RE: Freaking Orwellian

RE: Freaking Orwellian (Full Version)

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

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 10:31:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I think I've seen it all, now. We actually have people that *claim* to love this country that are arguing for the need to curtail the freedom of the press? Really? Nope. No destruction of American values going on, here. Yep, we are seeing the consent part of 'by conquest or by consent' and as much because so many forget that to judge we must look at motivation and incentives and the commercial press has a first priority...to stay in business. The govt. has the power to take that away and the organizations need the income to stay alive. Thus, they will now be instructed by govt....don't stray off the reservation.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 12:03:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: If you don't think the are telling the truth don't watch them. What makes you think politicos are any more interested in the truth than any news network? You and I should not have to resort to watching another countries news services to get unbiased news reporting. I do think the FCC could do a better job than no regulating at all. Opposing parties will assure honesty in regulation. Bama you cannot go through life trusting no one. I am willing to give my city, state, and federal, governments a chance. If they abuse my trust than I will vote a change in the administrating authority. Butch Just because you agree with foreign news services doesn't mean they are unbiased. Government requires more watching than anything else.

kdsub -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 2:23:32 PM)
Of course it is most likely impossible to be absolutely unbiased...but I challenge you to watch a news cast on Fox for instance... then find a BBC news broadcast and compare like news stories... Then honestly tell me which is most unbiased. Watch any other American main stream news outlet and make note of the content... Then again turn to BBC and compare. I find a good portion of the stories on BBC are not even mentioned on the American news outlets. The in-depth detail on the BBC for surpasses any American news room. While American news is spewing fluff and selling Fords the BBC is broadcasting comprehensive stories that allow you to understand what is happening and why. The closest we have is PBS and they are constantly under attack by politicians. Butch

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 2:34:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Of course it is most likely impossible to be absolutely unbiased...but I challenge you to watch a news cast on Fox for instance... then find a BBC news broadcast and compare like news stories... Then honestly tell me which is most unbiased. Watch any other American main stream news outlet and make note of the content... Then again turn to BBC and compare the content. I find a good portion of the stories on BBC are not even mentioned on the American news outlets. The in-depth detail on the BBC for surpasses any American news room. While American news is spewing fluff and selling Fords the BBC is broadcasting comprehensive stories that allow you to understand what is happening and why. The closest we have is PBS and they are constantly under attack by politicians. Butch Try Aljazeera America if your cable system carries it. Their reporting has been remarkable so far.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 2:36:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Of course it is most likely impossible to be absolutely unbiased...but I challenge you to watch a news cast on Fox for instance... then find a BBC news broadcast and compare like news stories... Then honestly tell me which is most unbiased. Watch any other American main stream news outlet and make note of the content... Then again turn to BBC and compare the content. I find a good portion of the stories on BBC are not even mentioned on the American news outlets. The in-depth detail on the BBC for surpasses any American news room. While American news is spewing fluff and selling Fords the BBC is broadcasting comprehensive stories that allow you to understand what is happening and why. The closest we have is PBS and they are constantly under attack by politicians. Butch Try Aljazeera America if your cable system carries it. Their reporting has been remarkable so far. Aljazeera that's unbiased for sure.

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 2:40:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Try Aljazeera America if your cable system carries it. Their reporting has been remarkable so far. Worth throwing into the mix.

Whippedboy -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 2:43:09 PM)
You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right?

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 2:58:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? And that makes it ok?

Yachtie -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 3:04:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? So? How is that germane?

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 3:22:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Of course it is most likely impossible to be absolutely unbiased...but I challenge you to watch a news cast on Fox for instance... then find a BBC news broadcast and compare like news stories... Then honestly tell me which is most unbiased. Watch any other American main stream news outlet and make note of the content... Then again turn to BBC and compare the content. I find a good portion of the stories on BBC are not even mentioned on the American news outlets. The in-depth detail on the BBC for surpasses any American news room. While American news is spewing fluff and selling Fords the BBC is broadcasting comprehensive stories that allow you to understand what is happening and why. The closest we have is PBS and they are constantly under attack by politicians. Butch Try Aljazeera America if your cable system carries it. Their reporting has been remarkable so far. Aljazeera that's unbiased for sure. Surprisingly so.

Politesub53 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 3:40:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Aljazeera that's unbiased for sure. Spoken like a man who has never even seen it. If you had you wouldnt be spouting such ignorance (yeah right) Not only is Aljazeera unbiased, it is also attracting some of the best reporters from other European news stations.

Politesub53 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 3:41:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? So? How is that germane? Because it means your boy Bush passed it and none of you were pissing and moaning then.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? I call lying ass bullshit. I see a "Blame Bush" meme, but I sure the fuck don't see any evidence being offered. Is an argument being made that the study outline has just been sitting on the shelf of this social justice agency since at least 2008, with a planned rollout for the spring of 2014? Oh, and Polite, since you are so eager to snuggle up to this, if he doesn't back his claim, I'll be expecting you to account for it instead. Get on it, boys.

jlf1961 -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:23:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? I call lying ass bullshit. I see a "Blame Bush" meme, but I sure the fuck don't see any evidence being offered. Is an argument being made that the study outline has just been sitting on the shelf of this social justice agency since at least 2008, with a planned rollout for the spring of 2014? Oh, and Polite, since you are so eager to snuggle up to this, if he doesn't back his claim, I'll be expecting you to account for it instead. Get on it, boys. Having read the article, I see no reference to any bill, law, spell, conjuring, or bowel expulsion suggesting this was passed. The article is dated 10 Feb 2014, and makes reference to a decision "last May." That would mean that the decision was made in 2013, which means that the statement "this was passed before Obama." a major problem. Either Obama stepped down as president in May of 2013, and Bush took over, OR the FCC has access to a time machine or possibly, the Doctor showed up with a blue Police Call box and took all the FCC Commissioners back to a period during the Bush Administration so they could make the decision "before Obama." So, if the government has access to a time machine, why the fuck dont someone go back and prevent the recession, 9/11 and Justin Bieber?

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:29:30 PM)
My guess, Jlf, is that we are seeing a mindless regurgitation of a lame ass claim made by some Obamapologist outlet, and that the closest it might come to a foundation in fact would be that the FCC is supposed to keep their guidelines for broadcast license renewals up to date. The forum newbie might not know any better than to try such nonsense in a place of diverse opinion like this, but I'm not going to able to resist sticking it to Polite for snuggling up to such a ridiculous claim, just so he can throw a little poo.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:34:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic My guess, Jlf, is that we are seeing a mindless regurgitation of a lame ass claim made by some Obamapologist outlet, and that the closest it might come to a foundation in fact would be that the FCC is supposed to keep their guidelines for broadcast license renewals up to date. The forum newbie might not know any better than to try such nonsense in a place of diverse opinion like this, but I'm not going to able to resist sticking it to Polite for snuggling up to such a ridiculous claim, just so he can throw a little poo. Knee jerk "it's Bushes fault" without checking the facts. He expected all the conservatives to turn around and back this.

DomKen -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:38:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? I call lying ass bullshit. I see a "Blame Bush" meme, but I sure the fuck don't see any evidence being offered. Is an argument being made that the study outline has just been sitting on the shelf of this social justice agency since at least 2008, with a planned rollout for the spring of 2014? Oh, and Polite, since you are so eager to snuggle up to this, if he doesn't back his claim, I'll be expecting you to account for it instead. Get on it, boys. http://www.fcc.gov/document/setting-record-straight-about-draft-study The FCC is required by long existing law to produce a report every 3 years. This study was to be part of that report.

FrostedFlake -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:46:43 PM)
Sorry, JLF. We've gone over it pretty carefully down at the lab and time travel has one small problem. As soon as someone has one, he can send a 'contractor' to meet anyone before breakfast, yesterday. All suddenlike. Of course, in most cases this is academic. We just aren't that big a problem for anyone to go to that much trouble. But there are a few. And if one weird thing happened to any of them, anytime, the rest would get real nervous. Note : weird things happen all the time. So, to cut to the chase, as soon as someone demonstrates a time machine, someone else will move mountains to steal it. Then, he will use it to go back in time to sabotage the original machine, just before the inventor goes for a ride. Soon he is 4,000,000 years B.C. and out of gas. To all intents, the Professor simply dissipated into time, on camera, never to sell his design to ANYONE, because of the reasoned belief that to buy it would be stupid. ETA : This is one of those crimes that happen before the criminal decides to commit the crime. More to the point, the act removes the motive for the act. So, the person who did it, won't, because he wont have to. And because the culprit doesn't move, he cannot be stopped. QED. It is hard to say how many times time travel has been invented. But it doesn't work for long. Because someone always sticks a fork in it.

BamaD -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:49:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic quote: ORIGINAL: Whippedboy You know this was passed BEFORE Obama was elected, right? I call lying ass bullshit. I see a "Blame Bush" meme, but I sure the fuck don't see any evidence being offered. Is an argument being made that the study outline has just been sitting on the shelf of this social justice agency since at least 2008, with a planned rollout for the spring of 2014? Oh, and Polite, since you are so eager to snuggle up to this, if he doesn't back his claim, I'll be expecting you to account for it instead. Get on it, boys. http://www.fcc.gov/document/setting-record-straight-about-draft-study The FCC is required by long existing law to produce a report every 3 years. This study was to be part of that report. That in no way even implies that a study like this was what they had in mind, the concept for this study came up last year. Nice try to deflect but no cigar. Even if you guys had proven this was Bushes idea it would still be an attempt to destroy the freedom of the press as protected under in the 1st.

TheHeretic -> RE: Freaking Orwellian (2/23/2014 4:56:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen The FCC is required by long existing law to produce a report every 3 years. This study was to be part of that report. Which is exactly what I said in post 115, Ken. Only the most tenuous shred of veracity to make such a claim. Since you provided the link though, let's have a look at what the FCC had to say for themselves, shall we? quote: – FCC Spokesperson Shannon Gilson issued the following statement today: “By law, the FCC must report to Congress every three years on the barriers that may prevent entrepreneurs and small business from competing in the media marketplace, and pursue policies to eliminate those barriers. To fulfill that obligation in a meaningful way, the FCC's Office of Communications Business Opportunities consulted with academic researchers in 2012 and selected a contractor to design a study which would inform the FCC’s report to Congress. Last summer, the proposed study was put out for public comment and one pilot to test the study design in a single marketplace – Columbia, S.C. – was planned. “However, in the course of FCC review and public comment, concerns were raised that some of the questions may not have been appropriate. Chairman Wheeler agreed that survey questions in the study directed toward media outlet managers, news directors, and reporters overstepped the bounds of what is required. Last week, Chairman Wheeler informed lawmakers that that Commission has no intention of regulating political or other speech of journalists or broadcasters and would be modifying the draft study. Yesterday, the Chairman directed that those questions be removed entirely. “To be clear, media owners and journalists will no longer be asked to participate in the Columbia, S.C. pilot study. The pilot will not be undertaken until a new study design is final. Any subsequent market studies conducted by the FCC, if determined necessary, will not seek participation from or include questions for media owners, news directors or reporters. “Any suggestion that the FCC intends to regulate the speech of news media or plans to put monitors in America's newsrooms is false. The FCC looks forward to fulfilling its obligation to Congress to report on barriers to entry into the communications marketplace, and is currently revising its proposed study to achieve that goal.” Now, what was it you were saying?

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875