Liberal Forum

WHAT DUTY DO CORPORATIONS HAVE TO THE LARGER SOCIETY, BEYOND THEIR DUTY TO PROFIT THEIR SHARE HOLDERS?

Cons?

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2017 11:04 am » wrote:
Who ever claimed that they did, psycho?

Quote someone, duuuh!

So you admit that you'e just been crying like a bitch - CNN DID NOTHING WRONG.

Thanks, dicksucker. You're dismissed.

Anyone else? WHAT DID CNN DO THAT THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED FOR?

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2017 11:09 am » wrote: Are you so freaking stupid that you think everything "wrong" must be defined and punished by law?

You claimed that CNN had a moral duty under the law, asswipe - above and beyond their duty to stock holders. Now you are trying to walk that back.

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2017 11:14 am » wrote: Quote me, liar.

Here ya go, lying ***.

Termin8tor » 20 Jan 2017 10:36 am » wrote:
Are you psychotic? Sorry, of courses you are.

Other than that CNN will diminish itself and its audience and its profits by reporting biased garbage, every American has an obligation to conduct themselves morally.

It's one of the things that distinguishes us from most of the rest of the world; that makes the country great.

So where does Socialism thing come in, imbecile?

All done, you evading *** - you're now barred from the thread.

Others can determine the legitimacy of my highlighting - your fapping is not necessary or wanted. Go away. You do not get to weasel and lie in a peanut gallery thread, bitch.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 11:00 am » wrote:WHAT DUTY DO CORPORATIONS HAVE TO THE LARGER SOCIETY, BEYOND THEIR DUTY TO PROFIT THEIR SHARE HOLDERS?

Cons?

By law? Not much of anything.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 11:34 am » wrote: By law? Not much of anything.

So they can lie outright, so long as there's no slander, and the public's only recourse is to ignore them? They can engage in all manner of mischief against the public interest, and should still retain the lease of their public air waves.

Final answer?

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 11:37 am » wrote:So they can lie outright, so long as there's no slander, and the public's only recourse is to ignore them? They can engage in all manner of mischief against the public interest, and should still retain the lease of their public air waves.

Final answer?

By law, the key point of your question, is what my final answer pertains to. As far as I know they have done nothing wrong by law.

If you know otherwise please enlighten us. Or change your question.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 11:47 am » wrote: By law, the key point of your question, is what my final answer pertains to. As far as I know they have done nothing wrong by law.

If you know otherwise please enlighten us. Or change your question.

This has to do with your philosophy, FAR more than it has to do with existing law.

Existing law is irrelevant, as enforcement mechanisms have been corrupted.

A big part of the corruption is your corrupt philosophy of government. Under the rules of FDR, corporations were required to operate in the public good, and THEN to the benefit of share holders.

Under Reagan's rules, their requirements were reduced to only the latter - benefiting share holders.

Since there is a mighty screech going on from conjobs about fake news, I'm checking in with you girls to see whether you are merely whining and crying even while winning, or if you have come around to MY view that corporations should be required to operate in the public interest or not at all.

From your answer, I divine that it's whining and crying, as regards fake news. Y'all don't want ot actually DO anything - just wanna bellyache.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 11:58 am » wrote:This has to do with your philosophy, FAR more than it has to do with existing law.

Existing law is irrelevant, as enforcement mechanisms have been corrupted.

A big part of the corruption is your corrupt philosophy of government. Under the rules of FDR, corporations were required to operate in the public good, and THEN to the benefit of share holders.

Under Reagan's rules, their requirements were reduced to only the latter - benefiting share holders.

Since there is a mighty screech going on from conjobs about fake news, I'm checking in with you girls to see whether you are merely whining and crying even while winning, or if you have come around to MY view that corporations should be required to operate in the public interest or not at all.

From your answer, I divine that it's whining and crying, as regards fake news. Y'all don't want ot actually DO anything - just wanna bellyache.

WHAT DID CNN DO WRONG UNDER AMERICAN LAW, "CONS?"

That is your question, pops.

Ya know dude, even when one answers your **** quesiton exactly in line with what you asked you try to **** reframe.

And as far as fake news, *******, the whining and crying began with the left as an excuse for the clinton loss. I laugh at the entire "fake news" meme.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 12:05 pm » wrote:
WHAT DID CNN DO WRONG UNDER AMERICAN LAW, "CONS?"

That is your question, pops.

Ya know dude, even when one answers your **** quesiton exactly in line with what you asked you try to **** reframe.

And as far as fake news, *******, the whining and crying began with the left as an excuse for the clinton loss. I laugh at the entire "fake news" meme.

My motive for the thread has been further explained - stop your **** whining.

The issue ultimately is one of philosophy - much of law, since you seem unaware, is in the courts' interpretations of the legislature's intent. And their interpretations seem to be guided, at least in part, by public opinion - hence the failure of the SCOTUS in the 1800s to ban slavery, hence the scotus upholding the voting rights act - etc., ad nauseum.

This board is for the discussion of politics, not law - so your girlish outrage that I sneaked in a political component is a product of your vadge, not my imputed dishonesty.

We have before us a crystalizing issue - and you're trying to avoid taking a firm stand because you know that it leads to agreement with board liberals. You're trying to wheedle your answer into strict conformity with a pretended intention, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK YOUR MIND.

You know that in fact, you believe news stations should be **** well accountable to an objective code of conduct in the public interest. And you're trying to pretend not to be afraid to answer to the underlying issue, while at all costs avoiding answering to the underlying issue.

You aren't my victim - you're the victim of your own inability to ever admit error, and your deep desire to straddle every **** fence you find.

Me, I say my positions straight - I don't try to hide behind legalistic ****, confining my response to a strict interpretation of intent, EVEN AFTER that intent has been deepened.

Answer to the underlying issue. SHOULD THIS NATION HOLD NEWS STATIONS TO ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD OUTSIDE OF MAKING MONEY FOR THEIR SHARE HOLDERS?

OR SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO ACT AS MISCHIEF MAKERS AND BOMB THROWERS, SO LONG AS IT PROFITS SHARE HOLDERS?

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 12:28 pm » wrote:My motive for the thread has been further explained - stop your **** whining.

The issue ultimately is one of philosophy - much of law, since you seem unaware, is in the courts' interpretations of the legislature's intent. And their interpretations seem to be guided, at least in part, by public opinion - hence the failure of the SCOTUS in the 1800s to ban slavery, hence the scotus upholding the voting rights act - etc., ad nauseum.

This board is for the discussion of politics, not law - so your girlish outrage that I sneaked in a political component is a product of your vadge, not my imputed dishonesty.

We have before us a crystalizing issue - and you're trying to avoid taking a firm stand because you know that it leads to agreement with board liberals. You're trying to wheedle your answer into strict conformity with a pretended intention, BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEAK YOUR MIND.

You know that in fact, you believe news stations should be **** well accountable to an objective code of conduct in the public interest. And you're trying to pretend not to be afraid to answer to the underlying issue, while at all costs avoiding answering to the underlying issue.

You aren't my victim - you're the victim of your own inability to ever admit error, and your deep desire to straddle every **** fence you find.

Me, I say my positions straight - I don't try to hide behind legalistic ****, confining my response to a strict interpretation of intent, EVEN AFTER that intent has been deepened.

Answer to the underlying issue. SHOULD THIS NATION HOLD NEWS STATION TO ANY OBJECTIVE STANDARD OUTSIDE OF MAKING MONEY FOR THEIR SHARE HOLDERS?

YES/NO

Depends on your definition of objective standards. That pesky first amendment gets in the way.

But I notice you are still reframing.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 12:32 pm » wrote: Depends on your definition of objective standards.

What objective standard would you suggest?

Does the first amendment give an artificial person the right to monopolize any particular bandwidth of the public airwaves? If not, we can certainly take AWAY the bandwidth of any artificial person which operates against the interests of actual HUMAN BEINGS in our nation - can we not?

It was not long ago that salacious, yellow journalism was legally punishable. Was that a bad time in American history - should we be ashamed of the enforced journalistic standards of the 50s and 60s and 70s, before reagan and his successors pulled the FCC'S teeth?

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 12:37 pm » wrote:What objective standard would you suggest?

Does the first amendment give an artificial person the right to monopolize any particular bandwidth of the public airwaves? If not, we can certainly take AWAY the bandwidth of any artificial person which operates against the interests of actual HUMAN BEINGS in our nation - can we not?

It was not long ago that salacious, yellow journalism was legally punishable. Was that a bad time in American history - should we be ashamed of the enforced journalistic standards of the 50s and 60s and 70s, before reagan and his successors pulled the FCC'S teeth?

And moron, CNN, and other cable networks, are NOT LICENSED BY THE FCC. They do not use the public airwaves. They are classified as a paid tv cable network. So whatever you hate reagan for doing has no effect on your argument.

In asking for CNN's "FCC License" to be "turned off" Stone misses a major point. The FCC confirmed to CR that CNN does not have an "FCC License." It is classified as a "paid TV cable network" that is not broadcast over the public airwaves. Therefore it is not subject to FCC licensure. -

See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/comm ... oZqFQ.dpuf

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 12:53 pm » wrote:
And moron, CNN, and other cable networks, are NOT LICENSED BY THE FCC. They do not use the public airwaves. They are classified as a paid tv cable network. So whatever you hate reagan for doing has no effect on your argument.

In asking for CNN's "FCC License" to be "turned off" Stone misses a major point. The FCC confirmed to CR that CNN does not have an "FCC License." It is classified as a "paid TV cable network" that is not broadcast over the public airwaves. Therefore it is not subject to FCC licensure. -

See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/comm ... oZqFQ.dpuf

That is precisely the problem, in my view. I prefer the standards of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

The cable companies which broadcast them are monopolies, and they rely on these regulated monopolies to get their product out. The deregulation you are trumpeting here is precisely what allows fake news.

I take your attitude and your position as permission to sneer at the crybabies who whine about fake news and suggest that the government should prevent fake news from occurring - and right now, those crybabies or on the right, WHOEVER "started" it.

I am moving this post and response from another thread (snapbacks intact)

golfboy » 20 Jan 2017 12:53 pm » wrote:The media has a duty to tell the truth. For 8 years they've done nothing but cover for Obama.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:01 pm » wrote:So what?
And what duty?

What should the punishment be, and what objective standard should they be held to?

I have seen you advocate their being held to an objective standard, as they were under FDR's rules - rules that were removed under trickle down.

But you need to recognize that you are crossing party lines.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:08 pm » wrote:
Now the asshole claims I trumpeted deregulation. WTF is your problem? I have stayed away from your homage thread but I an thinking there is a bit of truth to it.

All I did asshole was answer the question in the thread title. I have not stated a position, yet you claim I have. You refuse top mention these standards you clamor about, yet you seem to think I am against them. I might be, or I might not be.

Yeah, maybe the homage is right and you are a psychotic liar.

It felt trumpeted, kid. Maybe you shouldn't have used large font.

So, instead of answering the post, you're gonna complain about the word trumpeted.

Oh, look - trumpeting:

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 12:53 pm » wrote: In asking for CNN's "FCC License" to be "turned off" Stone misses a major point. The FCC confirmed to CR that CNN does not have an "FCC License." It is classified as a "paid TV cable network" that is not broadcast over the public airwaves. Therefore it is not subject to FCC licensure. -

See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/comm ... oZqFQ.dpuf

Okay - go play.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:11 pm » wrote:It felt trumpeted, kid. Maybe you shouldn't have used large font.

So, instead of answering the post, you're gonna complain about the word trumpeted.

Oh, look - trumpeting:
Okay - go play.

You stated that reagan took the teeth out of the FCC. Well, moron, the FCC does not cover cable channels. CNN is a cable channel.

What exactly do you want me to address? You won't post these FDR/1940s standards you want to return to. All you have done is create points for me. Man up! Don't be a ******!! What standards do you want? Be speicific.

Huey » 20 Jan 2017 1:15 pm » wrote: You stated that reagan took the teeth out of the FCC. Well, moron, the FCC does not cover cable channels. CNN is a cable channel.

What exactly do you want me to address? You won't post these FDR/1940s standards you want to return to. All you have done is create points for me. Man up! Don't be a ******!! What standards do you want? Be speicific.

I'm not going to google u in order to satisfy your parsing, kid. I know that before reagan, every **** teevee channel ON CABLE was in fact regulated locally AND nationally, and was REQUIRED to operate in the public interest.

Who can google fastest is not nearly as important to me as the underlying issue of whether news stations should be hald accountable - as they were - or left untouchable - as they are.

Do you have the sack to say which you prefer, or are you going to answer this with another tap dance?

What straw man suggested arresting the CEO of CNN or any of their employees? can you find me one? Conservatives are simply correctly pointing out that CNN sucks. It is not a reliable news source.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:18 pm » wrote:I'm not going to google u in order to satisfy your parsing, kid. I know that before reagan, every **** teevee channel ON CABLE was in fact regulated locally AND nationally, and was REQUIRED to operate in the public interest.

Who can google fastest is not nearly as important to me as the underlying issue of whether news stations should be hald accountable - as they were - or left untouchable - as they are.

Do you have the sack to say which you prefer, or are you going to answer this with another tap dance?

You think you know that.

Please enloighten us and tell us what standards you are talking about. What exactly do you want the big bad government to regulate regarding journalists, whether the FCC regulated airwaves, or the cable channels?

As a bonus question please tell us what cable news networks were around pre reagan? Or hell, pre clinton? CNN was around from 1980. And yes, please prove that a station not using public airways was regulated by the FCC.

Thanks.