|
FirmhandKY -> RE: Krugman Slams Glenn Beck, O'Reilly, Limbaugh: Right-Wing Extremism (6/14/2009 10:37:52 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
RE: "article"
You are playing semantic and rhetorical games, rule.
In a newspaper, an "article" is generally considered short for a "news article" consisting of ... well, ya know ... news. That is the commonly understood meaning, especially in political discussions, where opinion pieces are called ... well .... opinion pieces, or commentary.
I don't care how it was labeled in your source. My point was you used words that might easily cause confusion in the minds of thread readers, and it was especially noticeable because you were already comparing political commentary figures such as Rush against supposed 'straight news" sources such as the networks. You even specifically made that comparison.
I called you on it. The best thing would have been to gracefully accept the criticism and move on.
Oh, come on now!!
What part of the headline that starts with "Krugman slams" did you not understand was the opinion of Krugman?
And if you or anyone else was still confused, the link had OPINION in big, bold letters at the top of the page.
As far as my comment on the networks, that was in response to a specific point you made that now you are trying to generalize as my whole argument. To refresh your memory you commented about:
all those left wing nuts who insisted that Bush wasn't elected, and that just maybe that his assassination would simply be "just deserts"
And my response was that I never heard anything of the sort on any major news network, which included commentary and opinion on those networks.
Please re-read my words that you quote above. It contains my original response, which is just as applicable to your words above as they were the first time I wrote them..
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
RE: Airwaves and the FCC
I'm sorry, but I am particularly knowledgeable in this area my friend. Do not confuse "theory" with "fact". The government is the de facto owner of the airwaves, if not de jure.
If someone wants to use the airwaves ... who must give permission, and if they are used without permission, who gets fined or put into prision?
When the "airwaves" are auctioned ... who collects the money, and then spends it how they wish?
Which again, not surprisingly, ignores the argument.
The FCC acted in the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction because two primary Christian right groups waged an advocacy campaign with their members, many of whom I doubt actually saw it, but were simply abhorred by the thought of their children seeing a naked breast.
Of course, the Cialis commercial didn't seem to offend. Go figure.
And again, government regulation does not imply government ownership, which your statement of government auctioning aptly demonstrates.
quote:
And .. since when is Congress not "the government"?
More, but it's boring to me. I deal with this stuff on a daily basis, and getting into an argument with a dilettante on the subject doesn't interest me.
Well that was certainly a nice attempt to dodge, have to give credit where credit is due. [sm=applause.gif]
The point you conveniently ignored is the regulation imposed by Congress is only what does not overstep the First Amendment, which makes your claims appear somewhat paranoid.
Again, as in the first part of your response above, you don't seem to actually try to reason through what I write - you just react viscerally, and continue to make the same points that I address in my original comments.
You understand the difference between de jure and de facto?
What is ownership?
Ownership:
* S: (n) ownership (the relation of an owner to the thing possessed; possession with the right to transfer possession to others)
* S: (n) possession, ownership (the act of having and controlling property)
or
Ownership:
Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate, intellectual property (arguably) or some other kind of property. It is embodied in an ownership right also referred to as title.
If you look at the examples I gave, and the common definitions of "ownership" you should see some similarity.
The government controls the use through licensing of the airwaves. The government rents them for periods of time, and auctions the rental of the property for a period of time. The government has the exclusive rights to determine the use of the airwaves.
You can make the argument that - legally - "someone else" owns the airwaves, and therefore the government is simply an agent. Fine. That's a de jure argument. Operationally, the government meets all the criteria for ownership, in common understanding.
Which is what I said.
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
RE: Your other comments.
Occasional snide and snarky remarks are expected in both directions.
You, however, have a unflattering tendency to let them overpower the majority of your posts.
Therefore, I generally am not very interested in pursuing much of any kind of detailed discussion with you.
*shrugs*
Take it how you will.
Firm
How I take it is what I've told you before.
Snide and snarky get met with the same, and I think you need to re-read some of your own posts (not necessarily on this thread, and not necessarily in response to me) if you don't believe your own tendency toward such.
Disagreement isn't snarky or snide.
Firm
|
|
|
|
