quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Because it means your boy Bush passed it and none of you were pissing and moaning then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Because it means your boy Bush passed it and none of you were pissing and moaning then.

Now that we've taken care of the other dumb claim, Polite, were you going to be sourcing your addition, about it being a Bush regulation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53
Because it means your boy Bush passed it and none of you were pissing and moaning then.

Now that we've taken care of the other dumb claim, Polite, were you going to be sourcing your addition, about it being a Bush regulation?

To pretend for a moment this was correct, I never heard of this program till this past week so I could hardly have complained
about it before. And there is the little matter of the FCC commissioner saying this study was developed
last year.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

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?

That it is definitely something require by laws passed long ago. This not some plot by Obama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

I take it that my timey whimey dr who theory is out the window?

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

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.

I take it that my timey whimey dr who theory is out the window?

Look, I will blame bush when the facts are there, but to just use the "bush did it" argument for every fucking thing that comes up is bullshit.

Bush made a lot of bonehead, insane, stupid decisions in his presidency....

But Obama screwed health care reform so bad, we need a reform to save us from the reform. And there are other major screw ups that followed.

To be honest, the men that could actually unite the people of this country behind them if they were elected have publicly said they will never seek public office.

Which leaves us with few choices, the easiest being clone Eisenhower, Kennedy or go way out of the box and elect Andy Dick.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
the only reason it is being withdrawn is to get righties to stop having fits.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I would clone Truman

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I would clone Truman

Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't just get my vote, I'd volunteer on his campaign.

quote:

The parenthetical statement was a joke, folks ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
That's not the only thing that's a joke, either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I would clone Truman

Teddy Roosevelt wouldn't just get my vote, I'd volunteer on his campaign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Sure you would. The man was a liberal and you'd hate his positions on everything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Sure you would. The man was a liberal and you'd hate his positions on everything.

Stick to supporting tyranny when Democrats do it, Ken. You've sure as fuck got no future as a mind-reader.

I understand the motivation though. You got your ass handed back to you from the contents of your own link, and are hoping that some personal shots might get the thread removed.