in my mouth again, so drop it.
-
He's correct about this one, all the way down to the two "It's a disgraces."
Word.
-
Of course not. Look, I can see you're fixing to start shoving words in my mouth again, so drop it.
But your proposal is to do nothing; To keep the status quo of Liberal controlled censorship of stories.
Do you have any proposals to do something?
-
And do you think allowing a system that censors such information will not have bad consequences for us all?
What's the alternative, having government censor the media.
Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.
The media has always been biased. The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.
[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW. It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.
-
What's the alternative, having government censor the media.
Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.
The media has always been biased. The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.
[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW. It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.
EXCELLENT.
:beer:
-
What's the alternative, having government censor the media.
Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.
The media has always been biased. The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.
[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW. It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.
Try this on for size! How about we use currently existing anti-trust laws to break up the current media oligarcy?
-
What's the alternative, having government censor the media.
People just cannot help but head straight for that groove, as if no other solution than government bureaucrats censoring the media comes to mind.
Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.
Because conservative media (what's that?) is not totally getting censored right now.
The media has always been biased. The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential.
When the dominate way of reaching the public was a piece of paper, freedom of the "press" was essential. It could also not be dominated by anyone. Anyone with a "press" could print and distribute to all of the people as much as they like.
But comparing a "press" to a Trillion dollar infrastructure brain washing machine is just naive. For one thing, video works so much better to bypass the rational part of the mind, where as printed word is more likely to engage cognitive facilities.
For another, the Video system reaches hundreds of millions of people each week, but it's a monopoly (created by Government) to which conservatives don't have access.
A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.
The internet is heading in the direction of being controlled too. If you put all your eggs in that basket, don't be surprised when they all get broken.
-
EXCELLENT.
:beer:
Rah! Rah! We are all against censorship and in favor of "freedom of the press".
Unfortunately what we have now is Censorship and nothing equivalent to "freedom of the press."
The "press" is entirely in the hands of one party control.
-
Try this on for size! How about we use currently existing anti-trust laws to break up the current media oligarcy?
I'm glad you mentioned "oligarchy" and not "monopoly". I'm not surprised given your posting history, but it's still nice to see folks identify the difference (especially on this thread).
That said, are they breaking any anti-trust laws today? If so, yeah, enforce the law.
However, IMO, the situation is this. There are a small(ish) number of media outlets that dominate the market, and they are pretty much all leftist. We conservatives let them get that way (we were probably too busy with jobs and stuff). But there's nothing, that I can see, stopping us from fixing the problem using only the free market.
-
Unfortunately what we have now is Censorship and nothing equivalent to "freedom of the press."
The "press" is entirely in the hands of one party control.
I will differ from you in this. The very fact that I post these words is proof enough that while censorship is active (and almost always is), it is not insurmountable.
-
What's the alternative, having government censor the media.
Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.
The media has always been biased. The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.
[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW. It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.
:amen:
-
Funny how some want more government to stop the abuse by government...
-
I will differ from you in this. The very fact that I post these words is proof enough that while censorship is active (and almost always is), it is not insurmountable.
Perhaps 10 people will see your words today. Perhaps 100 in a week. Do you know how many people will hear George Stephanopolis tomorrow? Perhaps 10 million.
If you think this is how you influence the public, you don't know how to play this game called "politics."
You are a lightning bug to their lightning. So long as you are content to stay a lightning bug, they will always win.
-
Perhaps 10 people will see your words today. Perhaps 100 in a week. Do you know how many people will hear George Stephanopolis tomorrow? Perhaps 10 million.
And 20m will hear Limbaugh. There is far, far more diversity in source and political alignment than there has ever been before.
The internet leveled the field and will continue to, as long as it remains free.
-
I'm glad you mentioned "oligarchy" and not "monopoly". I'm not surprised given your posting history, but it's still nice to see folks identify the difference (especially on this thread).
That said, are they breaking any anti-trust laws today? If so, yeah, enforce the law.
However, IMO, the situation is this. There are a small(ish) number of media outlets that dominate the market, and they are pretty much all leftist. We conservatives let them get that way (we were probably too busy with jobs and stuff). But there's nothing, that I can see, stopping us from fixing the problem using only the free market.
@InHeavenThereIsNoBeer
Thanks for the kind words!
I suppose it depends on who's looking whether or not any anti-trust laws are being broken. If the oligarchy is carrying YOUR water why would you even look?
-
What's the alternative, having government censor the media.
Or, more correctly, liberal career bureaucrats using their government backed authority to censor conservative media.
The media has always been biased. The Founders certainly knew this, and yet felt that a free press was essential. A fat and lazy (because they had become successful and complacent) citizenry decided they could trust Cronkite, but that's no reason we should allow[1] gov't control over the media, especially at a time when the power of consolidated media has a chance to be circumvented by the internet.
[1] That's how it's supposed to work, BTW. It's not up to gov't to allow businesses to do stuff, it's up to us to allow the government to do stuff.
:hands:
-
And 20m will hear Limbaugh.
The 20 million you don't need to reach. Do you know where are the people whom you do need to reach?
They are on television, where you aren't. They are George Stephanopolis' sheep.
-
There are things that government in association with civic groups can do to address media bias that doesn’t involve abridging speech, pulling licenses or issuing draconian regulations.
Everything from buying commercial advertising time for the purpose of educating about the issue, to using already existing FCC requirements to air community public service announcements.
I’m sure there’s some middle ground somewhere.
-
The 20 million you don't need to reach. Do you know where are the people whom you do need to reach?
They are on television, where you aren't. They are George Stephanopolis' sheep.
Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.
-
Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.
I have heard Rush himself say MANY times that people listen to him because he validates what they already think and I would say that he is right about that!
-
:hands:
This gif is more appropriate to what you are doing.
(http://thefw.com/files/2013/08/applause.gif)
Think like a rational person, not a seal. Nobody is suggesting a government take over of media, it's just that's what all of you people keep wanting to hear coming out of our mouths.
No government control of the media. Get it?
-
Yes, but the 20 million would need to be reached if they hadn't been already.
The people who need to hear our side, and who need to hear news detrimental to the Democrats are the people who watch Television.
What we have now is a system where the Democrats who run the networks routinely censor news that is damaging to Democrats. (Like what is going on in Venezuela, for example.) So long as we continue allowing Democrats to have total control of the network infrastructure, they will continue censoring news that is damaging to Democrats, and the public will therefore not be informed.
We must break Democrat control of the network system. We must gain at least equal access to the network system.
I personally think that after 60 years of Democrat control of the Network system, we ought to be entitled to 60 years of exclusive control ourselves, but I will settle for ending absolute Democrat control over the system.
-
The people who need to hear our side, and who need to hear news detrimental to the Democrats are the people who watch Television.
What we have now is a system where the Democrats who run the networks routinely censor news that is damaging to Democrats. (Like what is going on in Venezuela, for example.) So long as we continue allowing Democrats to have total control of the network infrastructure, they will continue censoring news that is damaging to Democrats, and the public will therefore not be informed.
We must break Democrat control of the network system. We must gain at least equal access to the network system.
I personally think that after 60 years of Democrat control of the Network system, we ought to be entitled to 60 years of exclusive control ourselves, but I will settle for ending absolute Democrat control over the system.
I partially agree with you: WE must break leftist control of the network system. Not the federal government, which is NOT on our side unless it benefits them.
-
I partially agree with you: WE must break leftist control of the network system. Not the federal government, which is NOT on our side unless it benefits them.
Yes, but let’s assume we as constitutional conservatives begin making great strides in electing more like minded people to run for office and winning, in essence draining the swamp. Then we can begin the process of changing the existing institutions of liberal indoctrination, the universities and public schools, which are the feeder systems for the leftists. Isn’t that ultimately our goal?
That alone can begin changing culture so that Hollywood and television become less influential. It’s at that point that some balance can be restored to network news.
-
Yes, but let’s assume we as constitutional conservatives begin making great strides in electing more like minded people to run for office and winning, in essence draining the swamp. Then we can begin the process of changing the existing institutions of liberal indoctrination, the universities and public schools, which are the feeder systems for the leftists. Isn’t that ultimately our goal?
That alone can begin changing culture so that Hollywood and television become less influential. It’s at that point that some balance can be restored to network news.
We can start doing that now. Why do we need to be elected?
-
We can start doing that now. Why do we need to be elected?
I started long ago! I do not watch their programming or purchase their print products!
-
The left has been extremely successful carrying out their agenda, and much of it outside the government. Seems only some on the right think they need the government to be successful.
-
I partially agree with you: WE must break leftist control of the network system. Not the federal government, which is NOT on our side unless it benefits them.
Ideas on how to do it?
-
Short answer (because I'm heading out the door) study the tactics of the left.
-
Short answer (because I'm heading out the door) study the tactics of the left.
I'm not sure that's valid. The left has been using the muscle of Big Government to gt their way, and we're (supposed to be) philosophically opposed to having Government do our dirty work.
-
I'm not sure that's valid. The left has been using the muscle of Big Government to gt their way, and we're (supposed to be) philosophically opposed to having Government do our dirty work.
Now, that they have BG. That is fairly recent.
-
Now, that they have BG. That is fairly recent.
True. They started with the culture, and worked their way up.
-
Short answer (because I'm heading out the door) study the tactics of the left.
Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.
But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.
-
Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.
But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.
I'm not a lot of people and I'm against the idea of using the feds to enforce content.
-
Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points.
But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.
Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying (although that's apparently what you are hearing). I've said consistently through this thread I agree, but I don't want Big Government enforcing my idea of equality on the media. You have equally consistently said that means I don't want to be heard, and that's a distortion of what I've been saying.
That's why I'd pretty much given up trying to explain it.
-
Their tactic is to take over the broadcast system and monopolize it with fabricated Drama that sell leftist talking points. But i'm hearing that a lot of people don't like the idea of us doing the same thing.
So you are in favor of monopolizing the media and pushing fabricated drama to sell your points as long as the fabrications and drama sells your POV?
Just as I long ago realized: scratch the surface of a far right authoritarian or alt-right winger and you will find in them a brethren of the far left. Fascists on either side of the Fascists coin are still Fascists.
Government control or censorship of a free press is not any better when it’s our guys doing it. A jack booted thug stomping my neck to suppress my free speech or on my ear to suppress my access to varied opinions whether I agree with them or not, is not better or worse under a leftist than it is under a rightest regime.
(http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/150601.jpg)
and
(http://tinypic.com/eu2fb9.jpg)
applies equally.
-
I'm not a lot of people and I'm against the idea of using the feds to enforce content.
Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying (although that's apparently what you are hearing). I've said consistently through this thread I agree, but I don't want Big Government enforcing my idea of equality on the media. You have equally consistently said that means I don't want to be heard, and that's a distortion of what I've been saying.
That's why I'd pretty much given up trying to explain it.
You'all aren’t alone. As a conservative, I just can’t imagine desiring the Federal Government to enforce media content, and I still can’t believe that other conservatives do.
-
So you are in favor of monopolizing the media and pushing fabricated drama to sell your points as long as the fabrications and drama sells your POV?
Just as I long ago realized: scratch the surface of a far right authoritarian or alt-right winger and you will find in them a brethren of the far left. Fascists on either side of the Fascists coin are still Fascists.
Government control or censorship of a free press is not any better when it’s our guys doing it. A jack booted thug stomping my neck to suppress my free speech or on my ear to suppress my access to varied opinions whether I agree with them or not, is not better or worse under a leftist than it is under a rightest regime.
(http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/150601.jpg)
and
(http://tinypic.com/eu2fb9.jpg)
applies equally.
I'm stealing that! 888high58888
-
I'm not a lot of people and I'm against the idea of using the feds to enforce content.
You and others keep saying "Feds" and "content", as if you have no better ideas on how to accomplish it. Come to think of it, since I have been asking for ideas, nobody seems to come up with any other than "Feds" and "content."
I personally don't care how it's done, but both political parties need to have access to the system, not one.
Any proposal that does not allow for my side to use the system to the same extent the other side does is a dead proposal so far as I'm concerned.
-
Speaking for myself, that's not what I'm saying (although that's apparently what you are hearing). I've said consistently through this thread I agree, but I don't want Big Government enforcing my idea of equality on the media.
Well your point would be easier to grasp if you would say how it should be accomplished. All anyone seems to think of is "big government."
How about someone putting forth some ideas that don't reduce to "big government"?
-
Well your point would be easier to grasp if you would say how it should be accomplished. All anyone seems to think of is "big government."
How about someone putting forth some ideas that don't reduce to "big government"?
I did and you seem to have skipped right over it.
-
So you are in favor of monopolizing the media and pushing fabricated drama to sell your points as long as the fabrications and drama sells your POV?
Why do you have to put "me" into it? Why do you have to make it personally about me?
How about we just take over the d@mn thing and let the Heritage Foundation run it? Would that be okay with you? The point is that it needs to be taken away from the people who currently run it because they are using it to try to kill or enslave us.
Just as I long ago realized: scratch the surface of a far right authoritarian or alt-right winger and you will find in them a brethren of the far left. Fascists on either side of the Fascists coin are still Fascists.
And there are so many people who are so desperate to "signal" to everyone that they are oh so proper at opposing all forms of evil, that they begin to see it everywhere they look.
Thank God you are not like we Publicans.
Government control or censorship of a free press is not any better when it’s our guys doing it.
And once more, no one is suggesting that the government control the press. I am perfectly happy if we take it over without the government being involved. The point here is that the "press" is not free, and so instead of being their "b*tch", we ought to be trying to make them into ours.
You know how you get government control? You wax moral about how much you oppose it while you allow it to happen through the party of government!
We are at a point now where you can't see daylight between the media and the Deep State.
I ignored the rest of your pompous crap. It's just more of you telling us how very moral you are. In the meantime we have a war to fight.
-
Why do you have to put "me" into it? Why do you have to make it personally about me?
How about we just take over the d@mn thing and let the Heritage Foundation run it? Would that be okay with you? The point is that it needs to be taken away from the people who currently run it because they are using it to try to kill or enslave us.
And there are so many people who are so desperate to "signal" to everyone that they are oh so proper at opposing all forms of evil, that they begin to see it everywhere they look.
Thank God you are not like we Publicans.
And once more, no one is suggesting that the government control the press. I am perfectly happy if we take it over without the government being involved. The point here is that the "press" is not free, and so instead of being their "b*tch", we ought to be trying to make them into ours.
You know how you get government control? You wax moral about how much you oppose it while you allow it to happen through the party of government!
We are at a point now where you can't see daylight between the media and the Deep State.
I ignored the rest of your pompous crap. It's just more of you telling us how very moral you are. In the meantime we have a war to fight.
The only pompous crap and self defined morality here are your posts @DiogenesLamp. You are so thick in to the bushes of self hypocrisy and paranoia that you can't see the blades of grass from the bushes nor the forest for the trees. You would rather cut the tree of Liberty down to its very roots with the ax that brings fascism as long as it is your brand of fascism, rather than see the slippery slope you are one.
"All trees are kept equal, by hatchet, ax and saw." But in your world just as in the leftists ideal world, some trees (or pigs) are more equal than others.
But carry on with your brand of self righteous fascism and mudslinging at anyone who dares to point it out.
-
True. They started with the culture, and worked their way up.
Which was the point I was making.
-
You'all aren’t alone. As a conservative, I just can’t imagine desiring the Federal Government to enforce media content, and I still can’t believe that other conservatives do.
Exactly. In all other things we want the ability only to compete in a fair marketplace. So, let's compete. Our ideas are better, and our stories can be just as tear-jerking or euphoric as anything the left produces, only based on sound and moral principles.
-
Which was the point I was making.
Yes, you have. From the start.
-
Which was the point I was making.
:beer:
-
You'all aren’t alone. As a conservative, I just can’t imagine desiring the Federal Government to enforce media content, and I still can’t believe that other conservatives do.
Here we go again. Stop putting your words in our mouths and then claiming we said them. Exactly 0 people have suggested that we should allow the Federal Government to control content. To whom do you refer as "I still can't believe that other conservatives do." ?
-
I did and you seem to have skipped right over it.
I just looked through four pages of your messages and I didn't see it. I assume your suggestion is older than that, and I must have missed it.
If you could reiterate any ideas on how to deal with this problem, I would like to hear them.
-
I did and you seem to have skipped right over it.
I did as well and only one person responded.
-
You would rather cut the tree of Liberty down to its very roots with the ax that brings fascism as long as it is your brand of fascism, rather than see the slippery slope you are one.
Because the tree of Liberty is doing just fine right now, isn't it? Obama was an aberration, and anyone could have beaten Hillary.
So you call "fighting back" "fascism"? What isn't fascism? Lying on your side curled up in a fetal position while they elect more socialists?
Are you just dense?
You worry more about imaginary future despotism while you meekly accept the real thing creeping into our lives right now.
Trump is a temporary pause in the march towards real fascism, and accepting the status quo is going to get us there faster than fighting back.
-
Here we go again. Stop putting your words in our mouths and then claiming we said them. Exactly 0 people have suggested that we should allow the Federal Government to control content. To whom do you refer as "I still can't believe that other conservatives do." ?
Well, throughout this entire thread there's been plenty of discussion around the President's threat to revoke licenses of NBC over what he asserts is "fake news". Several in this thread have indicated some level of support for that. I'm against it. This seems clear enough.
I'm not going to get into a protracted debate with you about semantics. :seeya:
-
Exactly. In all other things we want the ability only to compete in a fair marketplace. So, let's compete. Our ideas are better, and our stories can be just as tear-jerking or euphoric as anything the left produces, only based on sound and moral principles.
The problem with established monopolies is that they stop competition. Suppose you were a multi millionaire with talent and you could afford to make a wonderful conservative sitcom. How would you get it on the air?
How would you reach the people? How many billions would it take to build a network capable of reaching as many people as do the other networks?
Remember when Glenn Beck tried to buy a satellite channel? Rather than sell it to him, I think they sold it to al Jazera.
How do you break a monopoly that is intent on keeping you out of business?
-
I will say this. If the oil industry were consolidated to the point the broadcast media currently is the trust busters would be out in full force!
-
Well, throughout this entire thread there's been plenty of discussion around the President's threat to revoke licenses of NBC over what he asserts is "fake news".
Sounds reasonable to me. They are in fact in violation of the terms of their licenses by constantly broadcasting blatant propaganda. What the Federal Government giveth, the Federal Government can taketh away.
They can always go back to the "press".
-
Sounds reasonable to me. They are in fact in violation of the terms of their licenses by constantly broadcasting blatant propaganda. What the Federal Government giveth, the Federal Government can taketh away.
They can always go back to the "press".
I know I pointed this out 50 years ago when this thread started, but the story that Trump is railing about per this article actually is true.
-
I know I pointed this out 50 years ago when this thread started, but the story that Trump is railing about per this article actually is true.
:amen: And here we go again. 11513
-
Exactly 0 people have suggested that we should allow the Federal Government to control content.
LOL. Exactly ONE person has been demanding Government control of content.
-
:amen: And here we go again. 11513
Maybe 700 posts later someone will listen to me. :laugh:
-
I know I pointed this out 50 years ago when this thread started, but the story that Trump is railing about per this article actually is true.
Funny, several days ago I read an article that said it was in fact false, and it included comments from someone who should know. General Kelly, I think.
I'll see if I can find it.
-
LOL. Exactly ONE person has been demanding Government control of content.
And who is that? I must have missed it.
-
Maybe 700 posts later someone will listen to me. :laugh:
You'll have to do a better job. This is a competitive market.
-
Funny, several days ago I read an article that said it was in fact false, and it included comments from someone who should know. General Kelly, I think.
I'll see if I can find it.
Look at the beginning of this thread. I posted a link to an interview Trump did (with Reuters I think?) and basically said what he said he didn't say.
-
You'll have to do a better job. This is a competitive market.
You can lead a horse...
-
Here's a perfect example!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/media-fails-in-coverage-of-sen-menendez-corruption-trial/?utm_source=site-share
-
The problem with established monopolies is that they stop competition. Suppose you were a multi millionaire with talent and you could afford to make a wonderful conservative sitcom. How would you get it on the air?
How would you reach the people? How many billions would it take to build a network capable of reaching as many people as do the other networks?
Remember when Glenn Beck tried to buy a satellite channel? Rather than sell it to him, I think they sold it to al Jazera.
How do you break a monopoly that is intent on keeping you out of business?
Media is not a monopoly, not matter how many times you say it.
A monopoly has:
1) A single entity with control of most of or all of the market. The fact that the many, many different entities who own/run these businesses have similar political views does not qualify here.
2) Significant barriers to entry. There are hundreds of networks, and nothing stopping folks from creating their own. There's Youtube, you can create your own web page. Printing is easy enough. Outside MAYBE broadcast, since there is a limited number of frequencies (and broadcast is harder to argue now that analog is dead), media does not present significant barriers to entry.
-
Here's a perfect example!
http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/07/media-fails-in-coverage-of-sen-menendez-corruption-trial/?utm_source=site-share
Prime example of the power of media to ignore. What Menendez trial?
-
Look at the beginning of this thread. I posted a link to an interview Trump did (with Reuters I think?) and basically said what he said he didn't say.
I looked at the article you posted. No where did I see anything suggesting Trump wanted our nuclear arsenal to be 10 times bigger than it is.
I even did a word search on the article for "10" and also for "ten". "10" comes up once as in "10 years", and "ten" doesn't come up at all.
In other words, he didn't say what NBC claimed he said. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701)
It appears NBC fabricated that claim.
I'm also not actually sure how you can claim the NBC article is proved by the reuters article. It would seem to in fact prove the exact opposite.
-
I looked at the article you posted. No where did I see anything suggesting Trump wanted our nuclear arsenal to be 10 times bigger than it is.
I even did a word search on the article for "10" and also for "ten". "10" comes up once as in "10 years", and "ten" doesn't come up at all.
In other words, he didn't say what NBC claimed he said. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/trump-wanted-dramatic-increase-nuclear-arsenal-meeting-military-leaders-n809701)
It appears NBC fabricated that claim.
I'm also not actually sure how you can claim the NBC article is proved by the reuters article. It would seem to in fact prove the exact opposite.
I thought I made it clear when I posted it before that he didn't say the "ten times", but said that it should be increased.
-
Media is not a monopoly, not matter how many times you say it.
A monopoly has:
1) A single entity with control of most of or all of the market. The fact that the many, many different entities who own/run these businesses have similar political views does not qualify here.
So you we are going to split hairs on the definition are we? Does Oligarchy sound better to you? I don't really care what you call it, it is an enemy force, and it needs to be stopped.
"Monopoly" is simple, easy to understand, and gets the point across.
2) Significant barriers to entry. There are hundreds of networks, and nothing stopping folks from creating their own.
Billions of dollars is a pretty big "nothing". Just stop it. It is irrational to believe some investment "angel" is going to come up with 100 billion dollars to build a competing infrastructure.
Just stop it.
There's Youtube,
You are making my case for me. Youtube has become heavily censored and conservative videos have been demonitized and even removed.
you can create your own web page.
We are going to slay the Goliaths of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX with a web page? That's just asinine.
Printing is easy enough.
And too pointless to be mentioned. Even the regular print newspapers are dying, and they don't reach anything like George Stephanopolis.
Outside MAYBE broadcast, since there is a limited number of frequencies (and broadcast is harder to argue now that analog is dead), media does not present significant barriers to entry.
Sure, just loan me 100 billion and we'll fix this problem. That's obviously no barrier to entry, is it?
-
Prime example of the power of media to ignore. What Menendez trial?
What Hillary/Russia/Uranium/kickback/Sent Spies back to Russia before FBI could question them? (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/10/hillary-clinton-quickly-rushed-ten-russian-spies-back-moscow-fbi-question/)/Clinton Foundation scandal?
What Hollywood pedophile scandal? (https://pagesix.com/2017/10/20/corey-feldman-is-working-to-get-justice/)
Obviously it is beneficial to the nation to allow left wing censorship in media to prevent the public from knowing about these things.
Heaven forbid, if we try to do anything to stop it, why we might get *CENSORSHIP* or something!
-
I thought I made it clear when I posted it before that he didn't say the "ten times", but said that it should be increased.
Well I think that is a significant difference. In fact, an order of magnitude difference. "10 times" sounds like an insane lunatic. "Increased" sounds reasonable.
NBC's effort was to portray him as a lunatic, and they badly distorted the truth to create that appearance.
Why would you want to go along with this portrayal of him? Do you hate him that much that you would cast aside objectivity?
-
Well I think that is a significant difference. In fact, an order of magnitude difference. "10 times" sounds like an insane lunatic. "Increased" sounds reasonable.
NBC's effort was to portray him as a lunatic, and they badly distorted the truth to create that appearance.
Why would you want to go along with this portrayal of him? Do you hate him that much that you would cast aside objectivity?
From the Reuters article:
"In his first comments about the U.S. nuclear arsenal since taking office on Jan. 20, Trump was asked about a December tweet in which he said the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity “until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” "
So, "greatly expand" to be the "top of the pack". Does that mean "ten fold"? Not knowing what the combined total of all nuclear weapons that our enemies have, greatly expand to be top of the pack could mean ten fold. I doubt he said "ten fold", the NBC article makes it seem as though what he said it should be increased to just ended up being almost ten fold.
So then Trump tweets that the story is pure fiction. Well, it's not pure fiction. It is at least partial truth, he *does* want an increase in nukes. I don't see a point in haggling over the actual percentage.
-
So you we are going to split hairs on the definition are we? Does Oligarchy sound better to you? I don't really care what you call it, it is an enemy force, and it needs to be stopped.
"Monopoly" is simple, easy to understand, and gets the point across.
Billions of dollars is a pretty big "nothing". Just stop it. It is irrational to believe some investment "angel" is going to come up with 100 billion dollars to build a competing infrastructure.
Just stop it.
You are making my case for me. Youtube has become heavily censored and conservative videos have been demonitized and even removed.
We are going to slay the Goliaths of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and FOX with a web page? That's just asinine.
And too pointless to be mentioned. Even the regular print newspapers are dying, and they don't reach anything like George Stephanopolis.
Sure, just loan me 100 billion and we'll fix this problem. That's obviously no barrier to entry, is it?
I remember the days before there was a CNN. Pretty sure it didn't take 100 billion to get started. Actually, I remember a time before most networks existed. CNN managed to join the big boys, others didn't, but they had a chance, which disqualifies 'significant barriers to entry'.
If you'd knock off the hyperbole, people might take you seriously. But I'm not waiting around to see. Goodbye and good luck.
-
I remember the days before there was a CNN. Pretty sure it didn't take 100 billion to get started. Actually, I remember a time before most networks existed. CNN managed to join the big boys, others didn't, but they had a chance, which disqualifies 'significant barriers to entry'.
If you'd knock off the hyperbole, people might take you seriously. But I'm not waiting around to see. Goodbye and good luck.
Let me just cut right to the chase and say that the communist dream of controlling the media in this country has obviously been realized. So what would YOU propose we do about it?
-
I remember the days before there was a CNN. Pretty sure it didn't take 100 billion to get started. Actually, I remember a time before most networks existed. CNN managed to join the big boys, others didn't, but they had a chance, which disqualifies 'significant barriers to entry'.
If you'd knock off the hyperbole, people might take you seriously. But I'm not waiting around to see. Goodbye and good luck.
I don’t think it’s hyperbole. A sense of urgency, yes. Others feel it too.
-
Apple removes popular pro-life prayer app after liberals complain
(https://lifesite-cache.s3.amazonaws.com/images/made/images/remote/https_s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/apple_computers_(1)_810_500_55_s_c1.jpg)
“Human Coalition’s prayer app is a platform where pro-life advocates can gather together in prayer for abortion-determined women and their children and families,” HC’s public relations director Lauren Enriquez told LifeSiteNews. “Our supporters have found the app helpful in their mission to extend all forms of support, including prayer support, to the women and children we serve and rescue.”
The app, launched in 2014 for both Apple and Android phones, sends anonymous, real-time information about women who call crisis pregnancy centers considering abortion so that pro-lifers can pray for them.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/apple-removes-approved-pro-life-app-over-pro-abort-criticism
-
Let me just cut right to the chase and say that the communist dream of controlling the media in this country has obviously been realized. So what would YOU propose we do about it?
I wouldn't tell others what they should do, but what I try to do is find items where the media has been biased and/or downright dishonest which are easily demonstrably false, and then try to make others curious enough to investigate the facts for themselves, hopefully leading to a diminished trust in the media. I try to discuss the bias in media not from any political perspective, but just point out that we can't trust them (often taking the perspective of "they say whatever it takes to sell papers"). It's not much, I'm not going to make a bit of difference, but it's what I can do.
-
If the main stream media was as all powerful as a number of people here seem to think, Trump wouldn't be President. The MSM has been busy destroying its own credibility for some time now, pretty successfully I'd say.
-
Let me just cut right to the chase and say that the communist dream of controlling the media in this country has obviously been realized. So what would YOU propose we do about it?
Dream back, harder.
And, FFS, learn how to horse-trade.
Seriously. We've been mollified by the "be reasonable" and "pragmatic" and "be content with less than what you want" crowd, while they (the dems) have dreamed of taking it all. So, who made progress by taking their 80% and "our" 20%, too?
When they got a little of what they wanted they didn't sit back like they had accomplished something, they redoubled their efforts. They used their most extreme positions to establish the beginning bargaining point, and settled for something that was a "compromise"---Not by asking $3,000 for that old beater, but by starting at $10,000 and letting you talk them down to something "more reasonable", like $5,000.
Fools are running around thinking they got a deal while the Dems are laughing all the way to the bank.
I don't consider the consistent GOP policy to throw Constitutional Conservatives under the bus before starting negotiations and starting out with an asking price below what they wanted in the first place, and then calling a fraction of that a 'good deal'. It isn't. It's some of the stupidest horse-trading I have ever seen.
Take a lesson from the dems, they may be selling misery and crap, but they know how to get what they want.
-
I don’t think it’s hyperbole. A sense of urgency, yes. Others feel it too.
Where there is urgency, there is fear. Some of that is good, but I think there is a definite media fostered misperception that they are by far and away the dominant belief system, just as there is a misperception that GLBTs make up nearly a fourth (25%) of the population (a sitcom and drama show cast character percentage, not the 1.8% (if that) in the real world , nor the up to 10% in high concentration areas like DC.)
Beware the distortion power of the media.
We have seen this before in the last century, with the very name of the Bolsheviks ("Majority Party") reinforcing the misperception that they were the majority. They were not then, but achieved victory through deception and conspicuous violence, like the media, Antifa, and BLM are using now, a century later. Their game plan hasn't changed, just the tools.
We need to reawaken the "Silent Majority" we know it is out there (or the election would have gone differently). Time to quit pissing down potential allies' legs for being "too conservative" and glory in that, push it, then when the inevitable compromise is crafted, hold out for as much as you can get instead of folding like a tin shed in a tornado.
Have faith that an awful lot of Americans are fed up with the Heinz approach to gender (are they up to 57 flavors yet?), that America is tired of being stuck with unrealistic mandates by people who are exempt from the laws they impose, that America is tired of paying to import people or allow the importation of/invasion by people who have not entered our nation legally, or who may be outright enemies of our way of life.
Essentially, the same issues both Trump and Cruz ran on are issues for that incredible majority of Americans who actually live out the laws and regulations that Congress and the agencies enact, and suffer the consequences of compliance or failure to do so.
America wants a real common sense life, with rules that make sense, not through the mental gymnastics of some kind of pretzel logic, but are basic enough that just living an honest and moral life won't end up breaking laws willy-nilly. And much of America wants their dignity back, to have a decent job, to make a reasonable living and be able to provide for their families, not in some grand style, but adequately.
Now, maybe I'm guilty of projecting, but I don't think so.
The entire demographic commonly decried for being dependent on government largess are only an eighth of the population, and not even that because only some of those are dependent, but those who are have had plenty of time to devote to lobbying and protesting, are well coached, and ever have access to the microphone of a liberal media who use them like a blunt instrument to attack the rest of America. When we recognize that the media, the liberal dominated universities and schools, the community activists advocating for a lifestyle found in only a few square miles of a very large country, are all special interests, well overlapped with other subsets of that genre, we will be able to put the media and their messages in perspective, and help the rest of America to do so as well.
-
If the main stream media was as all powerful as a number of people here seem to think, Trump wouldn't be President. The MSM has been busy destroying its own credibility for some time now, pretty successfully I'd say.
This is true and it is incumbent on us to render them all possible aid! As the president currently seems to be doing IMHO!
-
Where there is urgency, there is fear. Some of that is good, but I think there is a definite media fostered misperception that they are by far and away the dominant belief system, just as there is a misperception that GLBTs make up nearly a fourth (25%) of the population (a sitcom and drama show cast character percentage, not the 1.8% (if that) in the real world , nor the up to 10% in high concentration areas like DC.)
Beware the distortion power of the media.
We have seen this before in the last century, with the very name of the Bolsheviks ("Majority Party") reinforcing the misperception that they were the majority. They were not then, but achieved victory through deception and conspicuous violence, like the media, Antifa, and BLM are using now, a century later. Their game plan hasn't changed, just the tools.
We need to reawaken the "Silent Majority" we know it is out there (or the election would have gone differently). Time to quit pissing down potential allies' legs for being "too conservative" and glory in that, push it, then when the inevitable compromise is crafted, hold out for as much as you can get instead of folding like a tin shed in a tornado.
Have faith that an awful lot of Americans are fed up with the Heinz approach to gender (are they up to 57 flavors yet?), that America is tired of being stuck with unrealistic mandates by people who are exempt from the laws they impose, that America is tired of paying to import people or allow the importation of/invasion by people who have not entered our nation legally, or who may be outright enemies of our way of life.
Essentially, the same issues both Trump and Cruz ran on are issues for that incredible majority of Americans who actually live out the laws and regulations that Congress and the agencies enact, and suffer the consequences of compliance or failure to do so.
America wants a real common sense life, with rules that make sense, not through the mental gymnastics of some kind of pretzel logic, but are basic enough that just living an honest and moral life won't end up breaking laws willy-nilly. And much of America wants their dignity back, to have a decent job, to make a reasonable living and be able to provide for their families, not in some grand style, but adequately.
Now, maybe I'm guilty of projecting, but I don't think so.
The entire demographic commonly decried for being dependent on government largess are only an eighth of the population, and not even that because only some of those are dependent, but those who are have had plenty of time to devote to lobbying and protesting, are well coached, and ever have access to the microphone of a liberal media who use them like a blunt instrument to attack the rest of America. When we recognize that the media, the liberal dominated universities and schools, the community activists advocating for a lifestyle found in only a few square miles of a very large country, are all special interests, well overlapped with other subsets of that genre, we will be able to put the media and their messages in perspective, and help the rest of America to do so as well.
GREAT Post @Smokin Joe!
What is most DESPARATELY needed right now is congressional leadership that will actually work toward providing those things you mention instead of spending EVERY Waking HOUR defending their damned swamp!
-
GREAT Post @Smokin Joe!
What is most DESPARATELY needed right now is congressional leadership that will actually work toward providing those things you mention instead of spending EVERY Waking HOUR defending their damned swamp!
They have been convinced by the media in close quarters (and the 'staffer filter' can enhance this) that most of America is fine with what they do or don't do. Either that or they are profiting nicely from the status quo (literally). So, of course they will defend their swamp. It's 'safe' there among the pond scum.
-
If the main stream media was as all powerful as a number of people here seem to think, Trump wouldn't be President. The MSM has been busy destroying its own credibility for some time now, pretty successfully I'd say.
Exactly.
-
The one place to hurt the big networks is in the wallet. And until the networks start feeling it there they won't change.
It's going to take major sponsors pulling their ads in protest to wake the boardrooms and news rooms of places like NBC and CNN up and force any real change.
Until that happens they'll keep operating the way they are now.
-
Exactly.
Even Jimmy Carter has noticed the bias of the media.
I do think they have a little power left because they succeed in painting a distorted view of reality that kinda becomes reality in the minds of some.
-
Hollywood has a watchdog press, but it’s facing the wrong direction
protecting the powerful from the comparatively powerless. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that the New York Times and The New Yorker reported most of the allegations against Weinstein; the specialty publications have a much more symbiotic relationship with the industry’s movers and shakers. They can’t adequately cover the industry without access, and their access dries up if they cross the wrong power player.”
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/279025/#respond
-
Even Jimmy Carter has noticed the bias of the media.
I do think they have a little power left because they succeed in painting a distorted view of reality that kinda becomes reality in the minds of some.
Jimmy Carter is doing a lap dog routine in hopes of being sent to broker some 'deal' with North Korea.
Trouble is, Kim Jung-Ung liable to use him as a human shield. It would certainly handcuff most Presidents. ^-^
-
From the Reuters article:
So, "greatly expand" to be the "top of the pack". Does that mean "ten fold"?
No. It doesn't mean anything like "ten fold". "Ten Fold" is a deliberate provocative lie to make Trump sound crazy.
So then Trump tweets that the story is pure fiction. Well, it's not pure fiction. It is at least partial truth, he *does* want an increase in nukes. I don't see a point in haggling over the actual percentage.
Raising something "ten fold" is a one thousand percent increase. I can see why you don't want to quibble about the difference between a few percent and a thousand percent.
That would be silly, wouldn't it?
-
No. It doesn't mean anything like "ten fold". "Ten Fold" is a deliberate provocative lie to make Trump sound crazy.
Raising something "ten fold" is a one thousand percent increase. I can see why you don't want to quibble about the difference between a few percent and a thousand percent.
That would be silly, wouldn't it?
I'm an engineer. I love numbers. What's the real number?
-
I remember the days before there was a CNN. Pretty sure it didn't take 100 billion to get started.
Apparently back in 1980, a few million would suffice to get your foot in the door if you were a liberal.
Apparently back in 2013, you couldn't buy a Satellite channel for $500 million. If you were a conservative. (http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/01/03/al-gore-current-tv-glenn-beck-al-jazeera.html)
Actually, I remember a time before most networks existed. CNN managed to join the big boys, others didn't, but they had a chance, which disqualifies 'significant barriers to entry'.
Whatever would allow you back then to get into the system on the cheap, doesn't exist anymore. It is now virtually impossible to break into that club.
If you'd knock off the hyperbole, people might take you seriously. But I'm not waiting around to see. Goodbye and good luck.
What does it profit me to be taken seriously if the answer is still going to be "let's do nothing about the problem!" ?
The problem speaks for itself, if you have but the insight to see it clearly. You don't need me to act seriously in order for you to take it seriously. You should take some responsibility for yourself when it comes to grasping the problem we face.
-
I wouldn't tell others what they should do, but what I try to do is find items where the media has been biased and/or downright dishonest which are easily demonstrably false, and then try to make others curious enough to investigate the facts for themselves, hopefully leading to a diminished trust in the media. I try to discuss the bias in media not from any political perspective, but just point out that we can't trust them (often taking the perspective of "they say whatever it takes to sell papers"). It's not much, I'm not going to make a bit of difference, but it's what I can do.
You mean you preach to the choir. We don't need to reach those people, the people we need to reach are the ones who aren't aware the media is biased.
You know, the people who watch them.
-
If the main stream media was as all powerful as a number of people here seem to think, Trump wouldn't be President. The MSM has been busy destroying its own credibility for some time now, pretty successfully I'd say.
If they were as weak as you seem to think, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama wouldn't have been President.
Trump won in spite of them, and it was still a very near thing.
We should not have to live our lives with the Liberal Media thumb on the scales of every election.
We should not tolerate it.
-
Trouble is, Kim Jung-Ung liable to use him as a human shield. It would certainly handcuff most Presidents. ^-^
That would just encourage me to nuke them. I'm way past wishing that dumbass was out of our misery.
-
I'm an engineer. I love numbers. What's the real number?
To which number do you refer?
-
To which number do you refer?
The percent or amount increase.
-
Where there is urgency, there is fear. Some of that is good, but I think there is a definite media fostered misperception that they are by far and away the dominant belief system, just as there is a misperception that GLBTs make up nearly a fourth (25%) of the population (a sitcom and drama show cast character percentage, not the 1.8% (if that) in the real world , nor the up to 10% in high concentration areas like DC.)
Beware the distortion power of the media.
We have seen this before in the last century, with the very name of the Bolsheviks ("Majority Party") reinforcing the misperception that they were the majority. They were not then, but achieved victory through deception and conspicuous violence, like the media, Antifa, and BLM are using now, a century later. Their game plan hasn't changed, just the tools.
We need to reawaken the "Silent Majority" we know it is out there (or the election would have gone differently). Time to quit pissing down potential allies' legs for being "too conservative" and glory in that, push it, then when the inevitable compromise is crafted, hold out for as much as you can get instead of folding like a tin shed in a tornado.
Have faith that an awful lot of Americans are fed up with the Heinz approach to gender (are they up to 57 flavors yet?), that America is tired of being stuck with unrealistic mandates by people who are exempt from the laws they impose, that America is tired of paying to import people or allow the importation of/invasion by people who have not entered our nation legally, or who may be outright enemies of our way of life.
Essentially, the same issues both Trump and Cruz ran on are issues for that incredible majority of Americans who actually live out the laws and regulations that Congress and the agencies enact, and suffer the consequences of compliance or failure to do so.
America wants a real common sense life, with rules that make sense, not through the mental gymnastics of some kind of pretzel logic, but are basic enough that just living an honest and moral life won't end up breaking laws willy-nilly. And much of America wants their dignity back, to have a decent job, to make a reasonable living and be able to provide for their families, not in some grand style, but adequately.
Now, maybe I'm guilty of projecting, but I don't think so.
The entire demographic commonly decried for being dependent on government largess are only an eighth of the population, and not even that because only some of those are dependent, but those who are have had plenty of time to devote to lobbying and protesting, are well coached, and ever have access to the microphone of a liberal media who use them like a blunt instrument to attack the rest of America. When we recognize that the media, the liberal dominated universities and schools, the community activists advocating for a lifestyle found in only a few square miles of a very large country, are all special interests, well overlapped with other subsets of that genre, we will be able to put the media and their messages in perspective, and help the rest of America to do so as well.
Good post !!
-
The percent or amount increase.
Oh, so we do wish to quibble about it? Okay, you can have your measly 100% out of 1000%, but the point remains, it was a deliberate lie, and it does in no way compare to to Trump saying "increase."
Your original point remains invalid.
And I told you it would be silly.
-
Oh, so we do wish to quibble about it? Okay, you can have your measly 100% out of 1000%, but the point remains, it was a deliberate lie, and it does in no way compare to to Trump saying "increase."
Your original point remains invalid.
And I told you it would be silly.
I think the point is, you don't know what the real number is, so you willing to quibble about it doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
I think the point is, you don't know what the real number is, so you willing to quibble about it doesn't make a lot of sense.
It's 900%, and you have spent more time quibbling about it than addressing the real point here. NBC deliberately lied about what Trump said.
But I suppose we must grasp whatever straws we can find, mustn't we?
-
It's 900%, and you have spent more time quibbling about it than addressing the real point here. NBC deliberately lied about what Trump said.
But I suppose we must grasp whatever straws we can find, mustn't we?
A 900% increase is a 10X increase.
Sorry, I felt a need to quibble. People who know Math tend to do that.
-
A 900% increase is a 10X increase.
Sorry, I felt a need to quibble. People who know Math tend to do that.
LOL Holy crap. Why was that so difficult? Sure makes it appear that Trump was the one lying and not NBC. And here we have 20-odd pages of people defending him in a lie.
-
LOL Holy crap. Why was that so difficult? Sure makes it appear that Trump was the one lying and not NBC. And here we have 20-odd pages of people defending him in a lie.
It's nice having a fellow Engineer here....
-
LOL Holy crap. Why was that so difficult? Sure makes it appear that Trump was the one lying and not NBC. And here we have 20-odd pages of people defending him in a lie.
The main point of this sub topic is how you deliberately tried to abet the Lie that NBC told by claiming "an increase" is fundamentally no different than "ten fold."
No sane person would ever suggest that when someone was talking about an increase in very expensive nuclear weapons that they meant 10x the existing stock pile.
It boggles the mind how you can have so much hatred for the man that you would try to rehabilitate the lie told by NBC, and then do such a horrible job of it.
You talk about "hand waving"? My unthinking error was far less than your deliberate one, and yet you won't even own up to yours.
-
The main point of this sub topic is how you deliberately tried to abet the Lie that NBC told by claiming "an increase" is fundamentally no different than "ten fold."
No sane person would ever suggest that when someone was talking about an increase in very expensive nuclear weapons that they meant 10x the existing stock pile.
It boggles the mind how you can have so much hatred for the man that you would try to rehabilitate the lie told by NBC, and then do such a horrible job of it.
You talk about "hand waving"? My unthinking error was far less than your deliberate one, and yet you won't even own up to yours.
Are you really arguing that a 9x increase is substantially different than a 10x increase in the context of increasing our nuclear stockpile?
-
Are you really arguing that a 9x increase is substantially different than a 10x increase in the context of increasing our nuclear stockpile?
I have not made a shadow of a suggestion in that direction. I have pointed out repeatedly that in referring to nuclear weapons, no rational person is going to think that when someone says "increase" they mean 10x.
I do not even grasp how you could get my point so wrong as you imply with your question.
-
I have not made a shadow of a suggestion in that direction. I have pointed out repeatedly that in referring to nuclear weapons, no rational person is going to think that when someone says "increase" they mean 10x.
I do not even grasp how you could get my point so wrong as you imply with your question.
Okay, let's lay out the facts one more time.
NBC runs an article with the title saying that Trump wants to increase nukes 10 fold.
Within the article it goes on to be a little more specific and says it's something along the lines of 9.5x.
Trump says it is a complete lie.
Trump previously gave an AP interview where he said he wanted to increase nukes so that we were basically top dog. He did not specify a percent.
When I asked you what the real percentage was you told us it was 900%, or 9x.
Is this all correct so far?
-
Okay, let's lay out the facts one more time.
NBC runs an article with the title saying that Trump wants to increase nukes 10 fold.
Within the article it goes on to be a little more specific and says it's something along the lines of 9.5x.
Trump says it is a complete lie.
Trump previously gave an AP interview where he said he wanted to increase nukes so that we were basically top dog. He did not specify a percent.
When I asked you what the real percentage was you told us it was 900%, or 9x.
Is this all correct so far?
That's a 9x increase. When added to the existent stock, the resultant is 10x.
-
That's a 9x increase. When added to the existent stock, the resultant is 10x.
What am I missing here?
-
What am I missing here?
Not a thing. I thought the conversation was starting to drag a little, and I think Frank's busy somewhere....
-
Okay, let's lay out the facts one more time.
NBC runs an article with the title saying that Trump wants to increase nukes 10 fold.
Within the article it goes on to be a little more specific and says it's something along the lines of 9.5x.
Trump says it is a complete lie.
That is the obvious conclusion that can be supported by what we so far know as the facts.
Trump previously gave an AP interview where he said he wanted to increase nukes so that we were basically top dog. He did not specify a percent.
When one does not specify a percentage of increase for nuclear weapons, rational people do not jump to the conclusion that it is 10x what we have now.
Someone knowledgeable about the subject might be able to stretch his words to mean perhaps a 20% increase, but more realistically I think most people would assume it was less than that.
When I asked you what the real percentage was you told us it was 900%, or 9x.
Is this all correct so far?
Depends on what you mean by "real percentage". The NBC article said 10x, and so that would be a 900% increase, which is likely impossible, and beyond rationality that anyone would suggest such a thing. Probably no one at NBC had a clue about nuclear weapons and didn't realize that such a suggestion is insane.
-
Personally I could care less what the REAL number is but whatever it is it should be sufficient to make the USA unassailable IMHO!
-
Personally I could care less what the REAL number is but whatever it is it should be sufficient to make the USA unassailable IMHO!
Indeed, that's the WHOLE POINT of having a deterrence in the first place. The lefties among us hate that about it, and do everything they can to make sure we're defenseless, which explains the whole anti-SDI mindset. Only to these fools does it make sense that having an ability to defend against an incoming attack is "provocative." They've been successful when it comes to the stockpile of Nukes. We've done nothing to improve or preserve them in the past several decades, and you can bet the Russians and Chinese haven't been standing by holding their own coats.
Now we are apparently at the mercy of a pipsqeak in NK.
-
The point isn't really what the real number is. The point is Trump said in an interview that he wanted to increase our nuclear arsenal to be somewhere above what our enemies had. He did not specify whether that meant the one enemy with the most or all enemies combined. Here comes an NBC article that says Trump said he wants to increase the nuclear arsenal ten fold. Trump says this is a *complete* lie. But it's not a *complete* lie, is it? Trump himself said in an interview he wanted to increase them. A complete lie would be if he said he wanted to decrease them 50%, and NBC said he said he wanted to increase them 10 fold.
*If* the case was, like I said above, that he meant he wanted to increase our arsenal so that we had more than all enemies combined it very well could mean a 10 fold increase.
-
The point isn't really what the real number is. The point is Trump said in an interview that he wanted to increase our nuclear arsenal to be somewhere above what our enemies had. He did not specify whether that meant the one enemy with the most or all enemies combined. Here comes an NBC article that says Trump said he wants to increase the nuclear arsenal ten fold. Trump says this is a *complete* lie. But it's not a *complete* lie, is it? Trump himself said in an interview he wanted to increase them. A complete lie would be if he said he wanted to decrease them 50%, and NBC said he said he wanted to increase them 10 fold.
*If* the case was, like I said above, that he meant he wanted to increase our arsenal so that we had more than all enemies combined it very well could mean a 10 fold increase.
More than the largest enemy, or more than all combined? I highly doubt the President gave it that much thought when he said it. :shrug:
I think it's pointless. I don't care if we have more, I care if we have better.
-
More than the largest enemy, or more than all combined? I highly doubt the President gave it that much thought when he said it. :shrug:
I think it's pointless. I don't care if we have more, I care if we have better.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
After years of having liberals dictating the state of our weapons, I doubt we have either. I remember too well the image of dozens of B52s lying carved up in the desert behind Davis-Monthan Air Force Base that one time I wandered back there.
-
If the 'intelligence' affiliated with those moving lights.responsible for shutting down all NORAD nukes in England and Colorado...it won't make any difference how many you've got.
...until you figure out how to make them immune to EMP attack, etc..
-
The point isn't really what the real number is. The point is Trump said in an interview that he wanted to increase our nuclear arsenal to be somewhere above what our enemies had. He did not specify whether that meant the one enemy with the most or all enemies combined. Here comes an NBC article that says Trump said he wants to increase the nuclear arsenal ten fold. Trump says this is a *complete* lie. But it's not a *complete* lie, is it?
Yes, it's a complete lie. It is intended to create a deliberate misunderstanding of Trump's position. He never said anything remotely like that.
-
More than the largest enemy, or more than all combined? I highly doubt the President gave it that much thought when he said it. :shrug:
I think it's pointless. I don't care if we have more, I care if we have better.
Nowadays, "better" is a meaningless term. On all the particulars, our enemies nukes are good enough to do the job. Maybe there would be some reliability issues, but I wouldn't bet on it. Besides they have enough overkill that it doesn't matter if some of them fail.
-
If the 'intelligence' affiliated with those moving lights.responsible for shutting down all NORAD nukes in England and Colorado...it won't make any difference how many you've got.
...until you figure out how to make them immune to EMP attack, etc..
I think "EMP" has been exaggerated till it's nearly as big of a threat to our lives as Y2K.
-
Bannon: "Everything On CNN, FNC, MSNBC, That's Pro-Wrestling," To Divert Your Attention From What's Really Going On
Nobody should say CNN sucks. This is not a Trump rally. Everything you see on cable TV, you know MSNBC or CNN or Fox, that's pro wrestling. That's in the foreground, right? That’s to divert your attention of what's really going on, OK?
There is a business model that the permanent political class have.
Seven of the nine richest counties in the United States of America surround Washington, D.C. For the first time since the invention of the Silicon chip, Washington, D.C., those seven counties have a higher per-cap income than Silicon Valley.
Silicon Valley, which by the way has led the greatest revolution in technology in man's history, and had more great inventions. Now what does Washington, D.C., have? What they've got is basically a private equity fund of every year, what four trillion dollars that they divvy up.
The consulting class, the lobbyists, the K street crowd, the donor class and the politicians the own, they have taken this country in a very, very dangerous — very, very dangerous — direction.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/22/bannon_george_w_bush_embarrassed_himself_attacking_american_nationalism_clear_he_didnt_understand.html
-
Bannon: "Everything On CNN, FNC, MSNBC, That's Pro-Wrestling," To Divert Your Attention From What's Really Going On
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/10/22/bannon_george_w_bush_embarrassed_himself_attacking_american_nationalism_clear_he_didnt_understand.html
Pretty much nails it IMHO!
-
ABC, NBC Maintain Clinton-Uranium Blackout, CBS Finds It 5 Days Late
(https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/2017-10-22-cbs-ftn-fianlly-mentioned-clinton-uranium-scandal-1.png?itok=nUax7LQn)
During Sunday’s Face the Nation, Moderator John Dickerson became the first member of the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) to crack the broadcast TV blackout of the Hillary Clinton-Uranium scandal. But his mention of the story came five days after The Hill first exposed how the FBI was investigating Russian bribery of public officials to purchase the radioactive substance. And segment brought their total coverage time of the scandal to a whopping 69 seconds.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/10/22/abc-nbc-maintain-clinton-uranium-blackout-cbs-finds-it-5-days
Censoring news which is damaging to Democrats. This is their most insidious power.
-
The point isn't really what the real number is. The point is Trump said in an interview that he wanted to increase our nuclear arsenal to be somewhere above what our enemies had. He did not specify whether that meant the one enemy with the most or all enemies combined. Here comes an NBC article that says Trump said he wants to increase the nuclear arsenal ten fold. Trump says this is a *complete* lie. But it's not a *complete* lie, is it? Trump himself said in an interview he wanted to increase them. A complete lie would be if he said he wanted to decrease them 50%, and NBC said he said he wanted to increase them 10 fold.
*If* the case was, like I said above, that he meant he wanted to increase our arsenal so that we had more than all enemies combined it very well could mean a 10 fold increase.
Oh, Hells's Belles! Let's do the math!
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/5b30c1adce7f6d79401f6158ce951efe.png)
All the others arsenals combined amount to roughly 8105 warheads. Shoot for 10K, put the hi capacity MIRV buses back on the missiles, and git 'er done. That would take another 3200 warheads to hit 10K, an increase over the current stockpile of just over 47%
-
I think "EMP" has been exaggerated till it's nearly as big of a threat to our lives as Y2K.
You ignore the billions spent to prevent Y2K problems. The problem was solved in advance.
-
Oh, Hells's Belles! Let's do the math!
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/5b30c1adce7f6d79401f6158ce951efe.png)
All the others arsenals combined amount to roughly 8105 warheads. Shoot for 10K, put the hi capacity MIRV buses back on the missiles, and git 'er done. That would take another 3200 warheads to hit 10K, an increase over the current stockpile of just over 47%
Thanks! So, the 10x was either a lie or someone is *really* bad at math.
-
Thanks! So, the 10x was either a lie or someone is *really* bad at math.
Or they scrawled 10X instead of 10K, and the latter number is mine.
-
You ignore the billions spent to prevent Y2K problems. The problem was solved in advance.
I made a funny, or at least I thought I did. Maybe I should put a smiley face at the end. :)
Y2K was overblown. So is EMP. I believe there is video on youtube of a pretty big nuke test going on about 50 miles away from Hawaii. It damaged a few powerline circuits but it was not nearly the damage people are predicting we would see from an EMP.
Modern electrical infrastructure is actually more hardened than was that of the 1950s, plus there is a lot more to getting an EMP to work effectively. Apparently the Atmosphere plays a large role in producing and shaping the wave.
-
Thanks! So, the 10x was either a lie or someone is *really* bad at math.
Both. I've read that the average "news" employee is about 27, and doesn't know anything about anything.
-
Or they scrawled 10X instead of 10K, and the latter number is mine.
A Typo? That other stupid people in the Newsroom didn't catch? Okay, I might buy that.
That actually sounds like a reasonable explanation for what happened.
-
A Typo? That other stupid people in the Newsroom didn't catch? Okay, I might buy that.
That actually sounds like a reasonable explanation for what happened.
Can't be a typo, it was repeated (with the 9.5x) in the article.
-
Can't be a typo, it was repeated (with the 9.5x) in the article.
It might have been a typo with collaborated stupidity from others who did not realize it was a typo.
I read an article last week that said General Kelly was at the meeting which supposedly served as the basis of the NBC article, and he said Trump said nothing like that.
If it wasn't some sort of misunderstanding, then someone at NBC deliberately lied. Of course I'm usually of a mind to follow this adage:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity "
-
It might have been a typo with collaborated stupidity from others who did not realize it was a typo.
I read an article last week that said General Kelly was at the meeting which supposedly served as the basis of the NBC article, and he said Trump said nothing like that.
If it wasn't some sort of misunderstanding, then someone at NBC deliberately lied. Of course I'm usually of a mind to follow this adage:
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity "
There's no limit to stupidity in the media... Generally the journalism profession doesn't require much intelligence or knowledge... There are exceptions, but they are rare...
-
ABC, NBC Maintain Clinton-Uranium Blackout, CBS Finds It 5 Days Late
(https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/2017-10-22-cbs-ftn-fianlly-mentioned-clinton-uranium-scandal-1.png?itok=nUax7LQn)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/10/22/abc-nbc-maintain-clinton-uranium-blackout-cbs-finds-it-5-days
Censoring news which is damaging to Democrats. This is their most insidious
power.
Word. Every American’s blood should be boiling ...if only they knew they were deliberately being kept in the dark.
-
Word. Every American’s blood should be boiling ...if only they knew they were deliberately being kept in the dark.
Yes, but you know who's blood should be boiling first? Us! Conservatives should be fighting mad over the censorship that is ongoing from the Democrat-Media-industrial complex.
Yet so many of our people are more worried about potential damage from doing anything about it than the real damage caused by leaving it alone.
-
Pretty much nails it IMHO!
Funny that he wasn't saying this when Fox News was giving Trump nothing but 24/7 positive propaganda.
-
The Hollywood/Democrat/Media Protection Racket Will Be Hard To Kill
(https://i1.wp.com/dbdailyupdate.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Godfather-meme.jpg?fit=625%2C351)
What we are inevitably going to keep finding out as this ballooning scandal continues to grow, is that pretty much every one of these big-time Hollywood figures and Democrat politicians who have expressed their utter shock and dismay to “learn” of their friend Harvey’s disgusting behavior actually knew about their friend Harvey’s behavior all along, but went along with the Hollywood/Democrat/media cult of omerta about the thug because they all hoped to at some point benefit from their good friend Harvey’s power and money.
http://dbdailyupdate.com/index.php/2017/10/24/the-hollywooddemocratmedia-protection-racket-will-be-hard-to-kill/
Power of censorship. Once again, their most potent weapon is their ability to censor the news.
-
Facebook Censors His Conservative Posts, Retired Accountant Contends
(http://dailysignal.com/wp-content/uploads/Facebook-Photo-385x200.jpg)
“Our biggest challenge is Facebook’s political bias and their enforcement of their Community Standards policy,” Muench said. “Facebook seems to enforce their policy more on conservatives than liberals.”
He estimated that Facebook gave him five 30-day suspensions, six one-week suspensions, and six two-week suspensions in the past 12 months, as well as numerous shorter suspensions lasting from three hours to 72 hours.
Link (http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/23/facebook-censors-his-conservative-posts-retired-accountant-contends/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTUdGbVlUVTVOMkptT0daayIsInQiOiJ5SXpxUkMraXV2WVc2YXdsSUduWTBuY1pkNXJyZ2EzN1Fzb2daVGlyMWc1MXFNUndYcFViZmNkSStcLzJTeXBaeVdjdENPVDhDY2N0VjZramFkMkpTeHVVNzVcL2s4NkE1V1EzQVRDS1ZyUjVPTWlFTXowRXozN0JWbDZKYTZSenF0In0%3D)
-
Funny that he wasn't saying this when Fox News was giving Trump nothing but 24/7 positive propaganda.
Do you disagree with this?
The consulting class, the lobbyists, the K street crowd, the donor class and the politicians they own, they have taken this country in a very, very dangerous — very, very dangerous — direction.
If so, you clearly are not paying attention!
-
But I imagine a lot of people here would welcome this..
No conservative should stand for this type of government abuse of power...the punishment of unfriendly media. But they will.
Remeber Bill Clinton accused the media of not telling the truth and charactor assasinatiom. Would any of these same conservatives haave welcomed Clinton threatened the same?
-
Just checking in to see if NBC was off the air yet since so many took this stuff seriously. What? They are still on the air?
Swell. I'll check back in another 33 pages. Maybe by then they will have their license pulled.
-
No conservative should stand for this type of government abuse of power...the punishment of unfriendly media. But they will.
Remeber Bill Clinton accused the media of not telling the truth and charactor assasinatiom. Would any of these same conservatives haave welcomed Clinton threatened the same?
Nope.... In fact a lot of people would be screaming about how bad it will be.
-
Nope.... In fact a lot of people would be screaming about how bad it will be.
Their amazingly short memories of the outrage on the right over Obama's misdeeds where the media is concerned is staggering.
-
Just checking in to see if NBC was off the air yet since so many took this stuff seriously. What? They are still on the air?
Swell. I'll check back in another 33 pages. Maybe by then they will have their license pulled.
What license?
-
Y2K was overblown. So is EMP.
Agreed.
I believe there is video on youtube of a pretty big nuke test going on about 50 miles away from Hawaii. It damaged a few powerline circuits but it was not nearly the damage people are predicting we would see from an EMP.
William Robert Graham addresses that (http://docs.house.gov/meetings/HM/HM09/20171012/106467/HHRG-115-HM09-Wstate-PryP-20171012.pdf), thus:
Misinformation about EMP abounds in the media, and even in many allegedly serious studies,
from uninformed persons posturing as experts, who have no competency in EMP. False claims
are often made that the EMP threat is “not real” but merely theoretical and greatly overblown.11
For example, one academic often quoted by the press claims that during the 1962 STARFISH
PRIME high-altitude nuclear test, “just one string of street lights failed in Honolulu” and that this
proved EMP is no threat.12 In fact, the EMP knocked-out 36 strings of street lights, caused a
telecommunications microwave relay station to fail, burned out HF (High-Frequency) radio links
(used for long-distance communications), set off burglar alarms, and caused other damage.13
The Hawaiian Islands did not experience a catastrophic protracted blackout because they were on
the far edge of the EMP field contour, where effects are weakest; are surrounded by an ocean,
which mitigates EMP effects; and were still in an age dominated by vacuum tube electronics.
STARFISH PRIME was not the only test of this kind. Russia in 1961-62 also conducted a series
of high-altitude nuclear bursts to test EMP effects over Kazakhstan, an industrialized area nearly
as large as Western Europe.14 That test destroyed the Kazakh electric grid.15 Moreover, modern
electronics, in part because they are designed to operate at much lower voltages, are much more
vulnerable to EMP than the electronics of 1962 exposed to STARFISH PRIME and the Kazakh
nuclear tests. A similar EMP event over the U.S. today would be an existential threat.16
He has a wonderful CV, but still I'm not so sure he's right on this topic.
-
No conservative should stand for this type of government abuse of power...the punishment of unfriendly media. But they will.
Now see what you do there? You swap out the complaint of "LYING OUT THEIR A$$" and substitute "because they are unfriendly".
Yes, Lying out your @$$ to push one political party's agenda is indeed unfriendly, but worse, it is destructive to the nation because it misinforms the people regarding serious matters.
But you keep trying to make this about "because they are unfriendly" instead of "BECAUSE THEY ARE A DEADLY THREAT TO THE PROPER OPERATION OF OUR DEMOCRACY."
Remeber Bill Clinton accused the media of not telling the truth and charactor assasinatiom. Would any of these same conservatives haave welcomed Clinton threatened the same?
The media had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover even the slightest detail of the ongoing scandal that was the Clinton Administration. Clinton was guilty as H*ll, and of course he was going to whine about the tiny amount of coverage the media gave to his scandals.
Had they treated him as they do Republicans, he would have gone to prison.
-
It looks like they've coming under a lot of pressure to start reporting the Clinton fiascos, so let's see what the next week brings. They can't ignore it forever.
-
The media had to be dragged kicking and screaming to cover even the slightest detail of the ongoing scandal that was the Clinton Administration. Clinton was guilty as H*ll, and of course he was going to whine about the tiny amount of coverage the media gave to his scandals.
Had they treated him as they do Republicans, he would have gone to prison.
Very true! And still true to this very minute!
-
Just checking in to see if NBC was off the air yet since so many took this stuff seriously. What? They are still on the air?
Swell. I'll check back in another 33 pages. Maybe by then they will have their license pulled.
@Frank Cannon Thank you for confirming that I should not take this POTUS seriously.
-
@Frank Cannon Thank you for confirming that I should not take this POTUS seriously.
If you don't take them seriously they can't let you down.
-
If you don't take them seriously they can't let you down.
And in the meantime they're hella fun to make fun of.
-
And in the meantime they're hella fun to make fun of.
What's to make fun of? He seems to be going a far better job so far than W and O combined. I have yet to be raped traveling around the country by something Donny did and I have yet to have my healthcare compromised by something Donny did.
So far so good.
-
What's to make fun of? He seems to be going a far better job so far than W and O combined. I have yet to be raped traveling around the country by something Donny did and I have yet to have my healthcare compromised by something Donny did.
So far so good.
Some of the tweets and off the cuff comments are worth making fun of, but my sense of humor stopped developing in middle school.
-
What's to make fun of? He seems to be going a far better job so far than W and O combined. I have yet to be raped traveling around the country by something Donny did and I have yet to have my healthcare compromised by something Donny did.
So far so good.
Just remember that when the pump says "up to 10% ETHANOL", 'cause that isn't going to change.
-
Their amazingly short memories of the outrage on the right over Obama's misdeeds where the media is concerned is staggering.
I didn't like it when Clinton attacked Talk Radio
I didn't like it when Obama attacked Fox News
I don't like what Trump is doing..
-
I didn't like it when Clinton attacked Talk Radio
I didn't like it when Obama attacked Fox News
I don't like what Trump is doing..
Same here.
-
It looks like they've coming under a lot of pressure to start reporting the Clinton fiascos, so let's see what the next week brings. They can't ignore it forever.
I think they can. They're just that corrupt, bought and paid for.
But on Tucker Carlson last night, Brit Hume said (I think ... I saw it on Facebook) that this was beginning to backfire on the media and that they were losing a lot of credibility now.
-
What's to make fun of? He seems to be going a far better job so far than W and O combined. I have yet to be raped traveling around the country by something Donny did and I have yet to have my healthcare compromised by something Donny did.
So far so good.
I agree with you, Frank.
-
Same here.
You may not like what you think Trump is doing, but do you know what Trump is actually doing?
As far as I know, Trump tweeted some sort of a warning or what the media call a 'threat.'
I think the 'Media' is digging its own grave now; maybe we should just hand them a shovel.
-
You may not like what you think Trump is doing, but do you know what Trump is actually doing?
As far as I know, Trump tweeted some sort of a warning or what the media call a 'threat.'
I think the 'Media' is digging its own grave now; maybe we should just hand them a shovel.
Thought I'd go back 100 or so pages and visit the actual wording of the 'threat.' Gotta say, it sounds more like a question.
"“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Trump tweeted.
-
Thought I'd go back 100 or so pages and visit the actual wording of the 'threat.' Gotta say, it sounds more like a question.
"“With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!” Trump tweeted.
I have a first amendment right to say any old thing (and usually do).
But, the president, that’s a different story, apparently he doesn’t have that same right. They, his establishment critics, tell him when he should or should not speak, what he can or cannot say, what tone he should use, where and about whom he can or cannot speak. But, darn it, that man just won’t listen.
What his critics fail to grasp is he wins because he is who he is. Better that than acting like a coached and handled politician. His ‘style’ got him where he is today, and I see no reason he should change.
-
I have a first amendment right to say any old thing (and usually do).
But, the president, that’s a different story, apparently he doesn’t have that same right. They, his establishment critics, tell him when he should or should not speak, what he can or cannot say, what tone he should use, where and about whom he can or cannot speak. But, darn it, that man just won’t listen.
What his critics fail to grasp is he wins because he is who he is. Better that than acting like a coached and handled politician. His ‘style’ got him where he is today, and I see no reason he should change.
Huh? What does that have to do with yanking network licenses?
-
Huh? What does that have to do with yanking network licenses?
Absolutely nothing.
-
You may not like what you think Trump is doing, but do you know what Trump is actually doing?
As far as I know, Trump tweeted some sort of a warning or what the media call a 'threat.'
I think the 'Media' is digging its own grave now; maybe we should just hand them a shovel.
Yeah yeah yeah everything is a-ok no matter how thuggish it is as long as it's "your guy" doing it.
*****rollingeyes*****
-
Huh? What does that have to do with yanking network licenses?
Apparently it means that anyone is allowed to issue veiled threats because freedom.
-
Yeah yeah yeah everything is a-ok no matter how thuggish it is as long as it's "your guy" doing it.
*****rollingeyes*****
One, Trump is not 'my guy' in the sense that you mean or imply it.
I like a lot of things he has done and he is no more thuggish than many in the media. They are just a little bit smoother about hiding it.
I get it that you are a contrarian but you need to work on not being so predictable.
-
Yeah yeah yeah everything is a-ok no matter how thuggish it is as long as it's "your guy" doing it.
*****rollingeyes*****
I'm not a fan of the MSM or Talk Radio, however, I don't want the Government yanking them off the air cause they don't like the message. John Adams tried it and he failed.
-
I'm not a fan of the MSM or Talk Radio, however, I don't want the Government yanking them off the air cause they don't like the message. John Adams tried it and he failed.
Relax. I knew John Adams and you're no John Adams.
Actually, things are imploding all around us.
Hollywood is imploding the the lies and sex scandals coming out now that affects most of Hollywood. Those who did it and those who covered it up.
The media is beginning to implode. The implosion will be total if Hillary goes down and it looks like she's going down.
All that they worked for ... Obama, Hillary ... all proven to be frauds and crooks.
They might go back to being fair.
-
Relax. I knew John Adams and you're no John Adams.
Actually, things are imploding all around us.
Hollywood is imploding the the lies and sex scandals coming out now that affects most of Hollywood. Those who did it and those who covered it up.
The media is beginning to implode. The implosion will be total if Hillary goes down and it looks like she's going down.
All that they worked for ... Obama, Hillary ... all proven to be frauds and crooks.
They might go back to being fair.
It'll never work. Nobody will believe them.
-
It'll never work. Nobody will believe them.
How can I believe you when you tell me that you love me when I know you've been a liar all your life.
-
How can I believe you when you tell me that you love me when I know you've been a liar all your life.
'Cause you want me to lie to you, just one more time.... :kisses2:
-
Ya know, if the press was as interested in investigating Hollywood as they were in Sarah Palin's laundry, I have a job for them.
Check out the two 'ladies' who have accused the 94 year old former President.
Could someone have paid them to come up with this utter stupidity to try to take the heat off of Weinstein, etal?
-
Relax. I knew John Adams and you're no John Adams.
Actually, things are imploding all around us.
Hollywood is imploding the the lies and sex scandals coming out now that affects most of Hollywood. Those who did it and those who covered it up.
The media is beginning to implode. The implosion will be total if Hillary goes down and it looks like she's going down.
All that they worked for ... Obama, Hillary ... all proven to be frauds and crooks.
They might go back to being fair.
When was the media fair?
-
'Cause you want me to lie to you, just one more time.... :kisses2:
Yeah, baby, and make me believe it this time.
-
Facebook censored me. Criticize your government and it might censor you too.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9f2c77c49ee5c8c5597ec74afecf329ec1d3fc20/r=540/https/media.gannett-cdn.com/29906170001/29906170001_5601287886001_5601269180001-vs.jpg)
Facebook blocked a post of mine last month for the first time since I joined it nine years ago. I was seeking to repost a blog article I had written on Janet Reno, the controversial former attorney general who died last year. I initially thought that Facebook was having technical glitches (no novelty). But I checked the page and saw the official verdict: “Could not scrape URL because it has been blocked.”
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/27/facebook-censored-cross-your-countrys-government-and-they-might-censor-you-too-james-bovard-column/795271001/
-
Facebook censored me. Criticize your government and it might censor you too.
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/9f2c77c49ee5c8c5597ec74afecf329ec1d3fc20/r=540/https/media.gannett-cdn.com/29906170001/29906170001_5601287886001_5601269180001-vs.jpg)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/10/27/facebook-censored-cross-your-countrys-government-and-they-might-censor-you-too-james-bovard-column/795271001/
So what? Start a conservative version of Facebook.
-
So what? Start a conservative version of Facebook.
Lefties want it both ways... Nothing new... They want to force you to "bake the cake" but they'll refuse you service in an instant if you say something they don't like.
Personally I think any business should be able to refuse service for any reason. It is as simple as freedom of association. You could make the case that a publicly owned business (one anyone can buy shares in) could be forced to a different standard in terms of who it is required to serve but not a privately held company.
-
Personally I think any business should be able to refuse service for any reason. It is as simple as freedom of association. You could make the case that a publicly owned business (one anyone can buy shares in) could be forced to a different standard in terms of who it is required to serve but not a privately held company.
That is precisely right! Liberty is not liberty if it is not liberty.
-
Lefties want it both ways... Nothing new... They want to force you to "bake the cake" but they'll refuse you service in an instant if you say something they don't like.
Personally I think any business should be able to refuse service for any reason. It is as simple as freedom of association. You could make the case that a publicly owned business (one anyone can buy shares in) could be forced to a different standard in terms of who it is required to serve but not a privately held company.
Yep! Maybe this thread will kindly die now.
-
Yep! Maybe this thread will kindly die now.
It's been tried....
-
Yep! Maybe this thread will kindly die now.
Wasn’t there a Do Not Resuscitate order in place?
-
Wasn’t there a Do Not Resuscitate order in place?
Tattooed on the breastbone.
-
Wasn’t there a Do Not Resuscitate order in place?
Someone needs to post it again .... **nononono*
-
Twitter Buried #DNCLeak, #PodestaEmails Tweets In Last Two Months Of Campaign
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Twitter-Election-America-e1509560101345.jpg)
Twitter buried significant portions of tweets related to hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign chair John Podesta in the last two months of the 2016 presidential campaign.
Twitter’s systems hid 48 percent of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag and 25 percent of tweets using #PodestaEmails, Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett said in his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/twitter-buried-dncleak-podestaemails-tweets-in-last-two-months-of-campaign/
This is not what the founders had in mind when they wrote in protections for "Freedom of the Press." They didn't envision a system of one party control of information.
-
So NBC is now off the airwaves? That is the only reason I can see that this shitshow thread would still be alive.
What? They are still on the air? Well WTF.
-
So NBC is now off the airwaves? That is the only reason I can see that this shitshow thread would still be alive.
What? They are still on the air? Well WTF.
The thread is useful as a repository of examples in which the intent of "free press" has been turned on it's head by modern monopolistic control of systems for which it is not practical to create competition.
Every time I see an example of monopolistic abuse of the system for reasons of propaganda, I intend to post it here.
-
The thread is useful as a repository of examples in which the intent of "free press" has been turned on it's head by modern monopolistic control of systems for which it is not practical to create competition.
Every time I see an example of monopolistic abuse of the system for reasons of propaganda, I intend to post it here.
So this is going to be "Dem Plant II"? Gotcha.
-
So this is going to be "Dem Plant II"? Gotcha.
Yup! This is now the "Diogenes Media Bias/Pie Discussion" thread. Join in!
(https://images-gmi-pmc.edge-generalmills.com/597526e8-69bf-45a2-9b3c-772507d77087.jpg)
-
Twitter Buried #DNCLeak, #PodestaEmails Tweets In Last Two Months Of Campaign
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Twitter-Election-America-e1509560101345.jpg)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/01/twitter-buried-dncleak-podestaemails-tweets-in-last-two-months-of-campaign/
This is not what the founders had in mind when they wrote in protections for "Freedom of the Press." They didn't envision a system of one party control of information.
Twitter is not the news.
-
I'll, for one, miss NBC when Trump shuts them down.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LcYCjYs-R-c/TPULWXxxOtI/AAAAAAAAIS4/6S2J6JPl0ZY/s1600/Car+54+Where+Are+You+still+08.jpg)
-
So this is going to be "Dem Plant II"? Gotcha.
I'm not following your jargon here. What do you mean by "Dem Plant II"?
-
Twitter is not the news.
One of the topics I have debated for over a decade now is the tendency of people to draw artificial boundaries where none in fact exist. People want to put stuff into categories, such as "Chemistry" or "Physics" and treat them as if they are separate, when in fact there is no real boundary between the one thing and another.
We compartmentalize because it's mental short hand for juggling so many things in our lives.
You say "Twitter" is not "News", and in one sense you are right, but the scope of this discussion should not be limited to just "news", because this issue touches on a whole host of related issues, like "freedom of the press", which is not specifically about "news" either.
Twitter is a massive corporation that has monopoly control on a system of communication that is heavily influential in the United States. Facebook is another such entity, and Google is another, and the "news" services are others as well.
The common denominator is that they are big, powerful, liberal, and they control the flow of information to censor conservative speech and opinions as well as news stories they see as damaging to liberals.
There is really no conservative "competition" for any of these behemoths, and the nature of monopoly is such that they can effectively prevent any from ever arising.
I regard this situation as a dire threat to the nation and our future, and I believe this existing system needs to be broken in such a way that it can't freeze out dissenting opinions.
-
I'm not following your jargon here. What do you mean by "Dem Plant II"?
Good God. The Dem Plant thread is legendary. You'll need to find one of the elders here to tell you the story one of these days.
-
One of the topics I have debated for over a decade now is the tendency of people to draw artificial boundaries where none in fact exist. People want to put stuff into categories, such as "Chemistry" or "Physics" and treat them as if they are separate, when in fact there is no real boundary between the one thing and another.
We compartmentalize because it's mental short hand for juggling so many things in our lives.
You say "Twitter" is not "News", and in one sense you are right, but the scope of this discussion should not be limited to just "news", because this issue touches on a whole host of related issues, like "freedom of the press", which is not specifically about "news" either.
Twitter is a massive corporation that has monopoly control on a system of communication that is heavily influential in the United States. Facebook is another such entity, and Google is another, and the "news" services are others as well.
The common denominator is that they are big, powerful, liberal, and they control the flow of information to censor conservative speech and opinions as well as news stories they see as damaging to liberals.
There is really no conservative "competition" for any of these behemoths, and the nature of monopoly is such that they can effectively prevent any from ever arising.
I regard this situation as a dire threat to the nation and our future, and I believe this existing system needs to be broken in such a way that it can't freeze out dissenting opinions.
Fat Farting Santa! Then start your own conservative Twitter.
-
Nets Refuse to Acknowledge Revelation That Dem Primary Was ‘Rigged’ for Clinton
(https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/2017-11-02-fnc-sr-brazile-admitting-dem-primary-was-rigged-2.png?itok=TrwgMaqP)
In an essay for Politico on Thursday, former interim Democratic National Committee Chair Donna Brazile dropped a bombshell on the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign. In the piece, which was an excerpt from her upcoming book, Brazile exposed how “the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary” through a shady and ethically questionable financial arrangement. Even though it seemed like a plot in House of Cards, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) had a complete blackout of any mention of the news during their evening broadcasts.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/11/02/nets-refuse-acknowledge-revelation-dem-primary-was-rigged
Preventing the public from knowing the truth and thereby allowing them to make better voting decisions.
The media censorship is all about benefiting liberal politicians who keep the Washington money spigot flowing.
-
Nets Refuse to Acknowledge Revelation That Dem Primary Was ‘Rigged’ for Clinton
(https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/2017-11-02-fnc-sr-brazile-admitting-dem-primary-was-rigged-2.png?itok=TrwgMaqP)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/11/02/nets-refuse-acknowledge-revelation-dem-primary-was-rigged
Preventing the public from knowing the truth and thereby allowing them to make better voting decisions.
The media censorship is all about benefiting liberal politicians who keep the Washington money spigot flowing.
They actually screwed themselves on this one.
Their silence allowed the weaker of the two Liberal candidates to cheat her way to the nomination.
No Hillary as the Dem nominee = No Trump in the WH.
We probably would have seen a much different outcome on who the President is now had Sanders gotten the nomination.
-
They actually screwed themselves on this one.
Their silence allowed the weaker of the two Liberal candidates to cheat her way to the nomination.
No Hillary as the Dem nominee = No Trump in the WH.
We probably would have seen a much different outcome on who the President is now had Sanders gotten the nomination.
It's hard to say for sure, @txradioguy. Hillz brought money by the Steamer Trunk full to the game, and who knows if the Rats could have raised enough "Mother's Milk" without her.
-
It's hard to say for sure, @txradioguy. Hillz brought money by the Steamer Trunk full to the game, and who knows if the Rats could have raised enough "Mother's Milk" without her.
Bernie was the fan favorite of the college crowd and that age voter. His womb to tomb message was very appealing to them.
Once he'd gotten the nomination the Styer's and Soros types would have dumped money into his campaign.
-
NBC had there ticket pulled yet? I hope not. I don't want to miss tonight's installment of Miami Vice.
-
They actually screwed themselves on this one.
Their silence allowed the weaker of the two Liberal candidates to cheat her way to the nomination.
No Hillary as the Dem nominee = No Trump in the WH.
We probably would have seen a much different outcome on who the President is now had Sanders gotten the nomination.
I think Sanders would have likely won where Hillary could not. But I think the fact that Hillary and "Clinton inc" routinely do backstabbing and dirty dealing ought to be made known to the public. I think the public needs to know what kind of evil scum they are, and I believe it is detrimental to the nation to allow the "news" media to censor information damaging to Democrats.
-
Bernie was the fan favorite of the college crowd and that age voter. His womb to tomb message was very appealing to them.
Once he'd gotten the nomination the Styer's and Soros types would have dumped money into his campaign.
I agree. That is exactly what would have happened.
-
Bernie was the fan favorite of the college crowd and that age voter. His womb to tomb message was very appealing to them.
Once he'd gotten the nomination the Styer's and Soros types would have dumped money into his campaign.
Yeah, I think you're right. And Bernie would have kept the GOP numbers up, so it would probably have been a wash. Still can't predict what would have happened.
-
I watched "Good Morning America" today on ABC. They showed the yearbook of Moore's accuser. I noticed immediately that they showed the yearbook with the colors artificially manipulated so that you can't tell there are two different colors of ink used to sign the book.
(https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/roy-moore-hoax-1.jpg?w=640&h=640)
I believe they did this because it makes it far too obvious that something is wrong, and they want people to believe there is nothing wrong with that yearbook signature. They don't want reality getting in the way of people being made to believe what they want them to believe.
They are lying by deliberately covering up the truth of the different colors of ink used in that writing.
They are manipulating the "news" by censorship.
-
So what? Start a conservative version of Facebook.
I agree.. Don't like Facebook, start your own.
-
I agree.. Don't like Facebook, start your own.
Makes as much sense as saying "if you don't like Hitler's constant propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews, Just don't listen."
You do not understand how this "propaganda" business works.
It will get you destroyed if you allow it to continue without opposition.
-
Makes as much sense as saying "if you don't like Hitler's constant propaganda calling for the extermination of the Jews, Just don't listen."
You do not understand how this "propaganda" business works.
It will get you destroyed if you allow it to continue without opposition.
I have a big problem with what your idea of 'opposition' appears to be.
-
I have a big problem with what your idea of 'opposition' appears to be.
I have attempted to induce anyone else to put some ideas on the table about how an opposition should be formed, but no one seems to have any ideas except "Let's just keep being footballs."
You have an idea? Put it out there.
-
Censoring the News is how they manipulate elections.
Media Stops Embargoing Coverage of Menendez Corruption Trial Just Long Enough to Say The Jury is Hung
Good thing they didn't report on all the corrupt money and trips flowing to Menendez and the big favors (like agitating for the government to give his "friend" millions in overbilled Medicaid charges), but only now nutshell it as "jury could not come to a conclusion on the charges, whatever they were (and don't worry about what they were, Ignorant Citizen)."
So, the Democrat cultists who voted to acquit him (I'm guessing they're Democrats) may have relied on a Supreme Court decision in the McDonnell corruption case stating that only quids directly linked to a quo count as corruption.
In this case, Menendez' "pal" Meglen plied him with lots of money and free jet rides to exotic locales, building up what you could be called "markers" to be called in later. But because these markers were not expressly, at the time they were handed out, stated to be For the Specific Purpose of Corrupt Action X, but were left blank, allowing Melgen to call them in for any favor, then it's... not bribery?
That makes no sense and essentially writes "bribery" out of the US Code entirely.
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=372554
-
Censoring the News is how they manipulate elections.
Media Stops Embargoing Coverage of Menendez Corruption Trial Just Long Enough to Say The Jury is Hung
http://acecomments.mu.nu/?post=372554
In light of current news events, perhaps the headline writers should have considered using instead the phrase: “the jury failed to reach a verdict.”
-
I have attempted to induce anyone else to put some ideas on the table about how an opposition should be formed, but no one seems to have any ideas except "Let's just keep being footballs."
You have an idea? Put it out there.
I did already. It's actually a form of opposition and not oppression that can be used against you if/when the tables turn.
-
I did already. It's actually a form of opposition and not oppression that can be used against you if/when the tables turn.
So it is less trouble for you to just tell me you already told me, than just saying what it is?
Because I don't remember you saying anything on this topic that I regarded as having even a slight chance of addressing the problem.
-
So it is less trouble for you to just tell me you already told me, than just saying what it is?
Because I don't remember you saying anything on this topic that I regarded as having even a slight chance of addressing the problem.
Try looking back at Reply #884 that you commented on and restarted this whole pointless conversation.
-
Hung conversation.
-
Hung conversation.
LOL Yep.
-
LOL Yep.
888high58888 I’m sure I speak for the majority, when I say we’ve all had a few of those and they never seem end well.
-
888high58888 I’m sure I speak for the majority, when I say we’ve all had a few of those and they never seem end well.
I've considered starting an argument on this thread just to get it locked, even if I have to sacrifice myself for a few days. :laugh:
-
@DiogenesLamp
You have an idea? Put it out there.
I realize you weren't asking me, specifically, but I do have a plausible solution.
It worked as recently as September 2016. Hijack an existing party that is more in line with your views.
Movement must be seen by/in early 2019, immediately after the midterms, by early 2020 the bird will have flown, again.
Here's my Candidate.
(http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/constitution-party.jpg)
-
Let's make it a group
I've considered starting an argument on this thread just to get it locked, even if I have to sacrifice myself for a few days. :laugh:
I'm In @RoosGirl wait till after 9PM EST when the Mods are more apt to be watching Matlock or sleeping.
Let's burn this baby down call up your usual suspects.
-
Let's make it a group
I'm In @RoosGirl wait till after 9PM EST when the Mods are more apt to be watching Matlock or sleeping.
Let's burn this baby down call up your usual suspects.
I'm game, but it's fair to warn you I'm getting bored by all this.
-
I'm game, but it's fair to warn you I'm getting bored by all this.
:tongue2:
-
Try looking back at Reply #884 that you commented on and restarted this whole pointless conversation.
Come up with tens of billions of dollars to build a competing propaganda system?
Not a rational idea. You might as well tell the slaves "Just overthrow your masters."
No, they have us at a disadvantage such that we cannot compete with them. They have the upper hand, and sufficient monopoly power to keep it.
-
Come up with tens of billions of dollars to build a competing propaganda system?
Not a rational idea. You might as well tell the slaves "Just overthrow your masters."
No, they have us at a disadvantage such that we cannot compete with them. They have the upper hand, and sufficient monopoly power to keep it.
I know, right? Let's just take shit that doesn't belong to us and shut it down. It's so much easier that way.
-
I've considered starting an argument on this thread just to get it locked, even if I have to sacrifice myself for a few days. :laugh:
So you are in principle in favor of censorship? That sort of explains why you throw out Ideas that won't really address the issue.
No "Change the channel!" for me, and no "build a competing conversation on another thread!" for me, Just "lock this thread because *I* don't like conversations about media power and censorship. "
Many a true word is said in jest.
-
@DiogenesLamp I realize you weren't asking me, specifically, but I do have a plausible solution.
It worked as recently as September 2016. Hijack an existing party that is more in line with your views.
Movement must be seen by/in early 2019, immediately after the midterms, by early 2020 the bird will have flown, again.
Here's my Candidate.
(http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/constitution-party.jpg)
The Constitution party sounds very good, but I don't see how they can solve the Media censorship problem.
-
I know, right? Let's just take shit that doesn't belong to us and shut it down. It's so much easier that way.
If taken as a philosophical point, there is a lot of area for discussion on that topic, but taken as you mean it, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Who owns the airwaves?
-
If taken as a philosophical point, there is a lot of area for discussion on that topic, but taken as you mean it, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Who owns the airwaves?
Me. I own them, and I demand you stop using them.
-
I watched "Good Morning America" today on ABC. They showed the yearbook of Moore's accuser. I noticed immediately that they showed the yearbook with the colors artificially manipulated so that you can't tell there are two different colors of ink used to sign the book.
@DiogenesLamp
It appears to me he wrote the message and "Roy". She added the rest of it, which is different ink, in order to show all his name and nail down it happened at that restaurant on that date.
-
If taken as a philosophical point, there is a lot of area for discussion on that topic, but taken as you mean it, you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say.
Who owns the airwaves?
Me! I have a license from the FCC.
Oh, wait....
-
Me. I own them, and I demand you stop using them.
:)
-
@DiogenesLamp
It appears to me he wrote the message and "Roy". She added the rest of it, which is different ink, in order to show all his name and nail down it happened at that restaurant on that date.
That is also what I think, but did she do it the day of, or did she do it 38 years later?
But really my point was about ABC News refusing to clearly show that there is different color ink between the two parts of that entry because that would immediately cause people to question it's authenticity. People do not normally sign a yearbook in two different colors of ink.
ABC News showed the photo in gray scale to keep people from seeing the different colors, because ABC News wants people to believe the accusation. In other words, they are deliberately meddling in an election instead of honestly reporting the truth.
If they knew that NBC or CBS would immediately point out they were covering up the fact of different colored ink, they would have told the truth and showed the different colors of ink. But because they knew that no one with broadcasting power would call them out, they decided to mislead the public.
They do this sort of sh*t all the time, and they get away with it.
-
@DiogenesLamp
It appears to me he wrote the message and "Roy". She added the rest of it, which is different ink, in order to show all his name and nail down it happened at that restaurant on that date.
Roy who?
If I sign only my first name, it doesn't count.
-
@RoosGirl
For your general information, real estate law says you own your house and the ground it is on (if you bought both), but not the air above it. If you own the "air waves" as you say, from whom did you buy or rent them - God? 8888forgot
-
@DiogenesLamp I realize you weren't asking me, specifically, but I do have a plausible solution.
It worked as recently as September 2016. Hijack an existing party that is more in line with your views.
Movement must be seen by/in early 2019, immediately after the midterms, by early 2020 the bird will have flown, again.
Here's my Candidate.
(http://hill-kleerup.org/blog/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/constitution-party.jpg)
I was interested in the Constitution Party in 2012.
It will be interesting to see how much enthusiasm you have for it in 4 years or even by 2020.
Hold that thought.
@corbe
-
I've read the Constitution party platform, the Libertarian Platform, the latter is a bit disappointing, CP is ok.
-
I've read the Constitution party platform, the Libertarian Platform, the latter is a bit disappointing, CP is ok.
Considering the Constitution of the United States is part of the CP platform, It'll do.
-
@RoosGirl
For your general information, real estate law says you own your house and the ground it is on (if you bought both), but not the air above it. If you own the "air waves" as you say, from whom did you buy or rent them - God? 8888forgot
I didn't buy or rent them. God gave them to me because I'm special.
-
Roy who?
If I sign only my first name, it doesn't count.
What if you are Prince or Sting?
-
I didn't buy or rent them. God gave them to me because I'm special.
That's messed up! I had to earn my license.
-
That's messed up! I had to earn my license.
If everyone were special it wouldn't be special, now would it?
-
What if you are Prince or Sting?
If my name was Prince I'd change it to an unpronounceable symbol and croak.
-
I was interested in the Constitution Party in 2012.
It will be interesting to see how much enthusiasm you have for it in 4 years or even by 2020.
Hold that thought.
@corbe
@TomSea
History has generally proven that 3rd party attempts of Presidential Elections have typically been deemed non significant or that of the spoiler (Ross Perot) in recent history BUT given another shift, not unlike Trump's populist movement that just sweep the GOP off it's feet (it WAS ripe for the pickings), a few big names, Cruz, Lee and some Freedom Caucus members switch parties, tweak the Constitution Party Platform, could WE not duplicate what happened last year?
It's a long shot but I need a home to dream and the GOP gives me nightmares.
-
That is also what I think, but did she do it the day of, or did she do it 38 years later?
But really my point was about ABC News refusing to clearly show that there is different color ink between the two parts of that entry because that would immediately cause people to question it's authenticity. People do not normally sign a yearbook in two different colors of ink.
ABC News showed the photo in gray scale to keep people from seeing the different colors, because ABC News wants people to believe the accusation. In other words, they are deliberately meddling in an election instead of honestly reporting the truth.
If they knew that NBC or CBS would immediately point out they were covering up the fact of different colored ink, they would have told the truth and showed the different colors of ink. But because they knew that no one with broadcasting power would call them out, they decided to mislead the public.
They do this sort of sh*t all the time, and they get away with it.
Yearbook. Another case of a “fake but accurate” document.
-
@DiogenesLamp
It appears to me he wrote the message and "Roy". She added the rest of it, which is different ink, in order to show all his name and nail down it happened at that restaurant on that date.
I've been reading this since last night, and it has me scratching my head.
Are you suggesting it's a forgery, but that's OK because it is a record of actual events? How is this different from the TANG "documents" of the 32004 Election?
-
MSNBC Reporter: Rand Paul Being Beaten Up Is 'One Of My Favorite Stories'
(https://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2017/317/90b85a03-26c9-423e-9161-fbb45ed58332.jpg)
Well, this was a rather awkward moment. NBC reporter Kasie Hunt described the assault on Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) as “one of her favorite stories.” Of course, this isn’t the best phrase to describe this incident, with Hunt trying to correct herself on air but opting to continue with her report. She concluded that Paul’s assault by neighbor, Rene Boucher, was caused by a landscaping dispute, declaring that as the reason for the attack. This was not a simple push and shove. Paul was severely injured, with six broken ribs
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/11/20/msnbc-reporter-rand-paul-being-beaten-up-is-one-of-my-favorite-stories-n2412127
-
Mika Brzezinski Suggests Trump Is Okay With KKK Bombing Black Churches
(https://cdn.mrctv.org/videos/16108/thumbnails/md/16108_thumb_0003.png)
On Wednesday’s Morning Joe, while discussing President Trump’s remarks to reporters yesterday on the White House lawn, NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Kasie Hunt decided to do an impromptu campaign ad for Democratic senatorial candidate Doug Jones, who is Roy Moore’s opponent in the Alabama special election. Part of Hunt’s pitch involved the fact that Jones is best known for prosecuting the perpetrators of the infamous 1963 Birmingham church bombing that killed four black girls. Co-host Mika Brzezinski instantly saw a connection between this piece of information and Trump’s earlier claim to journalists that Jones is “soft on crime.” From this realization, she concluded that Trump must in some way be okay with, or at least not that concerned by, blowing up and killing children in churches for racial reasons.
In the clip, you can see how Brzezinksi walked right up to the line of outright saying that Trump was okay with the bombing before catching herself:
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/chris-reeves/2017/11/22/mika-brzezinski-suggests-trump-okay-kkk-bombing-black-churches
-
The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality
Even while the FCC was more strictly regulating, a few powerful companies took control of what we see and don't.
(https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/ib7hbByx0vpc/v0/150x-1.jpg)
Now of course, these are not nice people. Their website espoused vile hate. But the fact remains that what they were publishing was not illegal, merely immoral, and their immoral speech was effectively shut down by a small number of private companies who decided to exercise their considerable control over what we’re allowed to read. And what is to stop them from expanding this decision to other categories, forcing the rest of us to conform to Silicon Valley’s idea of what it is moral and right for us to see?
Fifteen years ago, when I started blogging, it was common to hear that “the internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” You don’t hear that so often anymore, because it’s not true. China has proven very effective at censoring the internet, and as market power has consolidated in the tech industry, so have private firms.
Meanwhile, our experience of the internet is increasingly controlled by a handful of firms, most especially Google and Facebook. The argument for regulating these companies as public utilities is arguably at least as strong as the argument for thus regulating ISPs, and very possibly much stronger; while cable monopolies may have local dominance, none of them has the ability that Google and Facebook have to unilaterally shape what Americans see, hear, and read.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-11-21/the-internet-had-already-lost-its-neutrality
-
Google is locking people out of documents, and you should be worried
(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/6bsGGVibLqhr--sRa_ZCLjASxjk=/950x534/filters:quality(90)/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F637249%2Fe510d146-015c-4778-a492-df2964c2c6b5.jpg)
It turns out that even your private documents can be censored online. This morning, a ton of users reported being locked out of completely innocuous Google Docs for "inappropriate content."
Google's abuse policy prohibits the posting of serious threats, needlessly graphic or violent content, hate speech, harassment, confidential information, pornography, and anything illegal including child exploitation and copyrighted content.
Today, however, multiple users believe that the content they were locked out of did not contain prohibited material. National Geographic reporter Rachael Bale, who was locked out of a draft of a story about wildlife crime, claims that nothing in her document violated Google's policies. "It's about legal, but ethically dubious activity," she tweeted.
http://mashable.com/2017/10/31/google-docs-locking-people-out/#UpjlG6Bzmaq2
-
Google is locking people out of documents, and you should be worried
(https://i.amz.mshcdn.com/6bsGGVibLqhr--sRa_ZCLjASxjk=/950x534/filters:quality(90)/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F637249%2Fe510d146-015c-4778-a492-df2964c2c6b5.jpg)
http://mashable.com/2017/10/31/google-docs-locking-people-out/#UpjlG6Bzmaq2
Why I'm staying out of the cloud...
Google had plenty of practice censoring the web in China.
-
Why I'm staying out of the cloud...
Google had plenty of practice censoring the web in China.
I have never comprehended why any intelligent person in their right mind would use "the cloud" to save anything important. Letting other people have and keep your data is just asking to be kicked in the nads.
-
I have never comprehended why any intelligent person in their right mind would use "the cloud" to save anything important. Letting other people have and keep your data is just asking to be kicked in the nads.
I made my own dang cloud. And my boy is uber-geek too, and he made his own dang cloud also... Mine backs to his His backs to mine... And the nicest thing is, if I need a buttload of my data back down for some reason, I just jump in the truck and head over there with a hard drive instead of waiting a couple days to get it back down. Best of both worlds.
-
And in the ongoing saga of the media attempting to manipulate elections through the power of Broadcasting reach:
Shep Smith just called Roy Moore an alleged child molester
https://youtu.be/YbmK7LU5M-0 (https://youtu.be/YbmK7LU5M-0)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3608342/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3608342/posts)
-
And in the ongoing saga of the media attempting to manipulate elections through the power of Broadcasting reach:
Shep Smith just called Roy Moore an alleged child molester
https://youtu.be/YbmK7LU5M-0 (https://youtu.be/YbmK7LU5M-0)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3608342/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3608342/posts)
Well, technically, all of that is true. I know it's Shep and all, but....
-
Well, technically, all of that is true. I know it's Shep and all, but....
Bill Clinton is an alleged rapist. Barack Obama is an alleged homosexual.
Control of the broadcasting apparatus allows them to circulate their smears without rebuttal or retaliation, and we are fools to allow this one sided propaganda to the public to continue.
-
I'm an alleged Pastafarian. All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster! Wheee!
-
Well, technically, all of that is true. I know it's Shep and all, but....
Child Molester" conjures images of brutalized five year-olds. FFS. I have seen 14 year-olds (when I was that age) who were very well developed. While below the age of consent and minors, they were not "children" in the developmental sense--some of those young ladies were bustier, even allowing for the Charmin factor, than their moms.
For that Matter, I can allege that Shep Smith is a space alien masquerading as a journalist, hiding in plain sight by posing as a journalist and manipulating minds to effect his(?)* disguise.
*(because you never know what gender a space alien really is)
I haven't watched that jackass since the Superdome and Katrina.
-
Child Molester" conjures images of brutalized five year-olds. FFS. I have seen 14 year-olds (when I was that age) who were very well developed. While below the age of consent and minors, they were not "children" in the developmental sense--some of those young ladies were bustier, even allowing for the Charmin factor, than their moms.
For that Matter, I can allege that Shep Smith is a space alien masquerading as a journalist, hiding in plain sight by posing as a journalist and manipulating minds to effect his(?)* disguise.
*(because you never know what gender a space alien really is)
I haven't watched that jackass since the Superdome and Katrina.
Whoa, there! 14 year olds are children, because despite the state of their physical development, they are still mentally children. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether they are "developed" or not. That's the whole point of establishing an "age of consent".
I think you wandered off the path and your point got woefully lost.
-
Bill Clinton is an alleged rapist. Barack Obama is an alleged homosexual.
Control of the broadcasting apparatus allows them to circulate their smears without rebuttal or retaliation, and we are fools to allow this one sided propaganda to the public to continue.
So the same "one sided" broadcasting apparatus that is calling Bill Clinton an alleged rapist and Barack Obama an alleged homosexual is calling Roy Moore an alleged child abuser? Doesn't sound so one sided to me; sounds pretty equal opportunity.
-
So the same "one sided" broadcasting apparatus that is calling Bill Clinton an alleged rapist and Barack Obama an alleged homosexual is calling Roy Moore an alleged child abuser? Doesn't sound so one sided to me; sounds pretty equal opportunity.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/87/87be47290fcc3fa02dc0d6fae882c5c96dff7ff1301e8bc81a4e3fb8d1c171fe.jpg)
-
Whoa, there! 14 year olds are children, because despite the state of their physical development, they are still mentally children. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether they are "developed" or not. That's the whole point of establishing an "age of consent".
I think you wandered off the path and your point got woefully lost.
I have read articles asserting that the girl who claimed to be "14" at the time, was actually 17 at the time. I've been trying to find out from where they got this information, because I think it makes a big difference.
One would think this particular detail could be nailed down by looking at some yearbooks from that town.
-
So the same "one sided" broadcasting apparatus that is calling Bill Clinton an alleged rapist and Barack Obama an alleged homosexual is calling Roy Moore an alleged child abuser?
You make an erroneous assumption in thinking that any broadcasting system has ever called Bill Clinton an alleged rapist or Barack Obama an alleged homosexual.
To my knowledge, those allegations have never been put through the propaganda system of America.
You can only hear them by visiting conservative websites and reading information you wont' see on the broadcast networks.
Edit:
I take it back. I do know of one incident in which someone claimed Barack Obama was a homosexual.
https://youtu.be/aakEvMc2110
-
I have read articles asserting that the girl who claimed to be "14" at the time, was actually 17 at the time. I've been trying to find out from where they got this information, because I think it makes a big difference.
One would think this particular detail could be nailed down by looking at some yearbooks from that town.
Yes, this will come to light...just after we succeed in destroying the candidate. So convenient.
-
You make an erroneous assumption in thinking that any broadcasting system has ever called Bill Clinton an alleged rapist or Barack Obama an alleged homosexual.
To my knowledge, those allegations have never been put through the propaganda system of America.
You can only hear them by visiting conservative websites and reading information you wont' see on the broadcast networks.
Doood. Sarcasm.
-
Doood. Sarcasm.
I've read it several times. If it is intended as sarcasm, it is entirely too subtle for me to grasp it.
-
I've read it several times. If it is intended as sarcasm, it is entirely too subtle for me to grasp it.
It's @RoosGirl, The gal swims in it.
-
Whoa, there! 14 year olds are children, because despite the state of their physical development, they are still mentally children. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether they are "developed" or not. That's the whole point of establishing an "age of consent".
I think you wandered off the path and your point got woefully lost.
Apparently, my point got woefully lost.
At five I wasn't interested in sex.
Nope.
Not a bit.
By 14 that had changed, but by 14 I was working heavy construction on a seawall crew between stints on a pile driver as a deckhand, worked on my grandfather's farm (and had for years) in the tobacco fields and baling hay, had been driving tractor for years, and had just joined the Volunteer Fire Department. I had my own boat (skiff) and a commercial fishing license. This was within a handful of years of the time of these allegations.
Legally, 14 year-olds are still not adults, but when we think of "children" the tendency is to envision grade schoolers, not nubile adolescents. We even call them "teenagers" instead of "children", and they are commonly not hesitant to remind adults of that change in status, even though the legal significance is moot.
I'd say the difference between prepubescent and 14 is HUGE. Now, that doesn't mean adults should prey on 14 year olds, but there is no proof that even happened in Moore's case, and there are folks who have stepped forward and pointed out serious problems with the narrative that woman (now) has told of events that she alleged 40 years ago.
But in desperation, as the election approaches and the narrative disintegrates too soon for those who would scuttle Moore, they are doing (again) what I predicted when this all started: They are doubling down on the rhetoric, because they are plumb out of credible complainants. They even listed people who were not complainants as complainants (who claimed there was no sexual behaviour involved) to pad out the numbers.
The Gloria Allred traveling show and hit posse has run out of poo to throw, so the media have to carry the ball.
-
I've read it several times. If it is intended as sarcasm, it is entirely too subtle for me to grasp it.
And since you were too lazy in our previous conversation on Moore to go back and read what I said, instead of asking me to repeat myself (again), I shall not explain further here.
-
Whoa, there! 14 year olds are children, because despite the state of their physical development, they are still mentally children. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether they are "developed" or not. That's the whole point of establishing an "age of consent".
I think you wandered off the path and your point got woefully lost.
Thank you for making that point.
It doesn't matter what any man on this forum "thinks" about what a child is..... a 14 year old girl IS a child.
And if she was molested by Moore, he IS a pedophile, regardless of her development.
(That accusation, of course, has not been proven).
-
And since you were too lazy in our previous conversation on Moore to go back and read what I said, instead of asking me to repeat myself (again), I shall not explain further here.
Ah. Another "I'm going to spend more time explaining why I won't explain than I would have if I had explained " maneuver.
:)
-
Ah. Another "I'm going to spend more time explaining why I won't explain than I would have if I had explained " maneuver.
:)
And another spending more time bitching about what someone won't do for you that could do for yourself. Such is life, sometimes we must make sacrifices.
-
And another spending more time bitching about what someone won't do for you that could do for yourself. Such is life, sometimes we must make sacrifices.
I want to spend more time talking about pie. I had some really good pie last week...pumpkin pie with lotsa whipped cream.
-
I want to spend more time talking about pie. I had some really good pie last week...pumpkin pie with lotsa whipped cream.
Oh, I made a fresh apple pie. Not my best work, but it all got eaten, so not my worst either.
-
(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/d21/unsecured/media/1033249144001/201311/2925/1033249144001_2836625352001_Best-Pumpkin-Pie-Ever.jpg?pubId=1033249144001)
-
(http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/d21/unsecured/media/1033249144001/201311/2925/1033249144001_2836625352001_Best-Pumpkin-Pie-Ever.jpg?pubId=1033249144001)
I have a really nice recipe for pumpkin pie that ends up turning out almost like a mousse instead of that dense pumpkin filling you get from a lot of places.
-
By 14 that had changed, but by 14 I was working heavy construction on a seawall crew between stints on a pile driver as a deckhand, worked on my grandfather's farm (and had for years) in the tobacco fields and baling hay, had been driving tractor for years, and had just joined the Volunteer Fire Department. I had my own boat (skiff) and a commercial fishing license. This was within a handful of years of the time of these allegations.
Legally, 14 year-olds are still not adults, but when we think of "children" the tendency is to envision grade schoolers, not nubile adolescents. We even call them "teenagers" instead of "children", and they are commonly not hesitant to remind adults of that change in status, even though the legal significance is moot.
In that same vein, my mother was cooking three meals a day for a whole farm when she was 12, By that age, she could drive anything with a stick, and often drove hay truck and silage truck during haying operations. She drove 2T grain trucks to the grain elevators in town as soon as she was legal to drive (14 1/2 or so) She also managed the chicken operation, both eggs and meat, worked the garden and canning, putting up food. And she made dresses for herself and her sister.
I would readily assure you her mental maturity and development at an early age would far outstrip the level present in current girls. And in that, I sure won't cuss her for marrying young.
-
And another spending more time bitching about what someone won't do for you that could do for yourself.
Another erroneous assumption. I haven't the first clue as to how to make sense of what you said. I do not know to what you are referring, and I can only guess it had something to do with something or other we talked about previously, that is seemingly more significant to you than it was to me.
Such is life, sometimes we must make sacrifices.
Sacrifice? I consider arguing to be my favorite form of entertainment. :)
-
I have a really nice recipe for pumpkin pie that ends up turning out almost like a mousse instead of that dense pumpkin filling you get from a lot of places.
I have the same regard for pumpkin pie you have for pecan pie but I might try that one.
-
I have a really nice recipe for pumpkin pie that ends up turning out almost like a mousse instead of that dense pumpkin filling you get from a lot of places.
Pumpkin Pie is meant to be a custard pie, so anything you can do to "floof" it up is good work.
-
Pumpkin Pie is meant to be a custard pie, so anything you can do to "floof" it up is good work.
FLOOF? Is that a technical term?
-
FLOOF? Is that a technical term?
I think it is...in the sense that "worrying" your eggs is a thing to do on the way to the frying pan to make an omelet.
-
I think it is...in the sense that "worrying" your eggs is a thing to do on the way to the frying pan to make an omelet.
Alright... I get that. I've worried up my eggs many a time.
-
Alright... I get that. I've worried up my eggs many a time.
Same thing. :whistle:
-
In that same vein, my mother was cooking three meals a day for a whole farm when she was 12, By that age, she could drive anything with a stick, and often drove hay truck and silage truck during haying operations. She drove 2T grain trucks to the grain elevators in town as soon as she was legal to drive (14 1/2 or so) She also managed the chicken operation, both eggs and meat, worked the garden and canning, putting up food. And she made dresses for herself and her sister.
I would readily assure you her mental maturity and development at an early age would far outstrip the level present in current girls. And in that, I sure won't cuss her for marrying young.
I think we are seeing some differences in upbringing here, I know we are seeing some differences in rate of maturation, and a decided tendency to judge the behaviour of teenagers then by the behaviour of teenagers now. I think 'kids' grow up quicker in the boonies. We were deer hunting at 9, alone in the woods with a lethal weapon, at an age where you can't even take a hunter safety course now. The odd part of that is that between sexualization by social and educational influences and earlier physical maturation now, mollycoddling and limitations on what they can do have produced a neotenic generation that might be good with a few (relatively fragile) gadgets but who can't handle power tools or adult responsibilities. Ironically, those "pure" 17 year olds are likely much more rare now than they were in Moore's day and age.
-
I think we are seeing some differences in upbringing here, I know we are seeing some differences in rate of maturation, and a decided tendency to judge the behaviour of teenagers then by the behaviour of teenagers now. I think 'kids' grow up quicker in the boonies. We were deer hunting at 9, alone in the woods with a lethal weapon, at an age where you can't even take a hunter safety course now. The odd part of that is that between sexualization by social and educational influences and earlier physical maturation now, mollycoddling and limitations on what they can do have produced a neotenic generation that might be good with a few (relatively fragile) gadgets but who can't handle power tools or adult responsibilities. Ironically, those "pure" 17 year olds are likely much more rare now than they were in Moore's day and age.
Then what kind of pie do you like?
-
Then what kind of pie do you like?
Chicken Pot. :tongue2:
-
Chicken Pot. :tongue2:
I have a turkey pot pie on the way. 10 minutes.
Ice cream for desert. Next weekend I'm getting some Pee-can pie.
-
I think we are seeing some differences in upbringing here, I know we are seeing some differences in rate of maturation, and a decided tendency to judge the behaviour of teenagers then by the behaviour of teenagers now. I think 'kids' grow up quicker in the boonies. We were deer hunting at 9, alone in the woods with a lethal weapon, at an age where you can't even take a hunter safety course now. The odd part of that is that between sexualization by social and educational influences and earlier physical maturation now, mollycoddling and limitations on what they can do have produced a neotenic generation that might be good with a few (relatively fragile) gadgets but who can't handle power tools or adult responsibilities. Ironically, those "pure" 17 year olds are likely much more rare now than they were in Moore's day and age.
That's right - It's been all along that you and I seem to have had the same upbriging and walked along close paths... We may not be in the same place, but I can nearly always see you from here :beer: :seeya:
-
That's right - It's been all along that you and I seem to have had the same upbriging and walked along close paths... We may not be in the same place, but I can nearly always see you from here :beer: :seeya:
Yep! :beer: :seeya:
-
Another erroneous assumption. I haven't the first clue as to how to make sense of what you said. I do not know to what you are referring, and I can only guess it had something to do with something or other we talked about previously, that is seemingly more significant to you than it was to me.
Sacrifice? I consider arguing to be my favorite form of entertainment. :)
An erroneous assumption, yet you have no clue what I'm talking about. I think I'm going to have to call a Mod to have you booted from the forum.
-
The Tech Giants Must Be Reined In
(https://i0.wp.com/www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GettyImages-876645132.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1)
For years, Facebook and the others have lobbied effectively to keep costly regulations and laws at bay with a false narrative that maintains they are not media companies but are merely “platforms.†This is akin to the “Uber defense,†designed to bypass licensing, insurance or inspection requirements to enhance profits and to unfairly compete. But if Uber is not a taxi service and Facebook is not a media company, then I am a bot.
Newspapers and broadcasters are, after all, platforms too—platforms that both create and curate content from third parties. At the very minimum, they cannot print or beam defamatory statements, nor incite violence. If they do, they are subject to punishment, litigation or both.
But beyond that, journalistic institutions have always felt themselves bound to faithfully relay a version of reality to its customers. Not so the tech giants. “At our heart, we’re a tech company; we hire engineers. We don’t hire reporters, no one’s a journalist, we don’t cover the news,†says Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/ (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/)
-
The Tech Giants Must Be Reined In
(https://i0.wp.com/www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GettyImages-876645132.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/ (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/)
Glad to see that conservatives have finally acknowledged that they are no more pro-liberty than liberals at this point.
-
Glad to see that conservatives have finally acknowledged that they are no more pro-liberty than liberals at this point.
<************>You are not aware of the dire *THREAT* these people pose to us,<***************> be able to grasp.
NOPE. Let's not.
If we don't stop the takeover of all communication systems by the "elite", we are going to lose far more freedom than you have the wit to understand.
-
<************>You are not aware of the dire *THREAT* these people pose to us,<***************> be able to grasp.
NOPE. Let's not.
If we don't stop the takeover of all communication systems by the "elite", we are going to lose far more freedom than you have the wit to understand.
Oh yeah. I am. Trial by Facebook. Mob just us (hit thingy to 'like').
Google has had years of practice keeping the net just what the Chinese want their people to see--and nothing more--while between the two, those who disagree can be reported to the relevant authorities as 'domestic terrorists'.
Does anyone recall the video walls and Montag in Fahrenheit 451 watching as he is cornered and shot down by the authorities? Prescient, that, I hope I still have my hard copy after the fire...
-
For the membership which has enough understanding to grasp the threat of big tech censorship, a video about YouTube (google) censorship.
https://youtu.be/_4NgO69RprE
-
Oh yeah. I am. Trial by Facebook. Mob just us (hit thingy to 'like').
Google has had years of practice keeping the net just what the Chinese want their people to see--and nothing more--while between the two, those who disagree can be reported to the relevant authorities as 'domestic terrorists'.
Does anyone recall the video walls and Montag in Fahrenheit 451 watching as he is cornered and shot down by the authorities? Prescient, that, I hope I still have my hard copy after the fire...
I guess some people didn't grow up reading dystopian literature like Fahrenheit 451, or Animal Farm, or 1984. They seem oblivious to the threat to freedom posed by censorship regardless of the *SOURCE* of that censorship.
They seem to find proxy agents for the elite or the government to be perfectly acceptable.
It is a necessary requirement of American freedom to insure all voices can be heard.
-
I guess some people didn't grow up reading dystopian literature like Fahrenheit 451, or Animal Farm, or 1984. They seem oblivious to the threat to freedom posed by censorship regardless of the *SOURCE* of that censorship.
They seem to find proxy agents for the elite or the government to be perfectly acceptable.
It is a necessary requirement of American freedom to insure all voices can be heard.
Seemed like everything I ever read was dystopian. Then I found out Dick and Jane were related. Ruined everything. Still love Spot, I named one of my cats after him.
-
Google Is Using Its Immense Power To Censor Content That Doesn’t Fit Its Political Goals. Everyone In America Should Be Concerned About That
(http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Ajit-Pai-FCC-Chairman-Net-Neutrality-Daily-Caller-Video-e1513365011849.jpg)
The Daily Caller released a funny video Tuesday of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai defending the commission’s upcoming net neutrality rollback. Through Wednesday and Thursday, liberals and others who dislike Pai’s political position lost their minds. And by Friday morning, Google, one of the most powerful companies on the planet, had censored the video based on a bogus claim from a politically motivated man.
It took seven crucial hours and the full force of our news site to push Google and YouTube to reverse this political censorship. We were able to prevail because of the sizable contacts and resources of TheDC. An average citizen showcasing a political viewpoint Google and the left disagreed with would almost certainly have had a far more difficult — and fruitless — time fighting back.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/15/google-is-using-its-immense-power-to-censor-content-that-doesnt-fit-its-political-goals/?utm_source=site-share (http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/15/google-is-using-its-immense-power-to-censor-content-that-doesnt-fit-its-political-goals/?utm_source=site-share)
Like I said, I now understand how the Germans went full Nazi.
-
Google Is Using Its Immense Power To Censor Content That Doesn’t Fit Its Political Goals. Everyone In America Should Be Concerned About That
...
And, this was under "Net Neutrality" right?
-
And, this was under "Net Neutrality" right?
I do not understand your point. I also don't think you understand mine.
-
I do not understand your point. I also don't think you understand mine.
Did you have one?
-
Did you have one?
I just thought it was part of the Great Mosaic. :shrug:
-
Did you have one?
For those with minds to see it.
-
Pretty sure this is the thread where some clown tried to claim it would cost $100 billion to start a new TV network and I was called out for claiming (quite correctly) that that was hyperbole,
This week, Disney announced it was purchasing ALL of 20th Cent Fox for $52 billion. Still a lot of money, but that includes a whole bunch of networks, studios, content, etc, etc.
-
Pretty sure this is the thread where some clown tried to claim it would cost $100 billion to start a new TV network and I was called out for claiming (quite correctly) that that was hyperbole,
This week, Disney announced it was purchasing ALL of 20th Cent Fox for $52 billion. Still a lot of money, but that includes a whole bunch of networks, studios, content, etc, etc.
Your rebuttal is that it would only cost 52 billion? You got that in your back pocket?
Also, from the "New York Times"
Not included in the acquisition: Fox News, the Fox broadcast network and the FS1 sports cable channel. In the news release announcing the Disney deal, Mr. Murdoch said he would spin those businesses and a handful of other properties, including the 20th Century Fox lot in Century City, which Disney is not buying, into a newly listed company. Mr. Murdoch also still controls his newspaper-focused company, News Corporation, which has holdings that include The Wall Street Journal.
So how much does it cost to create a network? I tossed out 100 billion, but so long as the number is far greater than can be reasonably amassed, the exact number is irrelevant to the point.
I should have put it into terms that might have conveyed the concept more clearly to avoid people looking at the trees instead of the forest.
I should have said something like "eleventy gadzillion" so people wouldn't focus on the number, and would perhaps instead focus on the actual point that the amount of money required is beyond our reach.
Yes, 52 billion is a far more reasonable figure than 100 billion. Good Job!
-
I just thought it was part of the Great Mosaic. :shrug:
@Cyber Liberty
I get real tired of the "I'm smarter than you are"s thinking that because they write something that we should all think it's the next best idea to sliced bread.
What kind of pie you got planned for Christmas?
-
@Cyber Liberty
I get real tired of the "I'm smarter than you are"s thinking that because they write something that we should all think it's the next best idea to sliced bread.
What kind of pie you got planned for Christmas?
At the moment we're up to our armpits in cookies and brownies. She got a couple batches of Hob Nobs made, and a crapton of French Meringue cookies. I'd never had them before. They don't have flour, just egg white and plenty of sugar. Baked 215 for 90 minutes, let rest for a few hours. Unbelievably light. It's like cotton candy in a cookie form.
They go in the mail next week to the rels in CA and NV, along with some toys & stuff for the kiddos.
In answer to your question, we're probably doing Pumpkin Pie. Maybe something a bit lighter since we're going to light off a monster Chateaubriand Filet Mignon Roast. Rotisserie, I think. Last time we made that I pooped green for a week. :thud:
-
At the moment we're up to our armpits in cookies and brownies. She got a couple batches of Hob Nobs made, and a crapton of French Meringue cookies. I'd never had them before. They don't have flour, just egg white and plenty of sugar. Baked 215 for 90 minutes, let rest for a few hours. Unbelievably light. It's like cotton candy in a cookie form.
They go in the mail next week to the rels in CA and NV, along with some toys & stuff for the kiddos.
In answer to your question, we're probably doing Pumpkin Pie. Maybe something a bit lighter since we're going to light off a monster Chateaubriand Filet Mignon Roast. Rotisserie, I think. Last time we made that I pooped green for a week. :thud:
Well thanks for that TMI.
What is a Hob Nob? I could be a relative in Florida if it sounds like something we would like. ;)
-
Well thanks for that TMI.
What is a Hob Nob? I could be a relative in Florida if it sounds like something we would like. ;)
A Hob Nob is a very lightweight oatmeal cookie with no raisins. Not much flour, plenty of butter and sugar, and baking soda (instead of powder). They raise up really nice. They're made for dunkin'.
-
A Hob Nob is a very lightweight oatmeal cookie with no raisins. Not much flour, plenty of butter and sugar, and baking soda (instead of powder). They raise up really nice. They're made for dunkin'.
Okay, you may send us some. :laugh:
-
Okay, you may send us some. :laugh:
888high58888
We should get @roamer_1 in on this. I don't think baking's his thing, but he might enjoy it anyway. He's always talking about munchies in The Lounge.
-
888high58888
We should get @roamer_1 in on this. I don't think baking's his thing, but he might enjoy it anyway. He's always talking about munchies in The Lounge.
I'm not picky. Either you or he are welcome to send them to us. Cousin.
-
We should get @roamer_1 in on this. I don't think baking's his thing, but he might enjoy it anyway. He's always talking about munchies in The Lounge.
I am an oatmeal cookie aficionado... A true believer...
But sans raisins and cinnamon... I dunno. That tends to defeat the entire purpose... :shrug:
-
I am an oatmeal cookie aficionado... A true believer...
But sans raisins and cinnamon... I dunno. That tends to defeat the entire purpose... :shrug:
My husband doesn't like oatmeal cookies with raisins either, but he does like the cinnamon.
-
My husband doesn't like oatmeal cookies with raisins either, but he does like the cinnamon.
I can't stand raisins. I get pretty ticked off when I go to a meeting where there's a spread of cookies, and I grab one thinking it's chocolate chip and it's not, it's raisins. A gyp. 9999hair out0000
-
I'm going to make some ketogenic peanut butter cookies tomorrow. Sound like they could be good.
-
The Tech Giants Must Be Reined In
(https://i0.wp.com/www.the-american-interest.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GettyImages-876645132.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1)
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/ (https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/11/27/tech-giants-must-reined/)
So you want Big Government then.
-
So you want Big Government then.
Progressives always have wanted big government as long as it was "their" government since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
-
Progressives always have wanted big government as long as it was "their" government since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Also it is done their way. My attitude is this, you can't call people Big Government RINO's you don't like if you want the Feds to do your bidding.
-
Progressives always have wanted big government as long as it was "their" government since the days of Teddy Roosevelt.
Unfortunately, of late that attitude is not limited to progressives.
-
Also it is done their way. My attitude is this, you can't call people Big Government RINO's you don't like if you want the Feds to do your bidding.
Government has rules, limitations, powers granted and denied from the onset, with a few relatively minor Amendments.
I just want Government to go by those rules, which largely keeps it out of my business.
-
For those with minds to see it.
@DiogenesLamp
(http://img2.tvtome.com/i/u/b126b2cf7cb846d6c6bbd6b2436c9ed6.jpg)
-
@DiogenesLamp
(http://img2.tvtome.com/i/u/b126b2cf7cb846d6c6bbd6b2436c9ed6.jpg)
LOL!
(That feller creeps me out, just a tad....... )
-
LOL!
(That feller creeps me out, just a tad....... )
@musiclady
He creeps me out a lot, to be honest. :laugh:
-
@musiclady
He creeps me out a lot, to be honest. :laugh:
Fortunately his face was usually covered partially by his hood though.
Never understood why the Seer had to be so stinkin' ugly. I mean, after all, he's a Scandinavian, and we're all beautiful. :dx1:
-
Fortunately his face was usually covered partially by his hood though.
Never understood why the Seer had to be so stinkin' ugly. I mean, after all, he's a Scandinavian, and we're all beautiful. :dx1:
@musiclady
Well, that's kind of true, lol. A tall ginger Nordic guy will turn some heads.
I agree about his looks...sometimes you almost cringe when he's onscreen. And I can't figure out the lips.
-
@musiclady
Well, that's kind of true, lol. A tall ginger Nordic guy will turn some heads.
I agree about his looks...sometimes you almost cringe when he's onscreen. And I can't figure out the lips.
I guess he's been sucking on charcoal or something and forgot to wipe his face off with a napkin?? ^-^
-
I guess he's been sucking on charcoal or something and forgot to wipe his face off with a napkin?? ^-^
@musiclady
Lol, that must be it----the diet of seers. Kattegat has some tasty campfires.
-
@musiclady
Lol, that must be it----the diet of seers. Kattegat has some tasty campfires.
Well, I'd skip the ones with the human sacrifices in them, but the charred animal remains might be tasty. ^-^
@CatherineofAragon
btw, I think we've hijacked this thread, but improved it at the same time............ don't you??
-
You Ladies have definitely hijacked this Thread, I wish yall would take your zombie zone crap somewhere else.
:whistle:
-
So you want Big Government then.
Obviously I want it less than you do. That's why I keep posting these warnings.
-
Well, I'd skip the ones with the human sacrifices in them, but the charred animal remains might be tasty. ^-^
@CatherineofAragon
btw, I think we've hijacked this thread, but improved it at the same time............ don't you??
@musiclady
I think the quality of this thread has been vastly improved.
-
You Ladies have definitely hijacked this Thread, I wish yall would take your zombie zone crap somewhere else.
:whistle:
@corbe
:rolling:
-
@musiclady
@CatherineofAragon
Ladies, if the seer looked like this, would you really care about the rest of the story though?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE0300000578-3571684-image-a-70_1462296578625.jpg)
Uh huh, you can try to tell me yes, but I won't believe you.
-
You Ladies have definitely hijacked this Thread, I wish yall would take your zombie zone crap somewhere else.
:whistle:
He's not a zombie, silly......... he's a SEER, though not a very good one, I'd say.
And since this thread is almost as old as Ragnar Lothbrok, himself, I'd say we were improving it with this hijack. ^-^
@CatherineofAragon
@corbe
-
@musiclady
I think the quality of this thread has been vastly improved.
Yup!
-
@musiclady
@CatherineofAragon
Ladies, if the seer looked like this, would you really care about the rest of the story though?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE0300000578-3571684-image-a-70_1462296578625.jpg)
Uh huh, you can try to tell me yes, but I won't believe you.
I can say this.
I would TRY. 888heartkitty
-
@musiclady
I think the quality of this thread has been vastly improved.
I think it was the cookies that did that. Give me a shout if you want any recipes. I have Alexa at the ready.
-
@musiclady
@CatherineofAragon
Ladies, if the seer looked like this, would you really care about the rest of the story though?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE0300000578-3571684-image-a-70_1462296578625.jpg)
Uh huh, you can try to tell me yes, but I won't believe you.
Roids? Those look like an awesome set of Bitch Tits there....
J/S
-
He's not a zombie, silly......... he's a SEER, though not a very good one, I'd say.
And since this thread is almost as old as Ragnar Lothbrok, himself, I'd say we were improving it with this hijack. ^-^
@CatherineofAragon
@corbe
I was being silly
At 41 pages this Thread is ripe for ANYTHING and I will welcome it!
@musiclady @CatherineofAragon
-
Roids? Those look like an awesome set of Bitch Tits there....
J/S
I think you better take that back or he might come find you...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3571684/Norwegian-Navy-officer-looks-like-Viking-Instagram-swooning-thanks-long-blond-hair-bulging-muscles.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3571684/Norwegian-Navy-officer-looks-like-Viking-Instagram-swooning-thanks-long-blond-hair-bulging-muscles.html)
-
Roids? Those look like an awesome set of Bitch Tits there....
J/S
If he shaved real close he'd look like my 2nd wife with that demonic stare.
-
I think you better take that back or he might come find you...
Taken back. :cool:
-
@musiclady
@CatherineofAragon
Ladies, if the seer looked like this, would you really care about the rest of the story though?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE0300000578-3571684-image-a-70_1462296578625.jpg)
Uh huh, you can try to tell me yes, but I won't believe you.
@RoosGirl
Hell and no.
I was actually going to page you and suggest the only way it could get better was by the addition of some beefcake.
-
He's not a zombie, silly......... he's a SEER, though not a very good one, I'd say.
And since this thread is almost as old as Ragnar Lothbrok, himself, I'd say we were improving it with this hijack. ^-^
@CatherineofAragon
@corbe
@musiclady
Speaking of Ragnar...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/49/c0/f3/49c0f30c8d2842b1cc49f6a208c690a6.jpg)
-
Wow, this thread has gotten way better!
-
@RoosGirl
Hell and no.
I was actually going to page you and suggest the only way it could get better was by the addition of some beefcake.
@CatherineofAragon
Oh, you know I'm happy to oblige that.
-
@musiclady
Speaking of Ragnar...
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/49/c0/f3/49c0f30c8d2842b1cc49f6a208c690a6.jpg)
Yes, @Sanguine ............. it's gotten way, WAY better!
@RoosGirl
@CatherineofAragon
(I think we've gotten rid of that pesky drone that was here before. ^-^)
-
@CatherineofAragon
Oh, you know I'm happy to oblige that.
@RoosGirl
Maybe we should make it a periodic thing. We've dressed up this thread real pretty.
-
Yes, @Sanguine ............. it's gotten way, WAY better!
@RoosGirl
@CatherineofAragon
(I think we've gotten rid of that pesky drone that was here before. ^-^)
@musiclady
Who, lol?
-
@musiclady
Who, lol?
Beats me. I was just talking through my hat.
Or whatever that expression is... :dx1:
-
This Thread needs more Women pictures before it goes completely gay.
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/3a/09/49/3a0949db9fe856369cd710c20597e9c0.jpg)
-
@musiclady
@CatherineofAragon
Ladies, if the seer looked like this, would you really care about the rest of the story though?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE0300000578-3571684-image-a-70_1462296578625.jpg)
Uh huh, you can try to tell me yes, but I won't believe you.
Wow. Kelly Bundy sure has gone downhill, but at least she kept up the hair.
-
Wow. Kelly Bundy sure has gone downhill, but at least she kept up the hair.
Kelly Bundy wishes she ever looked so good.
-
This Thread needs more Women pictures before it goes completely gay.
Sorry, @corbe- I'm not really interested in women.
(https://static.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/51ce6099e4b0d911b4489b79/51ce6171e4b0d911b44947f7/1365703771057/1000w/header-man-of-steel-cast-and-crew-on-characters-justice-league-and.jpg)
-
Sorry, @corbe- I'm not really interested in women.
Then let's not post pics of men with bigger boobs than my ex? Even if they have a pretty face and a beard.
-
It's a Kelly thing @RoosGirl some of us just prefer them moore younger before they accumulate all that 'man hate'.
(http://i.pinimg.com/736x/9d/ff/fd/9dfffd71c4a9b5717751bd43fd23cdb6.jpg) (https://coedmagazine.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/megyn-kelly-hottest-photos-2.jpg?quality=88)
-
Then let's not post pics of men with bigger boobs than my ex? Even if they have a pretty face and a beard.
How about this, then??
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/03/09/00/3E1715D100000578-0-image-m-54_1489018183595.jpg)
-
Then let's not post pics of men with bigger boobs than my ex? Even if they have a pretty face and a beard.
No wonder she's an ex, but what does it say for you that at one time she wasn't? :tongue2:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE1F00000578-3571684-image-a-66_1462296549786.jpg)
-
When exactly...I mean what post number, and by who or whom, posted what one thing that turned this thread to shit?
-
LOL. Well, he has her lips....
-
When exactly...I mean what post number, and by who or whom, posted what one thing that turned this thread to shit?
Can't remember the post number, but Miss roos asked me about my Christmas pie....
It was glorious.
-
Not wanting to jack this Thread
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-pqlvwvTIhKM/T4yuM6p7pLI/AAAAAAACueU/ahLiCq9aXIM/s1600/Female-Celebrities-With-Beards-02.jpg)
-
When exactly...I mean what post number, and by who or whom, posted what one thing that turned this thread to shit?
Page 1, Number 16.
-
Page 1, Number 16.
Oh bullshit...
-
Page 1, Number 16.
You sure you don't want to try again?
-
The Topic, Ladies and Gentleman is Trump and NBC, can we please stay focused?
(http://static2.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2117842.1424143769!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_970/nup-165977-0036-jpg.jpg)
-
You sure you don't want to try again?
Oh bullshit...
:tongue2:
-
:tongue2:
Girl....your smell is all over this one! lol.
Why is it when they say; "Round up the usual suspects" you are the only one in the line-up? :smokin:
-
Girl....your smell is all over this one! lol.
Why is it when they say; "Round up the usual suspects" you are the only one in the line-up? :smokin:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/c9/ec/8bc9ec43ac9d04ea78e39f53a647d244.jpg)
-
@musiclady
I think the quality of this thread has been vastly improved.
Can't allow freedom of speech in the case of speech with which we disagree, now can we?
All such unapproved speech must be deliberately drowned in noise.
It is censorship by other means, and you think people are too stupid to notice or too polite not to call it out.
What you and others have engaged in is the equivalent of talking over someone trying to have a conversation.
-
Can't allow freedom of speech in the case of speech with which we disagree, now can we?
All such unapproved speech must be deliberately drowned in noise.
It is censorship by other means, and you think people are too stupid to notice or too polite not to call it out.
What you and others have engaged in is the equivalent of talking over someone trying to have a conversation.
Ah, heck, you figured it out.
-
Ah, heck, you figured it out.
888high58888
-
WTF you talking bout @DiogenesLamp
(http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/18000000/Gary-Coleman-as-Arnold-diffrent-strokes-18022847-640-480.jpg)
-
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/8b/c9/ec/8bc9ec43ac9d04ea78e39f53a647d244.jpg)
@RoosGirl
I think there is a run in your Underoos
-
Can't allow freedom of speech in the case of speech with which we disagree, now can we?
All such unapproved speech must be deliberately drowned in noise.
It is censorship by other means, and you think people are too stupid to notice or too polite not to call it out.
What you and others have engaged in is the equivalent of talking over someone trying to have a conversation.
@DiogenesLamp
Seriously? You've had forty effing pages to make your point. I'm sorry that hardly anyone agrees with you, but honey, that doesn't mean you're being censored. We're just tired of your bullshit and choose to move on with our own.
Sincerely,
The Breakfast Club
-
@DiogenesLamp
Seriously? You've had forty effing pages to make your point. I'm sorry that hardly anyone agrees with you, but honey, that doesn't mean you're being censored. We're just tired of your bullshit and choose to move on with our own.
Sincerely,
The Breakfast Club
He needs more time to make the point he hasn't been able to make in the past few months with all those words, @RoosGirl .
Stop censoring him, you word Nazi, you! ****slapping
-
He needs more time to make the point he hasn't been able to make in the past few months with all those words, @RoosGirl .
Stop censoring him, you word Nazi, you! ****slapping
Maybe I am a word Nazi. If I was a mod I'd shut this stupid thread down already.
-
I've noticed the quickest way to shut down a TBR Thread is to start postin Trump Love pictures, here's my contribution.
(https://cdn1.ijr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/GettyImages-617806568-1.jpg)
-
@DiogenesLamp
Seriously? You've had forty effing pages to make your point. I'm sorry that hardly anyone agrees with you, but honey, that doesn't mean you're being censored. We're just tired of your bullshit and choose to move on with our own.
Sincerely,
The Breakfast Club
If you chose to "move on", then what is this camping out on this thread? You ignored it for the longest time, and now it's your favorite go-too spot to post silly crap?
You are pulling the "heckler's veto", and you know it.
You don't want to contribute? You don't want to have a rational discussion? Fine! Move on! But please actually "move on."
-
@DiogenesLamp
Seriously? You've had forty effing pages to make your point. I'm sorry that hardly anyone agrees with you, but honey, that doesn't mean you're being censored. We're just tired of your bullshit and choose to move on with our own.
Sincerely,
The Breakfast Club
Dear Ms Roos,
We accept the fact that we had to sacrifice a whole
Saturday in detention for whatever it was we did wrong.
But we think you're crazy to make an essay
telling you who we think we are. You see us as you want to see us...
In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions.
Sincerely,
The Real Breakfast Club
-
He needs more time to make the point he hasn't been able to make in the past few months with all those words, @RoosGirl .
I'm not the one who needs more time or more information. I've figured out what was going on a long time ago, and now i'm trying to awaken others.
Not you, of course. You go ahead and continue on as usual, deary.
-
Maybe I am a word Nazi. If I was a mod I'd shut this stupid thread down already.
You've been trying already.
-
If you chose to "move on", then what is this camping out on this thread? You ignored it for the longest time, and now it's your favorite go-too spot to post silly crap?
You are pulling the "heckler's veto", and you know it.
You don't want to contribute? You don't want to have a rational discussion? Fine! Move on! But please actually "move on."
Ummmm - it's not a question of "camping out", but when anyone posts to this thread, anyone else who has posted on it gets notified. I was hoping people would stop posting to it and it would die an unnatural death.
-
Ummmm - it's not a question of "camping out", but when anyone posts to this thread, anyone else who has posted on it gets notified. I was hoping people would stop posting to it and it would die an unnatural death.
I have this particularly useful skill. It's the ability to ignore stuff I don't find interesting. I encourage other people to develop it. They will be happier from having done so.
-
Wittier and Prettier (I hope), than Trump Loving him some Flag.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/4FjEWEikuNNkc/giphy.gif)
-
You've been trying already.
The article is from 2 months ago. Has Trump done anything to the hypothetical licenses of the networks? No, you say? After 40+ pages, the bullshit of my choice to talk about is pie.
-
If you chose to "move on", then what is this camping out on this thread? You ignored it for the longest time, and now it's your favorite go-too spot to post silly crap?
You are pulling the "heckler's veto", and you know it.
You don't want to contribute? You don't want to have a rational discussion? Fine! Move on! But please actually "move on."
You my friend have posted a mountain of evidence showing the media’s duplicity in our political process. Proof the greatest threat to our future may not be radical Islam but in fact be the enemy within, the fifth column media.
I think it’s rude to litter a thread purely to mock the purpose of the OP. It’s an important topic and should be looked at with seriousness, not mockery.
-
Wittier and Prettier (I hope), than Trump Loving him some Flag.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/4FjEWEikuNNkc/giphy.gif)
She's got some mad tolf skills. I was going to call it gennis, but I was afraid it would be confused for beer drinking.
-
I'm not the one who needs more time or more information. I've figured out what was going on a long time ago, and now i'm trying to awaken others.
Not you, of course. You go ahead and continue on as usual, deary.
I just tried to help this dreary thread be more fun.
And you just started whining and moaning about how unfair we were to censor your brilliant thoughts and words touched with gold.
It's crystal clear that I'm not the one with issues, "deary."
-
The article is from 2 months ago. Has Trump done anything to the hypothetical licenses of the networks? No, you say? After 40+ pages, the bullshit of my choice to talk about is pie.
See? Exactly what I mean when I say it isn't long enough yet!
Needs more articles!
Clueless. Either deliberately so, or inadvertently.
-
I have this particularly useful skill. It's the ability to ignore stuff I don't find interesting. I encourage other people to develop it. They will be happier from having done so.
Then why are you on this thread complaining about people posting stuff you don't like?
-
I have this particularly useful skill. It's the ability to ignore stuff I don't find interesting. I encourage other people to develop it. They will be happier from having done so.
As much as I try to ignore your loquacious, self-satisfied rhetoric, I too have been drawn back to this useless thread because you won't stop posting to it.
PLEASE, move on.
You are, if nothing else, pedantic.........
How many times do ALL the rest of us have to keep clicking on "Mark as Read" before you just stop this nonsense??
-
You my friend have posted a mountain of evidence showing the media’s duplicity in our political process. Proof the greatest threat to our future may not be radical Islam but in fact be the enemy within, the fifth column media.
I think it’s rude to litter a thread purely to mock the purpose of the OP. It’s an important topic and should be looked at with seriousness, not mockery.
Thank you. I personally consider media manipulation of elections to be the most significant threat that the United States has faced for a long time. I first became aware of it when the media spent the entire run-up to 1992 trashing the George HW Bush economy. That's when I started to realize they were playing games in an effort to help the Democrats win elections.
We are being manipulated, and most of us don't even realize it. The Control of Information is power. People allude to the "fourth estate", and I am trying to make people aware that yes, it really is pretty much a "fourth estate."
It has power, and if we don't share that power, we need to undermine it.
-
I have this particularly useful skill. It's the ability to ignore stuff I don't find interesting. I encourage other people to develop it. They will be happier from having done so.
Aint that the truth @DiogenesLamp some here know my button issue's and PUSH and some here, I'm sure, know yours.
I would suspect that's a big part of the Dynamics here. An unusually rational dialogue with pretty damn smart people, as a whole, in spite of their ability to pizz you off sometimes.
-
You my friend have posted a mountain of evidence showing the media’s duplicity in our political process. Proof the greatest threat to our future may not be radical Islam but in fact be the enemy within, the fifth column media.
I think it’s rude to litter a thread purely to mock the purpose of the OP. It’s an important topic and should be looked at with seriousness, not mockery.
You are so right. And it was discussed with seriousness ad nauseam 2 months ago. You know what I think is rude? To keep pinging people back to a two month old thread with absolutely nothing new to add to the original discussion.
-
I just tried to help this dreary thread be more fun.
And you just started whining and moaning about how unfair we were to censor your brilliant thoughts and words touched with gold.
It's crystal clear that I'm not the one with issues, "deary."
Actually, most of what I post are examples of Media or Web Giants controlling information. I don't think I add much to the point made in the excerpts I post.
I am aggregating information, not creating it. So it isn't my " brilliant thoughts and words touched with gold." Here is an example of what I have been trying to do.
Major Newspapers Avoid Strzok's Damning 'Insurance Policy' Text
(https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/risk_and_reward_with_deirdre_bolton_-_05_38_00_pm.jpg?itok=XaCio745]https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/risk_and_reward_with_deirdre_bolton_-_05_38_00_pm.jpg?itok=XaCio745)
Hey boys and girls! Are you ready to play a fun new game called "Detect Liberal Bias?"
Here's how it works... Just go online to any newspaper or magazine. In their seach engines, enter the term "Strzok." Do you see any search results? If so, then add "insurance" for "Strzok insurance." If you see no search results, congratulations! You have just detected strong liberal bias in the periodical you were searching.
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/12/14/major-periodicals-avoid-strzoks-damning-insurance-policy-text (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/12/14/major-periodicals-avoid-strzoks-damning-insurance-policy-text)
-
Then why are you on this thread complaining about people posting stuff you don't like?
Consideration. I am aware that others lack the aforementioned ability, and I am doing it for their sake.
-
As much as I try to ignore your loquacious, self-satisfied rhetoric, I too have been drawn back to this useless thread because you won't stop posting to it.
PLEASE, move on.
You are, if nothing else, pedantic.........
How many times do ALL the rest of us have to keep clicking on "Mark as Read" before you just stop this nonsense??
Well it had been my intention to keep this thread going for years, just as I have other threads at other websites to which I post.
I consider certain issues to be so critically important that I believe people need to be constantly reminded of the threat emanating from those directions.
Below is a link to another thread I have been posting on for years. I still post to it ever time I am made aware of another development, and the other forum members are generally happy to read and contribute to it.
Skynet is coming. (http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3183&p=130359#p130359)
-
Actually, most of what I post are examples of Media or Web Giants controlling information. I don't think I add much to the point made in the excerpts I post.
I am aggregating information, not creating it. So it isn't my " brilliant thoughts and words touched with gold." Here is an example of what I have been trying to do.
Major Newspapers Avoid Strzok's Damning 'Insurance Policy' Text
(https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/risk_and_reward_with_deirdre_bolton_-_05_38_00_pm.jpg?itok=XaCio745]https://www.newsbusters.org/s3/files/styles/blog_body-50/s3/images/risk_and_reward_with_deirdre_bolton_-_05_38_00_pm.jpg?itok=XaCio745)
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/12/14/major-periodicals-avoid-strzoks-damning-insurance-policy-text (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2017/12/14/major-periodicals-avoid-strzoks-damning-insurance-policy-text)
I don't know if you've noticed, but you're on a forum that is a news aggregator. People the post and read here are, like, actually interested in this stuff. Regardless of your opinion of us, most of us do not have the memories of goldfish. It's been suggested to you several times now that you just post the articles, or create your own content in the members area. For some reason you don't want to do either of those things. You aren't one of those annoying people that think they know what everyone else needs, are you?
-
I don't know if you've noticed, but you're on a forum that is a news aggregator. People the post and read here are, like, actually interested in this stuff. Regardless of your opinion of us, most of us do not have the memories of goldfish. It's been suggested to you several times now that you just post the articles, or create your own content in the members area. For some reason you don't want to do either of those things.
(http://www.davidhouston.net/willie_sutton.jpg)
-
Then why are you on this thread complaining about people posting stuff you don't like?
Uh....because all you're doing is trolling.
And you suck at it.
-
Nothing better than a half dead 46 page thread to ask for polling ideas? I need help.
-
(http://www.davidhouston.net/willie_sutton.jpg)
So you're a slick willie? I guessed as much.
-
So you're a slick willie? I guessed as much.
It isn't funny if I have to explain it.
-
It isn't funny if I have to explain it.
I've explained it a couple times already. It definitely isn't funny.
-
Twitter’s new rules could result in a major purge of alt-right accounts
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/efwa8j-xKbTLYR1NvTBllRPdMso=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58015009/545233570.jpg.0.jpg)
To that end, the Dec. 18 enforcement deadline left some of Twitter’s right-leaning users this weekend fearing a full, messy “purge.†Some said they’d be shifting to Gab, an alt-right-friendly social media site, and encouraged their supporters to do the same.
And by Monday morning, some alt-right accounts had indeed gone offline. That includes the account for the white supremacist group American Renaissance as well as some users tied to the far-right group, Britain First, including a user that President Donald Trump once retweeted.
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/17/16787644/twitter-rules-alt-right-accounts (https://www.recode.net/2017/12/17/16787644/twitter-rules-alt-right-accounts)
Why this matters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...)
-
I've explained it a couple times already.
It took you more than once, and you still didn't get it?
It definitely isn't funny.
Well no, not the way you are going about it.
-
Twitter’s new rules could result in a major purge of alt-right accounts
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/efwa8j-xKbTLYR1NvTBllRPdMso=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58015009/545233570.jpg.0.jpg)
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/17/16787644/twitter-rules-alt-right-accounts (https://www.recode.net/2017/12/17/16787644/twitter-rules-alt-right-accounts)
Why this matters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...)
I've reported someone once before. Lucky you are number 2.
-
(http://holicoffee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/0e9b2b99634ebdc2121a97585618c9f9.jpg)
-
Uh....because all you're doing is trolling.
And you suck at it.
What?
-
What?
What? *****rollingeyes*****
-
Enough with the trolling. Keep your comments on this specific topic or go elsewhere.
-
Enough. Moving to General Discussion. No longer belongs in Politics.
-
Enough. Moving to General Discussion. No longer belongs in Politics.
Does that mean we can post more beefcake?
-
That would be great. I'd love to see some redeeming value.....
-
That would be great. I'd love to see some redeeming value.....
Can I post this again, then??
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/03/09/00/3E1715D100000578-0-image-m-54_1489018183595.jpg)
-
Sure.
(http://athenaposters.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/RP15161-Wonder-Woman-Shield.jpg)
-
That would be great. I'd love to see some redeeming value.....
Yaaassss
-
This is not a Norwegian Fly Fishing.
(http://14544-presscdn-0-64.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Hot-huntresses-3.jpg)
-
(https://scontent-yyz1-1.cdninstagram.com/t51.2885-15/e35/25014199_1867709113540166_6292894921418342400_n.jpg)
-
I'm sticking with this guy for a while longer.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/05/03/18/33C9BE1600000578-3571684-image-a-75_1462296598515.jpg)
-
Is that the guy with the lips and the boobs?
-
Enough. Moving to General Discussion. No longer belongs in Politics.
Well thank you for that. A more fitting tribute to my point I cannot conceive.
So long as others control the systems of communication, we will be marginalized or censored.
-
Well thank you for that. A more fitting tribute to my point I cannot conceive.
So long as others control the systems of communication, we will be marginalized or censored.
You don't look censored to me. I can read you. Were you expecting somebody better than me?
-
Is that the guy with the lips and the boobs?
Fat Farting Santa.
Look, let me lay it out for you. This
(https://malehealthreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Beer-Linked-to-Gynecomastia-300x208.jpg)
is man boobs. It caused by, well, look at this guy I'm sure you can tell what it's from.
It is in no way associated with this
(http://z-news.link/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/53a3eeba0ae4a5d3fe64de8444f86934.jpg) which is caused by regimented workouts of the pectoralis major and pectoralis minor muscles.
Now, you better watch yourself or Lasse will crush you between his "man boobs" and eat you.
-
Well thank you for that. A more fitting tribute to my point I cannot conceive.
So long as others control the systems of communication, we will be marginalized or censored.
And yet I can still see your whining posts.
-
Go take a cold shower, @corbe get back to us later when your libido subsides.
-
I truly apologize to any Briefers that I may have offended with my overt postings of nekkid Woman.
The @mods have me on speed dial and that's not a good thing.
-
I'm sticking with this guy for a while longer.
[img]http:
@RoosGirl
That's a fine specimen, no doubt about it.
-
Twitter’s new rules could result in a major purge of alt-right accounts
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/efwa8j-xKbTLYR1NvTBllRPdMso=/0x0:3000x2000/1200x800/filters:focal(1260x760:1740x1240)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/58015009/545233570.jpg.0.jpg)
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/17/16787644/twitter-rules-alt-right-accounts (https://www.recode.net/2017/12/17/16787644/twitter-rules-alt-right-accounts)
Why this matters. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...)
Why it matters should be self evident, especially to those of us raised in a generation proud that while it might not agree with what someone has to say, we'd fight to the death for their right to say it.
But even more simply stated, no matter whether you are in the center of the herd or out on the fringe, everyone further out than you who is silenced brings those doing the silencing one closer to your doorstep.
I have ever decried the GOP treatment of its extremists, back when the GOP had real extremists and not mere Constitutional Conservatives to reject and push out, unlike the other side who parade their extremists and defend them as their first line of defense (and use them to make their crazed core look more 'normal').
But normalcy bias will prevail until the knock on the door late at night (if the warrant doesn't just let them barge in).