Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 1:16 pm » wrote:I gave you a clear and precise answer in the case of CNN, son - you chose to ignore it and continue to pretend confusion, as areas of confusion are where dishonest minds love to make their mischief.

No, you haven't. If you are so sure you did please post the post number and I will read it again if I missed amongst you irrelevant dribble.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:18 pm » wrote: As you compared now to the 30 and 40s you have a completely different dynamic. The "standards" back then were there for a leg image reason. Things like the fairness doctrine were there for a leg image reason. Ownership rules as well were there for a specific reason. All cable networks are not public domain. They are paid for broadcasts. You have to choose to watch them. So it would be nice for you to list these standards. I don't think you understand them.

Tell us how the rules were delegitimaized.

Tell us how the government was operating legitimately then, but would not be now, of they resumed enforcing standards of honesty and public benefit.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:18 pm » wrote: Again, you are not prepared for this discussion. Hell, you reframed multiple times.

That's just your "confusion," son. You tried to reframe my positions and act confused. You're now pretending that government holding broadcasters to a standard was once legitimate and no longer is - but you will dance like a fiend before you give any reason why.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:19 pm » wrote: No, you haven't. If you are so sure you did please post the post number and I will read it again if I missed amongst you irrelevant dribble.

Here is a rapidly culled selection, you fake-confused queer.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 11:58 am » wrote:Under the rules of FDR[edit, for huey, who likes to raise false issues: this ALSO refers to rules passed under ike, fdr, lbj, nixon and carter], corporations were required to operate in the public good, and THEN to the benefit of share holders.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 12:37 pm » wrote: 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 12:57 pm » wrote:That is precisely the problem, in my view. I prefer the standards of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:18 pm » wrote: 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.

Cannonpointer » 20 Jan 2017 1:29 pm » wrote:I'd like to go back to the same rules we had before the madness, **** - back when phil donahue was "out ther on the edge."

A bonus would be for you to stop effeminately pretending that cable news doesn't use public resources. Cable companies are regulated monopolies.

Are we to take it that you defend that status quo, then? I keep putting that question, then answering yours, then putting it again.

You sure shy away from direct questions, mister wiggly piggly.

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?

Fact checking. They're obligated to NOT DELIBERATELY LIE, or they should be suspended from operating. An example is using b-roll to fool the public with a false narrative.

MANUFACTURING news should not be allowed, as any fool can clearly see that it creates an injury to the public good.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:11 pm » wrote: It would be novice if we knew what these standards are you keep dancing around.

I think the word you want is novel, hack. Don't try to write above your abilities.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 1:22 pm » wrote:Tell us how the rules were delegitimaized.

Tell us how the government was operating legitimately then, but would not be now, of they resumed enforcing standards of honesty and public benefit.
That's just your "confusion," son. You tried to reframe my positions and act confused. You're now pretending that government holding broadcasters to a standard was once legitimate and no longer is - but you will dance like a fiend before you give any reason why.

Notice he still refuses to post these standards he rants about.

First, as you forcibly learned, CNN is not subject to FCC licensing ru,es because they do not use the airwaves the government has set aside. That is a very important distinction, one cannon refuses to acknowledge. Remember they are paid for cable channel.

The most important reason is one you won't discuss either. Much, if not most of the country, were lucky to have one, never mind multiple sources of news, and later opinion. That was the reason not only for ownership rules, but also for the fairness doctrine. And both radio and later tv used those public airwaves the government of course could control it.

Nowadays there are multiple sources of news. The possibilities are endless and you know it. An individual has hundreds, if not thousands, of means of obtaining news. One is simply to change the channel. The other is online. So exactly what is the purpose for those rules, rules you won't name?

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 1:31 pm » wrote:Here is a rapidly culled selection, you fake-confused queer.

That is all well and good but it is nothing more than generalities. You do not like to deal in specifics as I did in my last post. It is too hard for you to r frame if. You do. **** you, piggly wiggly. You have. Your answer above although since you were a ****** and refused to be specific you will probably reframe again.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 1:34 pm » wrote:Fact checking. They're obligated to NOT DELIBERATELY LIE, or they should be suspended from operating. An example is using b-roll to fool the public with a false narrative.

MANUFACTURING news should not be allowed, as any fool can clearly see that it creates an injury to the public good.
I think the word you want is novel, hack. Don't try to write above your abilities.

No, they have an obligation to those who PAY for those news services. If you do not like them change the channel, don't watch, go elsewhere for news. Remember, they do not use the public airwaves set aside by the government.

And again, are you discussing opinion or straight news?

Understand yet, media novice??

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:57 pm » wrote: First, as you forcibly learned,

Only lesson I've learned from you is that rest areas need regular patrols, bathroomer.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:57 pm » wrote: The most important reason is one you won't discuss either. Much, if not most of the country, were lucky to have one, never mind multiple sources of news, and later opinion. That was the reason not only for ownership rules, but also for the fairness doctrine. And both radio and later tv used those public airwaves the government of course could control it.

Nowadays there are multiple sources of news. The possibilities are endless and you know it. An individual has hundreds, if not thousands, of means of obtaining news. One is simply to change the channel. The other is online. So exactly what is the purpose for those rules, rules you won't name?

Thousands of outlets, owned by five corporations who decide our selections for every office in the land, son.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 1:59 pm » wrote: That is all well and good but it is nothing more than generalities. You do not like to deal in specifics as I did in my last post. It is too hard for you to r frame if. You do. **** you, piggly wiggly. You have. Your answer above although since you were a ****** and refused to be specific you will probably reframe again.

Eat me.

I made clear that I want to go back to the FDR game rules, ball washer.

That includes the rules passed by his successors - the New Deal game rules - the rules under which the largest middle class in history - now being eroded under the progressive bushbama ideology you champion - came into being.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 2:01 pm » wrote: No, they have an obligation to those who PAY for those news services. If you do not like them change the channel, don't watch, go elsewhere for news. Remember, they do not use the public airwaves set aside by the government.

They can and should be regulated precisely as their predecessors were - they, too, rely upon licensing and monopolies.

They would have it no other way, dumb ***. THAT would invite competition.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 2:01 pm » wrote: And again, are you discussing opinion or straight news?

News, AND ANY 'OPINION" MASQUERADING AS NEWS.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 2:01 pm » wrote: Understand yet, media novice??

You used the right term this time - you learn something from me every time I school you, sonny.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 3:02 pm » wrote:Eat me.

I made clear that I want to go back to the FDR game rules, ball washer.

That includes the rules passed by his successors - the New Deal game rules - the rules under which the largest middle class in history - now being eroded under the progressive bushbama ideology you champion - came into being.

What you want is government controlled propaganda because you are too lazy to use the thousands of tools for news at your disposal.

FDR rules are outdated and no longer needed.

How are you going to control the BBC, Sky news, AP, etc. take control of the internet, Goebbels?

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 3:05 pm » wrote:They can and should be regulated precisely as their predecessors were - they, too, rely upon licensing and monopolies.

They would have it no other way, dumb ***. THAT would invite competition.
You used the right term this time - you learn something from me every time I school you, sonny.

Fairness doctrine, huh? You too **** lazy to go online or change the channel?

Ps. The FCC still.controls ownership rules for public airways. Ya know, the things that don't apply to paid for broadcasting.
, Mr. big government.

What dies the queer say?

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 3:06 pm » wrote: What you want is government controlled propaganda because you are too lazy to use the thousands of tools for news at your disposal.

Okay, thanks.

What else does the queer say?

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 3:06 pm » wrote: FDR rules are outdated and no longer needed.

Ah. I see.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 3:06 pm » wrote: How are you going to control the BBC, Sky news, AP, etc. take control of the internet, Goebbels?

It's wall street that wants to control the internet, gay - that's why they get fools like you to slobber their talking points. They want to hobble anyone who cannot pay for special access to speed, forcing companies like neflix to pay extra in order for you to receive their content.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 3:09 pm » wrote: , Mr. big government.

Homosexual, defending nanny state torture chambers forever strips YOU of the right to smirk and ANYONE bout being for big government.

You are a craven and cowardly little pig who stands for a government big enough to torture once-sovereign citizens, so you need to keep your cock intake valve free of any smirking abut nanny staters, coward.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 3:12 pm » wrote:What dies the queer say?
Okay, thanks.

What else does the queer say?
Ah. I see.
It's wall street that wants to control the internet, gay - that's why they get fools like you to slobber their talking points. They want to hobble anyone who cannot pay for special access to speed, forcing companies like neflix to pay extra in order for you to receive their content.

Time to get specific. What specific rules do you want government to impose on paid for broadcasts that do not use public airways? On services that we as citizens CHOOSE to utilizes and PAY for?

Yup, big government tin foil boy, CP want AM radio to return to what it was pre 80s. Nothing but sports and boring *** **** like how to pot a plant because broadcasters were to afraid to offer political commentary for fear of the government penalties.

I suggest you do so,e research on media ownership rules before you continue. It will save you some MORE embarrassment.

Ps. You ever hear of PBS and CPAN? Too **** lazy to watch or listen to them?

Time to get specific. What specific rules do you want government to impose on paid for broadcasts that do not use public airways? On services that we as citizens CHOOSE to utilizes and PAY for? ]/quote]Specifically, I want rules against deliberate fraud on the public - that is, manufacturing news through b-roll and false narrative, for example. I want news outllets tolose their license for such crimes against the public. Additionally, I want a return to the prohibition against ANY corporation operating against public interest. I want every corporation's charter to be predicated on, and periodicaly reviewed for, compliance with a requirement to operate IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Just as no corporation is allowed to behave against its principals' interests (SEC), no corporation should be allowed to operate counter to PUBLIC interests.

Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. They are artificial constructs, with eternal life. They should be treated as less than people, kid.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 3:17 pm » wrote:Yup, big government tin foil boy,

Again, dick sucker - never let that smirk soil your penis kissers. You have defended federal torture chambers ON THIS BOARD, you hypocritical ***. You have no place with that smirk coming out of your cowardly mouth.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 3:28 pm » wrote:Time to get specific. What specific rules do you want government to impose on paid for broadcasts that do not use public airways? On services that we as citizens CHOOSE to utilizes and PAY for? ]/quote]Specifically, I want rules against deliberate fraud on the public - that is, manufacturing news through b-roll and false narrative, for example. I want news outllets tolose their license for such crimes against the public. Additionally, I want a return to the prohibition against ANY corporation operating against public interest. I want every corporation's charter to be predicated on, and periodicaly reviewed for, compliance with a requirement to operate IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Just as no corporation is allowed to behave against its principals' interests (SEC), no corporation should be allowed to operate counter to PUBLIC interests.

Corporations are NOT PEOPLE. They are artificial constructs, with eternal life. They should be treated as less than people, kid.
Again, dick sucker - never let that smirk soil your penis kissers. You have defended federal torture chambers ON THIS BOARD, you hypocritical ***. You have no place with that smirk coming out of your cowardly mouth.

Paid for news services are not licensed.

Who is in charge of enforcing these standards?

How is opinion programming handled under your iron fist standards?

No sir, I have not defended torture chambers. Stop your psychotic lying motherfucekr,

How do you punish news services that are not licensed thru the FCC, Goebbels?

How do you control internet political opinion shows that you can subscribe to and cast to your TV?

These services are held accountable. Enough lies and people stop watching and paying for it.

Please do try and stay on topic, Gobbells.

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.

"Whatever the market will bear" is weak, partisan tripe.

Hey, I'm just trying to show support for the thread.

Huey » 22 Jan 2017 3:35 pm » wrote:
Paid for news services are not licensed.

Who is in charge of enforcing these standards?

How is opinion programming handled under your iron fist standards?

No sir, I have not defended torture chambers. Stop your psychotic lying motherfucekr,

How do you punish news services that are not licensed thru the FCC, Goebbels?

How do you control internet political opinion shows that you can subscribe to and cast to your TV?

These services are held accountable. Enough lies and people stop watching and paying for it.

Please do try and stay on topic, Gobbells.

Try to learn to use the quote function, ya frothing fool.

You'e defended federal nanny state torture chambers, just as I have said, you chicken hit word eater. You've got the answers from me that you'll BE getting, ***. Best come up with some new questions if you want new answers, ya back dancing *** dick lover.

Cannonpointer » 22 Jan 2017 7:53 pm » wrote:Try to learn to use the quote function, ya frothing fool.

You'e defended federal nanny state torture chambers, just as I have said, you chicken hit word eater. You've got the answers from me that you'll BE getting, ***. Best come up with some new questions if you want new answers, ya back dancing *** dick lover.

Cannon is losing big time so he pulls out his old, tires stand by line about torture chambers.

Notice the ignorant did not touch one question on his comments.