Liberal Forum

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 3:58 pm » wrote:Spin ya **** Dishonest turd, spin.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2017 4:45 pm » wrote: Reagan is the author of trickledown, the same as FDR is the author of all he capmaigned against, rekected and destroyed.

Trickled own started with reagan, you ignorant *** wipe = and as i have preached to your turd handlers a thousand times, every successor including obama has stayed the course.

Now, get off my dick, princess - I don't play y'all's bathroom bumpery.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 4:47 pm » wrote: Enough of your lying ****. You thought Reagan gutted the FCC. You were wrong. Be right back pops.

Silverfox » 20 Jan 2017 7:25 pm » wrote:The truth is that the days of being able to demand that "the media" communicates information based on verifiable (and verified) facts is past - and it's an issue.

As technologies converge, start-ups are cheap and easy to initiate and massive audiences are only a click (or a viral post) away, who should be regulated, and by who?

At what point does an organisation become "mass media"? Is it a certain number of employees? A certain "readership"/audience? A newspaper or a cable company is easily identifiable, but what about a group of 6 people working in someone's basement? One person? Where does the line get drawn?

What about media created by the public? Facebook? Twitter?

Do we look at the channels and regulate those to the point that we place impossible demands on new companies? Could Facebook verify every post or share? Not realistically.

So we are left with us, the recipients. We could make it easier to sue, I guess - at least make the publication of lies about us constitute libel/slander (without having to show malicious intent as well - which may encourage at least a modicum of verification).

It isn't enough. We're ****. Unless someone has a plan that doesn't gut free speech.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2017 4:52 pm » wrote:Listen, queer, I know well enough from dealing with you and your twin goopti how precious your perceived gotchas are.

But like it or not, dick sucker, I blame reagan for everything obama does - reagan is the author of reaganomics - that's why his name is on it.

Everything that is eating this nation alive right now began when reagan said that he wanted to be pResident so he could destroy the government. And you queers have been assaulting our government ever since - right down to trying to destroy the **** post office.

You're a sick bunch of **** - all the sicker because you think screeching, "Clinton did that one" is a w, you weak livered ***.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 4:58 pm » wrote: No ,****, you got busted as ignorant. Then you lashed out. You are a psychotic, arrogant turd who refuse to admit you we're **** wrong.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 4:58 pm » wrote: I worked on in the radio/media industry shortly after the 1996 Telecommunication Act went into effect, I know how it affected the industry, and the downfalls of it. It isn't a complicated issue and with out you having even a basic knowledge of what not did, who did it, who it effects, it ain't worth discussing.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 4:58 pm » wrote: So, asshole, what standards don't you like?

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 4:56 pm » wrote: So sincee every step of the way you have been wrong I again ask what standards are you talking about. Don't pull this **** about trickle down now that you have been busted.

1. ARe you discussing straight news or the opinion programming as well?

2. Who sets these standards?

3. Since cable networks do not fall under the FCC how should your standards, the ones you won't tell us, apply?

4. Reagan had nothing to do with it unless you are discussing the fairness doctrine.

5. Do you have an issue with the market size/country ownership rules? Is that what you are referencing?

6. Do you have an issue with the FEC laws that kick in at election time?

WHAT **** STANDARDS ARE WHINING ABOUT?

Here is your big chance, pops. Let's see if you are man enough to take it.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 6:35 pm » wrote: Post a reply WHAT DID CNN DO WRONG UNDER AMERICAN LAW, "CONS?"

By law? Nothing.

My very first comment.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2017 9:30 pm » wrote:Yes - and that is my complaint.

I believe there should be consequences. There used to be, under the game rules of FDR, before the attack on America's middle class.

Now, there aren't - we're getting trickled down on.

Huey » 21 Jan 2017 9:32 pm » wrote: Consequences for what? What have they done wrong IYO?

It is tough to debate or discuss when you won't give details.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2017 9:37 pm » wrote:The current complaint against the, is that they linked to a spurious attack on tRump, and falsely reported his agent - whose passport proves otherwise - to be on an errand of mischief in Vienna.

In other words, they lied about the pResident eLect, to damage his image as Deniguration Day approached.

That's the CURRENT complaint - surprised you're unaware, as it's been all over the board and there are heated exchanges about it in multiple threads. Could have sworn I saw you in Misty's thread where the topic is ablaze

You should look into it, since you haven't heard.

Cannonpointer » 21 Jan 2017 9:37 pm » wrote:The current complaint against the, is that they linked to a spurious attack on tRump, and falsely reported his agent - whose passport proves otherwise - to be on an errand of mischief in Vienna.

In other words, they lied about the pResident eLect, to damage his image as Deniguration Day approached.

That's the CURRENT complaint - surprised you're unaware, as it's been all over the board and there are heated exchanges about it in multiple threads. Could have sworn I saw you in Misty's thread where the topic is ablaze

You should look into it, since you haven't heard.

Huey » 19 Jan 2017 6:35 am » wrote: Misty is TECHNICALLY correct on what CNN reported. Unfortunately this is how the MSM operates. Where CNN needs to be criticized is in how it was presented. It would be truthful to report such a report was presented but was it a responsible report it without verifying the contents first? Without delving into the points that golfboy brought up? This seems to a news item where CNN was attempting to sway public opinion and not respecting journalistic integrity.

It is the same as reporting that a forner fixer reported that he obtained sexual partners for Hilary Clinton WITHOUT investigating to see if it was true. It is true that a fixer did come forward and report that. It is not verified as a true story. But when the goal is to sway public opinion the actual truth is not important.

deezer shoove » 21 Jan 2017 11:26 pm » wrote:They have no more moral obligation than a bank does. If no laws are broken by a banks high interest rates, then why should anyone expect them to change either?

Banks, CNN, Automobile Companies, all those companies that make money. They're just fine except where lawbreaking has occurred.

Whatever the market will bear.

deezer shoove » 21 Jan 2017 11:26 pm » wrote:They have no more moral obligation than a bank does. If no laws are broken by a banks high interest rates, then why should anyone expect them to change either?

Banks, CNN, Automobile Companies, all those companies that make money. They're just fine except where lawbreaking has occurred.

Whatever the market will bear.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 1:09 pm » wrote:Funny you say that, since usury hurts the public and was illegal for most of our history - up until the banks openly chose our politicians for us. Your position plays right into their hands. You're a good citizen, kid - from our corporate rulers' perspective. From where I stand, you suck.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 10:01 am » wrote:
Besides, news organizations are held accountable.

It is called RATINGS. Bad ratings lead to low advertising dollars.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:11 pm » wrote:
As it applies to news organizations like CNN or FOx, MSNBC etc, what obligation do they have to the public? Are you discussing opinions journalism, or straight news?

It would be novice if we knew what these standards are you keep dancing around.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 1:12 pm » wrote:And this assumes their only purpose to be collecting money, in the face of a CLEAR agenda to control the public discourse.

When you have to rely on an implicit proposition which is demonstrably false, you've waived the white flag.