RE: Freaking Orwellian

RE: Freaking Orwellian (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 8:57:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/ We agree on the need for term limits, but, the voters continue to vote for the same people, so it's the public doing the deed. Some might consider that the voters are "speaking" their mind. We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... The limit of the length of a term and the limit on the number of terms one can serve are much different. I'm sure you knew that and just decided to attempt to derail. Fail. So where were talking about limiting the lengths of terms? What other voices do you hear?

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 9:03:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I doubt the Chinese have the same first amendement language in their constitution that we do. I don't think that is what Desi was getting at, but also reading what Souler wrote, neither was he. [:D]

mnottertail -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 9:08:41 AM)
Well, whatever he was getting at, the chinese have nothing to do with us. or our internet.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 10:00:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko Both me AND my conservative friends agree. You want Orwellian? Look at Congress. Tell me how on earth it makes sense for someone to serve as many as 20 terms? I thought this was a democracy, not a monarchy? And this is the most ineffective of our entire history to boot! But you know the serenity prayer? Think it applies here. No point kicking up dirt over something that is likely not to change. We'll see November 4th what the voter turnout is like. :/ We agree on the need for term limits, but, the voters continue to vote for the same people, so it's the public doing the deed. Some might consider that the voters are "speaking" their mind. We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... The limit of the length of a term and the limit on the number of terms one can serve are much different. I'm sure you knew that and just decided to attempt to derail. Fail. So where were talking about limiting the lengths of terms? What other voices do you hear? Elections are held at the end of a term, no?

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 11:13:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Well, whatever he was getting at, the chinese have nothing to do with us. or our internet. Au contraire. The chinese exploit our internet weaknesses at every opportunity. [8D]

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 11:20:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR The airwaves belong to the public. The FCC is tasked, by law, with monitoring those stations that broadcast over those airwaves to ensure they serve the public interest. a duty that has been almost completely ignored for decades. It's about time the FCC started doing its job and I could care less how some twit spins it for Murdoch. According to the commissioner who outed the program the opposition has com from across the political spectrum. To put this in other terms if the Bush administration was demanding that newsrooms explain why they ran stories and how they decided what stories were important would you be so supportive.

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 1:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: GoddessManko quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 We have term limits.....they`re called elections..... That's fine, but when you have Congressional leaders in Washington for DECADES, the whole thing is a sordid mess. I have to agree with Owner here. Those decades long leaders were so because of voters, not their own volition. Any problem with such incumbent longevity is voter attributable. Doesn't speak well of the electoarte, does it. Then vote yours out. 2 of my 3 are doing a good job and I want to keep them. Kirk is gone in 2016.

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 1:18:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR The airwaves belong to the public. The FCC is tasked, by law, with monitoring those stations that broadcast over those airwaves to ensure they serve the public interest. a duty that has been almost completely ignored for decades. It's about time the FCC started doing its job and I could care less how some twit spins it for Murdoch. According to the commissioner who outed the program the opposition has com from across the political spectrum. To put this in other terms if the Bush administration was demanding that newsrooms explain why they ran stories and how they decided what stories were important would you be so supportive. If all they were doing was a study? I wouldn't care. If they started injecting ideology into licensing decisions, yes. So until you can show some evidence that your paranoid hysteria is based in reality...

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 2:02:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen FR The airwaves belong to the public. The FCC is tasked, by law, with monitoring those stations that broadcast over those airwaves to ensure they serve the public interest. a duty that has been almost completely ignored for decades. It's about time the FCC started doing its job and I could care less how some twit spins it for Murdoch. According to the commissioner who outed the program the opposition has com from across the political spectrum. To put this in other terms if the Bush administration was demanding that newsrooms explain why they ran stories and how they decided what stories were important would you be so supportive. The shrub admin and faux-news were coordinating news stories together........ Fuck any notion they were anything but propagandists.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 3:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If all they were doing was a study? I wouldn't care. If they started injecting ideology into licensing decisions, yes. So until you can show some evidence that your paranoid hysteria is based in reality... No. Let's start with going back to the question you tried to lie and handwave away earlier in the thread. Under what authority does the FCC ask newspapers one damn question about anything? I'm happy to paste the whole damn study outline into the thread so you can see that newspapers are right behind broadcast TV in who they were planning to ask about who decided what on content and sorts of news covered. (The formatting will be fucked, but I'm sure you could puzzle it out.) Or are you saying you simply don't care about trampling the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment through intimidation, as long as a Democrat does it?

jlf1961 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 3:52:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If all they were doing was a study? I wouldn't care. If they started injecting ideology into licensing decisions, yes. So until you can show some evidence that your paranoid hysteria is based in reality... No. Let's start with going back to the question you tried to lie and handwave away earlier in the thread. Under what authority does the FCC ask newspapers one damn question about anything? I'm happy to paste the whole damn study outline into the thread so you can see that newspapers are right behind broadcast TV in who they were planning to ask about who decided what on content and sorts of news covered. (The formatting will be fucked, but I'm sure you could puzzle it out.) Or are you saying you simply don't care about trampling the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment through intimidation, as long as a Democrat does it? Let me try to explain it in simple terms. The FCC or Federal Communications Commission has no authority over printed media. Their authority is limited to media that is transmitted via wireless medium such as amateur radio, commercial radio, television, cell phone service, two way business radio systems etc. In other words, the FCC has no authority to ask a printed media publisher jack shit about anything, and thanks to the Supreme Court, they cant even ask about anything said publisher puts on the internet. And to be honest, I dont feel that the FCC should have the authority to limit content on broadcasted content. There authority should be limited to the assigning of frequencies used by broadcasters and the amount of transmitter power. Everything else is in violation of the first amendment. In other words, the FCC should go and collectively fuck themselves with barbed wire dildos covered in ghost chili sauce.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In other words, the FCC should go and collectively fuck themselves with barbed wire dildos covered in ghost chili sauce. Dammit, Jlf! We are only supposed to agree on the joking around and zombie prep threads. This is P&R! What are you thinking??? One creepy aspect to the study were the 8 CINs - the Critical Information Needs, where the government is picking subjects the media "ought" to be covering, while leaving others out entirely.

kdsub -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:16:05 PM)
I think it is a good idea... Our media...over the air ways and print... are not providing Americans with unbiased reporting of events and that is if they even report events that are important to us. I am tried of half truth sensationalism designed to increase ratings rather then objectively reporting the news.I have to listen to the BBC for truth in reporting. Our media has been taken over and controlled by partisans who report news with a manipulative political bent. I find Americans are mostly ignorant of world events, through no fault of their own, because of the political affiliations and the competition for viewership in our media outlets. Now I agree that fact finding will do little... I just wish the FCC had real power to assure truth in reporting and kick the Fox's and MSNBC's off the air if they don't JUST report the DAMN news. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:21:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In other words, the FCC should go and collectively fuck themselves with barbed wire dildos covered in ghost chili sauce. Dammit, Jlf! We are only supposed to agree on the joking around and zombie prep threads. This is P&R! What are you thinking??? One creepy aspect to the study were the 8 CINs - the Critical Information Needs, where the government is picking subjects the media "ought" to be covering, while leaving others out entirely. See this. I am having some major issues with what the elected and appointed fucktards of both parties in what the government should monitor. For example I can remember when land owners could purchase limited amounts of explosives for use on their property, not anymore. I either have to hire a fucking contractor to remove two rather large rocks that are blocking the road to one of my pasture areas. They really aint that big, bout the size of a old VW beetle. Anyway, the contractor will break em up and haul the pieces to the place I want them for $4500 bucks. A couple of sticks of dynamite and a bob cat would cost me about $600... or I can apply for a permit from the ATF... which will take a few months to go through and by that time it will be a little late to have the pasture planted in drought resistant rye, which is already gonna cost me $1500.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:23:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If all they were doing was a study? I wouldn't care. If they started injecting ideology into licensing decisions, yes. So until you can show some evidence that your paranoid hysteria is based in reality... No. Let's start with going back to the question you tried to lie and handwave away earlier in the thread. Under what authority does the FCC ask newspapers one damn question about anything? I'm happy to paste the whole damn study outline into the thread so you can see that newspapers are right behind broadcast TV in who they were planning to ask about who decided what on content and sorts of news covered. (The formatting will be fucked, but I'm sure you could puzzle it out.) Or are you saying you simply don't care about trampling the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment through intimidation, as long as a Democrat does it? I say don't give power to any official that you wouldn't be comfortable with Nixon having .

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:27:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 In other words, the FCC should go and collectively fuck themselves with barbed wire dildos covered in ghost chili sauce. Dammit, Jlf! We are only supposed to agree on the joking around and zombie prep threads. This is P&R! What are you thinking??? One creepy aspect to the study were the 8 CINs - the Critical Information Needs, where the government is picking subjects the media "ought" to be covering, while leaving others out entirely. See this. I am having some major issues with what the elected and appointed fucktards of both parties in what the government should monitor. For example I can remember when land owners could purchase limited amounts of explosives for use on their property, not anymore. I either have to hire a fucking contractor to remove two rather large rocks that are blocking the road to one of my pasture areas. They really aint that big, bout the size of a old VW beetle. Anyway, the contractor will break em up and haul the pieces to the place I want them for $4500 bucks. A couple of sticks of dynamite and a bob cat would cost me about $600... or I can apply for a permit from the ATF... which will take a few months to go through and by that time it will be a little late to have the pasture planted in drought resistant rye, which is already gonna cost me $1500. Yep your government making life easier and safer.

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:32:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen If all they were doing was a study? I wouldn't care. If they started injecting ideology into licensing decisions, yes. So until you can show some evidence that your paranoid hysteria is based in reality... No. Let's start with going back to the question you tried to lie and handwave away earlier in the thread. Under what authority does the FCC ask newspapers one damn question about anything? I'm happy to paste the whole damn study outline into the thread so you can see that newspapers are right behind broadcast TV in who they were planning to ask about who decided what on content and sorts of news covered. (The formatting will be fucked, but I'm sure you could puzzle it out.) Or are you saying you simply don't care about trampling the prohibitions of the 1st Amendment through intimidation, as long as a Democrat does it? They can ask all the questions they want. The FCC has no regulatory power over newspapers. Go freak out over some research being done some where else.

cloudboy -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:41:38 PM)
To address your OP and Subject Heading: Nothing Orwellian there at all. It is a study. Participation is voluntary. The author himself is biased and conclusory. Many Americans, including myself, would like news organizations to stop dealing in false, misleading, and biased reporting. Bad journalism is bad for everyone. If a network or business wants high ratings without having to observe any journalistic standards -- they can reap those rewards though their entertainment divisions. The medical establishment cannot hawk quackery. Food Suppliers cannot misrepresent their products and must meet FDA standards. Auto makers have to meet standards for vehicles allowed on US roads. Financial Organizations cannot deliberately mislead investors. Free for all, unregulated markets are for 3rd world countries, not the USA. News Organizations should be held to higher journalistic standards.

cloudboy -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 4:50:17 PM)
At some point he may get his bat on the ball.

Owner59 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/22/2014 6:05:49 PM)
It`s a situation similar to today`s eschatologists aka 'end timers'....the nutters who not only believe in the biblical prophecy of an apocalypse but who are so consumed and obsessed that they see 'Revelations' in every single event and happening.... dick`s consuming obsession is 1984 and see`s Orwellian monsters everywhere......even if he has to make them up. Fear of and fear mongering are membership requirements to the cult of gop. It`s mostly a phony act to cover his need for authoritarianism.......aka republicanism.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875