# Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...

Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.

But what about when it comes into your home via TV or the Internet?

While there are truth in advertising laws when it comes to companies making claims about their products, politicians, and partisan TV commentators can seemingly say anything they want, regardless of how outrageously untrue it is, and there are no consequences.

I know that some false statements are honest mistakes.  I also know that many false statements and claims are intentional.  People are intentionally trying to muddy the waters and confusing honest people in the process. 

So, in the interest of honest political debate on the issues, and in keeping with the need to insure that the public is honestly informed on those issues, should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV?  For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight.  And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.  

If this plan was implemented, there shouldn't be as many people in this country who are so poorly informed on the issues because they've been manipulated by dishonest people.


----------



## xsited1 (Jul 5, 2011)

I like that idea!


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Wonky Pundit said:


> Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.


 
Does the 1st Amendment protect lying?  I don't think so.  Libel is illegal.  So is slander.  So is lying to the police.  If the 1st Amendment protected lying and liars, those laws could not hold up to a Constitutional challenge.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



You can't slander and you can't lie under oath.. other than that.. you can say pretty much what you want.... about Conservatives that is.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

Wonky Pundit said:


> Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.



So you think the first amendment extends to the press manipulating the public into believing falsehoods for their own gain?

We aren't talking about people here. We are talking major news outlets that people rely on for accuracy and honesty to make informed decisions upon. They need to be held to a higher standard.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



I can say my mother was a donut... thtat's lie, but not slander.  Come on man.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



I can say my mother was a donut... that's a lie, but not slander.  Come on man.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 5, 2011)

Didn't Dr Evils's father claim he invented the question mark?


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



Actually, it does to some degree. Libel is not a crime; it's a tort. Meaning that nobody can go to jail for doing it; they can only be sued. Same for slander. 

Political speech, of course, is very strongly protected by the First Amendment, which is why it has been filled with very deliberate lies from the earliest days.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



The press is a very unique animal...


----------



## Big Black Dog (Jul 5, 2011)

If this ever becomes the law of the land, we will never see a politician on tv again!


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



Historically, news organizations have policed themselves in this area. 

They need revenue to survive, which is tied directly to the sizes of their audiences, which in turn has a lot to do with the organization's credibility.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...


 
You think that anyone would be fooled into believing your mother was a donut just because you said it?  Come on man.


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

LaterTrader said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



First, calm down. I would never waste my time on anything as absurd as law school. 

Second, FTR, I have no problem with torts for libel or slander, but once a government starts imposing its own fines I get extremely nervous. I'm surprised that so many others here do not.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

Wonky Pundit said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...



So what you're saying is that truth doesn't matter. It's all about revenue and audience size.

and yes... HISTORICALLY, news organizations have policed themselves... but you know as well as I do that they are not doing so now. I want truth, not opinion in my news.

and No... I don't watch Maddow or Olbermann any more than I watch Beck or Hannity.


----------



## shintao (Jul 5, 2011)

Fraud is generally defined in the law as an intentional misrepresentation of material existing fact made by one person to another with knowledge of its falsity and for the purpose of inducing the other person to act, and upon which the other person relies with resulting injury or damage. Fraud may also be made by an omission or purposeful failure to state material facts, which nondisclosure makes other statements misleading.

To constitute fraud, a misrepresentation or omission must also relate to an 'existing fact', not a promise to do something in the future, unless the person who made the promise did so without any present intent to perform it or with a positive intent not to perform it. Promises to do something in the future or a mere expression of opinion cannot be the basis of a claim of fraud unless the person stating the opinion has exclusive or superior knowledge of existing facts which are inconsistent with such opinion. The false statement or omission must be material, meaning that it was significant to the decision to be made.


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Oh, truth matters (pun intended). It's just not the primary concern. 

Remember, however, that there's always been a "gutter press," beginning with the tabloids, that people read much more for the sake of entertainment than news. FOX and MSNBC, sadly, have decided to market themselves along similar lines.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...


Yes, the first amendment protects liars provided those lies do not constitute libel or scandal.

It a lie is big enough and repeated often enough, it will be believed.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

Ok... granted... but you can clearly see on this message board how fanatical rhetoric passed off as fact by established news outlets are affecting this country.

in response to wonky


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...



What is more scandalous than what lies have done to this country lately?


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2011)

If they knowingly do it absolutely.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Wonky Pundit said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...


 
Libel most certainly is a crime.

Criminal Libel - The History Of Criminal Libel, Development Of The Law In The United States, The Constitutional Protection Of Freedom Of Expression

Aside from that, if people want to offer their opinions, then they should state it as such.  That's considerably different than claiming something is factually true when it is not true at all.


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Ok... granted... but you can clearly see on this message board how fanatical rhetoric passed off as fact by established news outlets are affecting this country.
> 
> in response to wonky



SP, I'm certainly not implying that it's an ideal situation. I just happen to believe that government pressure on "gutter press" news outlets would be a lot worse. 

At the end of the day, no government can shield people from ideas, not even the police states. It has to be up to the individual to listen to what makes sense and turn off what doesn't.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



Disclaimer: I didn't read the entire thread before responding. If this was already mentioned, please ignore.

Libel is not illegal and neither is slander. Both are actionable torts in the civil system. Lying would be protected speech. People lie (or sometimes we call it, "telling tall tales") for entertainment all the time. I'll need a lot better reason than this to go down the slippery slope of limiting free speech because I'm annoyed.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

Tech_Esq said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...



It's not about being annoyed. It's about changing the attitudes of our country through falsehoods and misinformation. That is exactly what is happening.... you know it, I know it.

I don't care if it's left or right... As long as it's factual.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Tech_Esq said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...


 
Of course libel and slander are both illegal.  Where did you get the idea they weren't?

People lie all the time, but not all lies are created equal.  Some lies are perfectly harmless (as in white lies).  Some lies are meant to deceive someone (like a husband lying to his wife about eating a fast food hamburger when he's supposed to be on a diet), but that's not the same about lying to someone to cheat them out of money.

So, while all lying is not illegal, there are plenty of cases where lying in the furtherance of other activities, is illegal.  I think a good case could be made that lying about matters of public policy on TV shows intent to defraud the public from the truth in order to make informed decisions.  It actually undermines our republic.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



I'd recommend you read some of the cases cited in your link. You'd find that while there is technically the possibility of having a state criminal action for libel the Supremes have made it a different standard than other crime and increased the mens rea requirements if the states are going to have such a law. 

But, despite that fact, you are technically correct on the libel point. So, you can go after all those bad writers out there. (Depending on the state).


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

Why would anyone let the government have the final say as to what "truth" is?


----------



## FuelRod (Jul 5, 2011)

You'd virtually put all of today's media out of business with such fines.


----------



## spectrumc01 (Jul 5, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...



take a tenant to court and watch them lie right to the judge, prove they lied to the judge and then watch as the judge does nothing.  This is how it works, lying is only a crime if someone in power was lied to.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



The problem is that it's a very slippery slope because as strange as it may sound, the truth is sometimes subjective to one's opinion.  You can't always prove someone is lying and people can have differing opinions on the same subject claiming two different truths, but that doesn't mean they're lying if they actually believe what they're saying.

I don't think this is a road we want to go down.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Then get your news from a trustworthy source. The Economist, BBC, Christian Science Monitor, and NPR are usually as un-biased reporting as you can find.

Rarely, outside of mathematics do you ever find absolute truths. There's always gray area.

I don't think the government should be able to decide what the "truth" is.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



See above response for libel. I didn't see where you linked anything for slander. I would assume the Supremes have the same opinion for cases based on slander.

Fraud is a crime. That's what you described in your second para. Yes, I agree that fraud should be punished as a crime. 

I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of having "Truth Commissions" in this country. I think the pendulum has swung way too far toward government power and I'm not willing to give them any more.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...



The "truth" is almost ALWAYS subjective, except when we're talking about math and the laws of physics.


----------



## shintao (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



Since the Clinton impeachment, America has been in a downward decline.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Tech_Esq said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Yes it's happening. But you folks are acting as if it's new. It has always been thus. Well before the founding of this country and back to the politics of Great Britain people on each side exaggerated the facts or twisted and embellished them to suit their cause.

I think people have the intellectual capacity to see through the bullshit when they need to and want to. Even if they don't, I'm going on record as not wanting truth commissions.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

shintao said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




ain't that the truth.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...


 
For years, the American media had a stellar reputation because of the use of fact checkers and, in part, because opinions weren't expressed on the air.  News was, in fact, NEWS.  It wasn't someone's opinion about the news of the day.  That's all changed with competing interests trying to mold public opinion for their own interests.  Well, since TV stations have to be licensed, the companies and their on-air talent must meet minimum standards of conduct.  It wouldn't be diffictult at all to make sure that someone's opinion is clearly stated as such and deliniated from what's offered as independently true from someone's stated opinion about it.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  *You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit*,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...


.....And, when it comes to *FAUX Noise*, it's a matter of *keeping* confused-people.....



> ....*MORE* confused.



*



> *FAUX News LIES*


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 5, 2011)

How about for broken promises too - like "No new taxes", etc.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


When was this magical time when everything was perfect, and you could trust everything you read in the news?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...


Gee.....whatever happened to.....

*ALLOWING THE MARKETPLACE TO REGULATE ITSELF?*



*







(You're *finally* having second-thoughts?)​


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

Tech_Esq said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Tech_Esq said:
> ...



Exactly.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Here is the big problem with punishing lies: Who determines what are the lies? The government.

There is a reason we don't empower the government to go after people who lie politically. Because those who are corrupt would decide anyone who disagrees with them is lying and "punish" them.

It's why we have a First amendment. So the government can't persecute people for saying something our politicians don't like. The only fools who would want the government to have that power are those who knows their beliefs are lies and can't win when debated and discussed.

My recommendation if you really want to empower politicians to go after people you claim are lying: Stop lying yourself.


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 5, 2011)

Thankfully we have media watchdog groups like Media Matters, FAIR, and FactCheck.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...


'Tis true*!!!*

You can always burn those "documents", and make them _disappear_.

Let's *hear* it for.....



> *State Of The Art**!!!*


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

mattskramer said:


> Thankfully we have media watchdog groups like Media Matters, FAIR, and FactCheck.



That's a good one. Lol


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> If this ever becomes the law of the land, we will never see a politician on tv again!


Not to worry!!!

One-way-*or*-another, politicians/candidates will *ALWAYS* find outlets for their.....



> *POLITICAL SUICIDE**.*




​


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...




No, Simply Because you are opening up whole can of Words we do not want to open. What about Subjects that are Debatable. How do we stop one side from carrying out Political Vendetta's on their Opposition when Talking about Subjects like say. Did the stimulus work, Do Tax cuts create Jobs. ETC. Who is going to determine if the person made a mistake or lied on Purpose? 

This sounds like something some totalitarian Regime would want. Not something we want in America.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 5, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully we have media watchdog groups like Media Matters, FAIR, and FactCheck.
> ...



I wonder how many times, the so called Media watch Dog group. Media Matters (who Gets Federal Funding) Has exposed the lies of any network other than FOX.

Are you liberals really so Freaking ignorant you think none of the Liberal Press lies?

lol


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Jul 5, 2011)

No. Never.  One man's subjective view is another man's interpolative observation is.............


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 5, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Not at all... but you Shiites seem to be that ignorant that you feel FOXNews and The likes of Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh is the gospel truth.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Wonky Pundit said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...



You're saying an organization's revenue-flow is directly-proportionate to their credibility?



Or.....are you saying an org's audience-size is directly-proportionate to their credibility?

​


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 5, 2011)

Mr. Shaman said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



It's number 2. When a news organization has a strong reputation for credibility, it attracts more readers/viewers though word of mouth. 

Or at least that HAS been the trend in previous decades. The interwebs may have changed things a little...


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

Charles_Main said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > mattskramer said:
> ...



Jesus fucking Christ.

Just because you morons keep repeating it, it doesn't become true.

Media Matters doesn't get any "federal funding". 

It is treated no different than all the other conservative watchdog groups.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



Gospel truth? hardly. But well knowledgible and easily supported, yes.

You see, we don't want to silence the opposition. We don't want to empower corrupt individuals to throw you in jail because you disagree with us. We want to teach, we want to persuade people. We want people to understand why the Constitution is the miracle it is and why we should follow it instead of ignoring it and always empowering government.

I seriously don't know why you want some bueaucrat in Washington micromanaging your life. I would think youd want some say in how you live your own life. You'd want some responsibility for who you are and what you do.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

LaterTrader said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



You're assuming *most FAUX Noise fans* are tuning-in.....



> ....for *information*.


----------



## mattskramer (Jul 5, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> mattskramer said:
> 
> 
> > Thankfully we have media watchdog groups like Media Matters, FAIR, and FactCheck.
> ...



That was not meant to be a joke.

There is also "Accuracy In Media" and the "Media Research Center".

Are those funny?


----------



## boedicca (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...





If someone is the victim of libel or slander, there are already laws of which he can avail himself.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > Wonky Pundit said:
> ...


All that's required is a *regressive-receptor*.....







> "He thought he could get anyone to believe anything he said, and the *more outrageous* is was......*the more they would believe it**.*"


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...


Uhhhhhhh.....how 'bout the fact they (even) merited.....



> .....*a RE-RUN**?*



​


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.



Would you suggest then, appointing George Soros as "Minister of Truth," to pass judgment on what can or cannot be broadcast?

You leftists have a plan....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 5, 2011)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> The press is a very unique animal...




But, but Mustang want's Fox SILENCED, dammit!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Amazing how lazy people are nowadays. They expect the government to determine what's true rather than doing the homework and researching themselves.

No wonder they will end up losing their liberty.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'm sick of it. Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it. They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> ...


 
You have a penchant for absurdity.  That's great in comedy.  Not so great if you want to be taken seriously.


----------



## Ragnar (Jul 5, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Amazing how lazy people are nowadays. They expect the government to determine what's true rather than doing the homework and researching themselves.
> 
> No wonder they will end up losing their liberty.



What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that this idea does not work out just fine under the likes of Kim Jong-il and Castro or in the glory days of the USSR with Pravda "truth" and their various dictators? 

Not sure I wanna follow you out on that very slim limb man.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 5, 2011)

Big Black Dog said:


> If this ever becomes the law of the land, we will never see a politician on tv again!



And that would be a bad thing?


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Why would anyone let the government have the final say as to what "truth" is?


....Or.....



> ....*OTHERWISE**!*



Quite simply, it's *laziness.*

If _you_ decide what's _true_....for *you*.....you *risk* being the odd-man-out.....outta-step with the Majority. Then, you might (actually) have to *defend* your position/_truth_....and, that would require you *think*...and, *explain* how you arrived at your position/_truth_*!!!!*



For *too*-many people.....it's much-less _stressful_ running-with-the-herd......












....and, there's no thinking required....like any (other) garden-variety lynch-mob.

*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljIrAfBzYs]YouTube - &#x202a;Henry Fonda: The Ox-Bow Incident ("Conscience") Monologue&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

spectrumc01 said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


You forgot to say...*"I GUARANTEE YOU.....".*


----------



## manifold (Jul 5, 2011)

No.  Let the free market take care of it.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Jul 5, 2011)

.....And, The Mods *PUNK-OUT*, on-more-time......


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



It's easy to be absurd with absurd propositions.

Who exactly gets to decide what is a lie or not?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Big Black Dog said:
> 
> 
> > If this ever becomes the law of the land, we will never see a politician on tv again!
> ...



It would be in this sense: They could do whatever the heck they wanted and we would never know about it.


----------



## smalltime (Jul 5, 2011)

> I think a good case could be made that lying about matters of public policy on TV shows intent to defraud the public from the truth in order to make informed decisions.  It actually undermines our republic.



I agree.
And I can think of one guy who stands out above all others in this department:

"Now I want you to listen to me, I never had sexual relations with that woman, not a single time"

I know this was uttered to a TV audience, but a statement very similar was said to a Federal Grand Jury. It was A LIE, and was made to DEFRAUD THE PUBLIC FROM THE TRUTH IN ORDER TO MAKE INFORMED DECISIONS.

This was the basis for an impeachment trial in the senate, and it was voted down.

One more lie.


----------



## manifold (Jul 5, 2011)

Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall


^ The retards who voted yes.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

To summarize this thread:


----------



## Sunshine (Jul 5, 2011)

> Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?




You mean if they claim to be a natural 38DDD and they really are not?  

Who's going to measure?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 5, 2011)

daveman said:


> To summarize this thread:



Well, actually, 2 of the 5 people who support this idea are "Conservatives", and as many "Liberals" voted "no" as did "yes".

But you wouldn't want facts to get in the way of a good partisan rant, right?


----------



## Mustang (Jul 5, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Uncensored2008 said:
> ...


 
I didn't use the word, lie, in the subject line or in the poll question.  I also indicated that not all lies are created equal.

So, if a person lies on the air about his favorite color, who am I to care?  But if a politician or a political commentator lies about what specifically is in a piece of legislation (just as an example), that's a false claim or a false statement of fact.  Either the person making that statement is knowingly giving false information because of various possible motivations, or he doesn't know what he's talking about, and better start researching the topics to which he's passing himself off as being knowledgeable, considering that he's on the air and speaking to hundreds of thousands of people at any given moment.


----------



## midcan5 (Jul 5, 2011)

Truth, honesty are often in the eye of the beholder, actually they are probably always in the eye of the beholder. BS too is in the same place, has anyone given any examples of a lie that was punishable? I'd be curious. Sometimes the truth, assuming we can get a handle on it, is unwelcome. 

"In contrast to the petabytes of data flotsam, half-truths and speculation that drift daily around the Internet, WikiLeaks spews forth unvarnished, sensitive truths."  Misha Glenny

Sometimes lies have great power.

"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?  Have you no sense of decency?"  Joseph Nye Welch, the Army's chief counsel

Sometimes the truth needs a faithful Tonto.

"I say it to you now, knowing full well that you will agree with me (that is, understand) only if you already agree with me." Stanley Fish

Sometimes the truth is just a kinda truth.

"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books.  What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.  Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.  Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.  Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.  Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.  Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.  Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy.  As Huxley wrote in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions."  In 1984 Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain.  In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.  In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us.  Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us...This book is about the possibility that Huxley, not Orwell, was right."  Neil Postman 'Amusing Ourselves to Death'

Sometimes the truth is really BS well not really.

"It is just this lack of connection to a concern with truth - this indifference to how things really are - that I regard as of the essence of bullshit."  Harry Frankfurt

Sometimes the truth is really just an argument for a truth.

"Reasoning was not designed to pursue the truth. Reasoning was designed by evolution to help us win arguments. That's why they call it The Argumentative Theory of Reasoning. So, as they put it, "The evidence reviewed here shows not only that reasoning falls quite short of reliably delivering rational beliefs and rational decisions. It may even be, in a variety of cases, detrimental to rationality. Reasoning can lead to poor outcomes, not because humans are bad at it, but because they systematically strive for arguments that justify their beliefs or their actions. This explains the confirmation bias, motivated reasoning, and reason-based choice, among other things." The Argumentative Theory | Conversation | Edge

Sometimes the truth is two truths.

"No two historians ever agree on what happened, and the damn thing is they both think they're telling the truth."  Harry S. Truman

Sometimes argument leads to truth.

"Truth springs from argument amongst friends."  David Hume 

Sometimes the truth has two sides.

"Not the violent conflict between parts of the truth, but the quiet suppression of half of it, is the formidable evil. There is always hope when people are forced to listen to both sides." John Stuart Mill

Sometimes you have to test the truth.

"What is so wonderful about scientific truth, however, is that the authority which determines whether there can be debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of scientists;  nor is it divine. The authority rests with experiment." In Defense of Nonsense

Sometimes the truth travels too slowly.

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."  Winston Churchill

Sometime the truth is poetic- and with that I bring this exercise to an end as it could go on forever.....

"Poetry is the art of uniting pleasure with truth."  Samuel Johnson


----------



## Flopper (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...


I have been following politics for 50 years and without exception every political figure lies in one way or another.   Today's lies are no worse than yesterdays lies.  What is worse today is the repetition and embellishment by the media. 

By today's standards a mistake is a lie as is reversal of positions or a facial expression.  Even silence is interpreted as a lie.


----------



## westwall (Jul 5, 2011)

The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again.  Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
Anytime a report is made that can lead to the deaths of American Citizens because a politician feels it affects US diplomacy there is a problem. 

No media company should be allowed to lie about something so that their owners, editors, journalists, opinion will influence the government that can get people killed.  End of story.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > To summarize this thread:
> ...



Who started the thread?


----------



## Sunshine (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...



Are you aware that animals mark their territory with feces?  Look it up.  It's true.

In prehistoric times apes marked their territory by slinging feces around the perimeter of it.  Man does the exact same thing, only he slings his feces with a pen, pencil, and words to mark off his territory.  You're welcome.  I knew you would enjoy that!


----------



## American Horse (Jul 5, 2011)

No; the remedy lies with the injured party in a civil lawsuit.  If such a law were to be passed it would be used as a bludgeon against certain parties who did not hold "popular" sentiment while those who did, and whose public statements (TV) were more egregious would be immune.  Such a law would become a tool of persecution against the political "outs" and a free pass for the "ins"

It's why we have the First Amendment.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 5, 2011)

westwall said:


> The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again.  Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
> Anytime a report is made that can lead to the deaths of American Citizens because a politician feels it affects US diplomacy there is a problem.
> 
> No media company should be allowed to lie about something so that their owners, editors, journalists, opinion will influence the government that can get people killed.  End of story.


Most political campaigns are based on lies.  Voters aren't forced to listen.  They listen because they want to.  In politics, no one is really interested in truth.


----------



## Sunshine (Jul 5, 2011)

American Horse said:


> No; the remedy lies with the injured party in a civil lawsuit.  If such a law were to be passed it would be used as a bludgeon against certain parties who did not hold "popular" sentiment while those who did, and whose public statements (TV) were more egregious would be immune.  Such a law would become a tool of persecution against the political "outs" and a free pass for the "ins"
> 
> It's why we have the First Amendment.



But the job market would pick up.  Just look at how many court cases there would be and the number needed to be employed!


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)




----------



## MarcATL (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...



Certainly if they are a part of the media and/or self-proclaimed media.

Either they pay up or be banned from the news.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> ...


Will you support such a law if the GOP is in charge?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



Political advocacy by the press??

Well, that's different.


----------



## Dude111 (Jul 5, 2011)

Wonky Pundit said:
			
		

> Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.


Yes people have a right to voice what they feel is the truth!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Sunshine said:


> > Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Im sure there are many who would like that position.... look we are creating jobs people want to have!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Still avoiding the question. Who gets to decide?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 5, 2011)

Flopper said:


> westwall said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with the media is nowadays it is Randolph Hearst all over again.  Yellow journalism is alive and well and the Fourth Estate are just beginning to flex their muscles.
> ...



Speak for yourself, my friend.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 5, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > westwall said:
> ...


Successful campaigning is finding out what voters want to hear and presenting it to them in such a way that they believe it is the truth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...



You want to implement a department of truth to make sure no one lies on TV or the internet? What should we call it, Pravda?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



Not only that, I think it extends to you making a fool of yourself.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> ...


How about the Ministry of Truth?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2011)

LaterTrader said:


> Wonky Pundit said:
> 
> 
> > Can't happen, what with this little thing we call the First Amendment.
> ...



You can yell fire in a crowded theater. Anyone that tried to explain the 1st Amendment to you and left you with the impression that this is not permissible under the 1st, or even current law, left you out in the cold.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> ...



Not exactly surprised that you support fascism.


----------



## daveman (Jul 5, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


In charge of what...the law?!??

No party is "in charge" of the law, you Dittohead, we're a nation of laws, not men.

It shouldn't matter WHO'S "in charge."

Capice?!?


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall

^ We're now up to seven epic failures of humanity that voted yes.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 6, 2011)

theDoctorisIn said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > To summarize this thread:
> ...



He just knows the truth about FoxNews and he's scared that if something like this were to happen, his favorite channel will have nothing to talk about.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall
> 
> ^ We're now up to seven epic failures of humanity that voted yes.



Epic failures of Humanity? That's a little extreme, isn't it? Just because we voted yes in a meaningless Message board poll?

Maybe some of us have grown weary of people like Beck and Hannity, Maddow and Olbermann. People who just stir shit instead of reporting the news and letting people think for themselves.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall
> ...



You're voting for silencing speech you don't like. You're voting for empowering politcians to go after people who criticitize them. And yet you don't see the giant problem there or why it would be a bad thing if our leaders could pick and choose who they could punish simply because they spoke their mind.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Im amazed that you guys in opposition to free speech still havent been able to answer who you think should determine what is false or a lie and what is true.


----------



## Jack Fate (Jul 6, 2011)

I think BO should form a "Truth Committee" and appoint Joe Biden as the Chairman.  Joe is familiar with plagiarism.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Im amazed that you guys in opposition to free speech still havent been able to answer who you think should determine what is false or a lie and what is true.



That wasn't part of the question, was it?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...



Aside from slander, we all have free speech.

The excuse that people are being mislead?  It's up to each person to do thier homework.

Taking anyones veiws as a statement of fact, and not listening to an opposing veiw is idiotic.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

There's no good reason to vote yes that I can think of.

It would be run by the Fed, further increasing it's cost and power.
It would become a political weapon.  Whoever is in charge can fuckover whoever is not.
It could be someones opinion as to what a lie is.

No, this is just more tryanny.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> You have a penchant for absurdity.  That's great in comedy.  Not so great if you want to be taken seriously.



Says the guy calling for "fines" on those who speak in ways he doesn't like..

ROFL

Oh the irony....


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Flopper said:


> I have been following politics for 50 years and without exception every political figure lies in one way or another.   Today's lies are no worse than yesterdays lies.  What is worse today is the repetition and embellishment by the media.
> 
> By today's standards a mistake is a lie as is reversal of positions or a facial expression.  Even silence is interpreted as a lie.



We now have a free media, which distresses many. For years, America's own Josef Goebbels, to wit Edward Murrow, managed the news the American people were privy to. When three networks ruled the airwaves and the NY Times rode roughshod on print, it was an easy task to manage information and ensure the people thought what they were supposed to think. 

But Murrow is dead, the USSR has fallen and cable plus the internet have made it impossible to manufacture news the way it was done for so long. 

People now have the ability to see all side of any issue, not just what the party wants them to know. Some are desperate to return to the days when the only information available to the public was that which the left elite wanted known.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> In charge of what...the law?!??



In charge of deciding what is "true."

A fascist moron like you just ASSUMES that Obama will be the ruler deciding what is "truth."

If the tide changes, then it may be Olbermann and Stewart in chains, rather than Limbaugh and Beck as is your dream.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth?  Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


You could be more stupid, but it would take some effort.  

Damn, you lefties sure are afraid of Fox, aren't you?


----------



## Intense (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, I'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...



There are neither enough Courts, Cops, or Jail Cells, to deal with the problem.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Afraid of Fox? Why should we be afraid of Fox? I was just commenting on your stupid picture showing a Muslim protest with a line pointing directly at Progressives. I'm more afraid of right wing extremism than I am of Fox. You fuckers are radicals. The muslim Picture could easily represent the Tea Party with a simple change of the Text... and it would probably be more accurate.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...



No idea why you are afraid of Fox News or why you should be. But you are the one suggesting they be silenced because you disagree with them.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Im amazed that you guys in opposition to free speech still havent been able to answer who you think should determine what is false or a lie and what is true.
> ...



I'ved asked the question several times. Not surprisingly you guys havent answered the question on who decides what is true or not.

My only conclusion is you want the government to do so. Something both dangerous and foolish.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> No idea why you are afraid of Fox News or why you should be. But you are the one suggesting they be silenced because you disagree with them.



George Soros, through Media Matters, KOS and MoveOn - told him what the truth is. Anything that differs from the truth imparted by Soros MUST be silenced!


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



wow... when did I say it was just Fox that i was railing against? Oh, that's right... never.

I don't want lies from the progressive side either.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 6, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I have been following politics for 50 years and without exception every political figure lies in one way or another.   Today's lies are no worse than yesterdays lies.  What is worse today is the repetition and embellishment by the media.
> ...


You may not be able to manufacture news today, but you can certainly embellish it to the point that it has little resemblance to the truth.  Surfing the Internet for news is about as reliable as listening to conversations overheard at the grocery store.  Editorial content and news is mixed together with no attempt to separate the two.  The exception is the established news outlets, major networks and newspapers where they actually have journalists not just writers.  They have a name and reputation to protect, unlike many of the so called internet news organizational.


----------



## Steelplate (Jul 6, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > No idea why you are afraid of Fox News or why you should be. But you are the one suggesting they be silenced because you disagree with them.
> ...



fuck you. feel free to peruse all my posts and see if I quote, or even mention any of those sources. I fucking DARE you. I make up my own mind on these matters.

But once again... A liberal could say the same about Koch, FOX and Murdoch.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Big Black Dog, LaterTrader, MarcATL, mudwhistle, Steelplate, uscitizen, westwall
> ...



What can I say, I'm a purveyor of hyperbole.

But the idea is still as stupid as they come.  One need only contemplate for 10 seconds the practical application to conclude likewise.  Did you only dedicate 3 seconds?  Or was it less?


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> There's no good reason to vote yes that I can think of.
> 
> It would be run by the Fed, further increasing it's cost and power.
> It would become a political weapon.  Whoever is in charge can fuckover whoever is not.
> ...



^ Even Two Thumbs gets it.

You yes voters should really feel stupid right about now.  No offense.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Flopper said:


> You may not be able to manufacture news today, but you can certainly embellish it to the point that it has little resemblance to the truth.



Perhaps, but that's irrelevant as there are dozens of other sources which offer the other side of the story. And that's what really distresses the fascist left, that Fox News offers facts and angles of stories that the party doesn't want known. 



> Surfing the Internet for news is about as reliable as listening to conversations overheard at the grocery store.



So about 5000 times more reliable than getting news from the leftist media, then?



> Editorial content and news is mixed together with no attempt to separate the two.



Generally, what you claim is false. Fox VERY clearly distinguishes editorial and news content. Hannity is commentary - no one but the left is confused by that. Of course MSNBC put that fucking goon Olbermann as their Anchor, but the left is sans integrity.



> The exception is the established news outlets, major networks and newspapers where they actually have journalists not just writers.



ROFL

The worst offender for editorializing on the front page is the leftist LA Times. 



> They have a name and reputation to protect, unlike many of the so called internet news organizational.



Yer killing me man...

{Rick Bragg, 43, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author for The New York Times, resigned on May 28, around controversial practices involving freelance reporters.

While Rick Bragg used his byline on a story written by freelancers, he told the Associated Press (AP) that the atmosphere at the Times had become torturous. The New York Times says it should have attributed the story byline to Rick Bragg and the freelancer on the scene. Jayson Blair But Rick Bragg told the AP it is common practice to leave freelancers out of print. It is impossible for a freelancer to get a byline at The New York Times, he said.

The freelancer, J. Wes Yoder, a recent college graduate wrote Rick Bragg's piece for free.

Jayson Blair, 27, resigned from The New York Times in April after the newspaper found fraud, plagiarism, and inaccuracies in 36 of 73 stories authored by Jayson Blair. Both incidents have The New York Times reviewing its editorial and hiring practices, and rethinking its use of freelancers.

According to Rick Bragg, he was intent on leaving The New York Times anyway, to fulfill two book contracts with Random House. Do you think he'll use the story J. Wes Yoder wrote for him? }

T&A: New York Times, Bragg, Blair, Yoder

The NY Times, all the fraud that serves the party...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> fuck you.



Exactly the level of intellectual response expected from a fascist leftist....

Y'all are stupid, but at least...

Um..

Uh.

Okay then, y'all are stupid, we can leave it at that...


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321, boedicca, Charles_Main, daveman, Dont Taz Me Bro, Dude111, FuelRod, JWBooth, manifold, midcan5, Missourian, Quantum Windbag, Ragnar, theDoctorisIn, Two Thumbs, Uncensored2008, Wonky Pundit

^ Intellectual winners!

At least this time around anyway.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Avatar4321, boedicca, Charles_Main, daveman, Dont Taz Me Bro, Dude111, FuelRod, JWBooth, manifold, midcan5, Missourian, Quantum Windbag, Ragnar, theDoctorisIn, Two Thumbs, Uncensored2008, Wonky Pundit
> 
> ^ Intellectual winners!
> 
> At least this time around anyway.



Don't worry. I won't let it go to me head. We all have lucky days


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

There are facts and there are lies.

Facts can be proven to be true.

For instance, it's a fact that Prosser choked his fellow judge Bradley. That's a fact. As it's provable to be either true or false.

An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.

You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.
*
Snap out of it!!!*


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

LOL, if some of you are so into this, the first person you can prosecute is BILLY BOY CLINTON. 


Some people and their dumb ideas, they say, the hell with our FREEDOMS OF SPEECH.


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > There's no good reason to vote yes that I can think of.
> ...



YEA!!  Even I get it!  And I'm not sure if I'm being insulted or not.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Obama has already given us a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea.

He has given us the euphamism "spending cuts in the tax code", which by all intellectually honest accounts means increases in tax revenues and not a 'cut' in spending at all.

You'd have a pundit on Fox News declaring: Obama's budget proposal does not include any spending cuts.

You'd have a pundit on MSNBC declaring:  Obama's budget proposal includes targeted spending cuts.

Two pundits declaring the exact opposite.  But which one gets fined I wonder?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



If he hasn't been convicted of assualt, you just commited slander, b/c it's not a fact, unless he confessed.  Until he confesses or is proven guilty, it's hearsay


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...



Be honest: you just took your cue from me.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and 

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> 
> 1. being lied to?
> 
> ...



The solution you proposed doesn't solve either one of these problems. That's why so many people voted no.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> 
> 1. being lied to?
> 
> ...



3. Your desire to silence Fox News isn't sufficient for most people to overturn the first amendment.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> 
> 1. being lied to?
> 
> ...



I voted no because the idea is fucking retarded.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


 
Is Rush Limbaugh on TV?

I think we can relegate the liars to talk radio.  Hell, getting the liars off the TV might actually make talk radio more competitive.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> ...


 
No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people.  That's called a defeatist attitide.  I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people.  I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme.  Just hitting people in the pocket book.  Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Yes, you suggested fining people.  And you clearly didn't give two seconds worth of consideration to the practical application of your suggestion nor the law of unintended consequences.

The idea is beyond imbecilic.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Is there ANYTHING some of you don't want to meddle in? Who is going to be the JUDGE AND JURY on whether what is said was a lie? Is is our fault some of you can't understand WHEN you are being lied to. Would you suggest we go back and fine BILL Clinton? stupid stupid idea, now carry on.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
There's nothing imbecilic about it at all.  A person who gets a show on TV talking about current events is merely contractually obligated to be factually accurate in what he says.  That means doing research and backing up one's claims with facts.  For everything else, a person could state something to the effect that "x" was his opinion.  If that person then makes a claim with he passes off as a fact, and it turns out to be untrue, he gets fined by his employer, and the fine (and what the fine is for) is noted at the beginning of a subsequent show.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
You ever hear of a fact checker?  Newspapers and magazines employ them, as do reputable book publishers and their authors.  I read once that George Will has one.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Steelplate said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Steelplate said:
> ...


Because it disseminates Unapproved Thought.  It exposes people to ideas dangerous to the Left.  It's a media outlet you don't control.  That's why you fear it, and that's why you hate it.


Steelplate said:


> I was just commenting on your stupid picture showing a Muslim protest with a line pointing directly at Progressives. I'm more afraid of right wing extremism than I am of Fox. You fuckers are radicals. The muslim Picture could easily represent the Tea Party with a simple change of the Text... and it would probably be more accurate.


That's because you're a fucking _idiot_.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.


 
I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



good gawd, you better RUN RIGHT OUT and arrest the BOY KING Obama. that man has told so MANY LIES on NATIONAL T.V., his nose goes like this..
and anyone tell you you would make a good little commie?


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...





So now you want Fox News to fine Sean Hannity for improving ratings?  

And if they don't want to, which of course they wouldn't, what then?

Do you even realize that your idea cannot be implemented without government oversight, which of course is exactly what makes it imbecilic.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.

Of course truth is subject to interpretation.  That's not even debatable.  Don't attempt it.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.
> ...



Then why do you have so much sand in your vagina?


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> 
> 1. being lied to?
> 
> ...


Will you support your idea if the GOP is in charge?


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Again:  Who decides what's a lie?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



they have the NERVE to tell the truth about the boyking and the Democrat party..


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...








This has been a public service message from USMB.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Obama has already given us a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea.
> 
> He has given us the euphamism "spending cuts in the tax code", which by all intellectually honest accounts means increases in tax revenues and not a 'cut' in spending at all.
> 
> ...




So Poontang,  who is lying in this example?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Thanks for droping the pretense of helping America out by fining liars.

Not that we didn't know this wasn't about shutting up conservatives.

but still, thanks.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.



But you're determined to make sure no one else does, either...


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Even midcan5 knows that this is a horrible idea.  That's midcan mother fucking FIVE man!  USMB's endless repository of other people's ultra-leftwing ideology.  Clearly Poontang has ventured off the talking point reservation with this tangent of lunacy.

But whatcha gonna do?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?

How the fuck can any American even consider that?

If you think a guy on TV is lying to you, change the fucking channel! 

 It's easy;

Pick up the remote
aim it at the TV
look for the chanel up/down buttons
put thumb on button
re-aim at tv
drink some beer
push button until you get to some cartoons
drink some more beer
take thumb off button
put remote down
drink some beer

Or do as my dad did and tell your kids to change the channel, while drinking a beer.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I love it when science proves people are idiots.



> [FONT=Myriad Roman, Arial, Helvetica, Sans-serif;]The  conventional explanation for controversy over climate change emphasizes  impediments to public understanding: Limited popular knowledge of  science, the inability of ordinary citizens to assess technical  information, and the resulting widespread use of unreliable cognitive  heuristics to assess risk. A large survey of U.S. adults (N = 1540)  found little support for this account. On the whole, the most  scientifically literate and numerate subjects were slightly less likely,  not more, to see climate change as a serious threat than the least  scientifically literate and numerate ones. More importantly, greater  scientific literacy and numeracy were associated with greater cultural  polarization: Respondents predisposed by their values to dismiss climate  change evidence became more dismissive, and those predisposed by their  values to credit such evidence more concerned, as science literacy and  numeracy increased. We suggest that this evidence reflects a conflict  between two levels of rationality: The individual level, which is  characterized by citizens effective use of their knowledge and  reasoning capacities to form risk perceptions that express their  cultural commitments; and the collective level, which is characterized  by citizens failure to converge on the best available scientific  evidence on how to promote their common welfare. Dispelling this,  tragedy of the risk-perception commons, we argue, should be understood  as the central aim of the science of science communication. [/FONT]



The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Culture Conflict, Rationality Conflict, and Climate Change by Dan Kahan, Maggie Wittlin, Ellen Peters, Paul Slovic, Lisa Ouellette, Donald Braman, Gregory Mandel :: SSRN

Look at that, not only does this prove that people believe different truths based on their political ideology, it proves that more education makes no difference at all in those beliefs.



MarcATL said:


> There are facts and there are lies.



And you are intellectually incapable of recognizing either because you believe what you believe, and reject everything else as a lie.



MarcATL said:


> Facts can be proven to be true.



Only if you are willing to listen.



MarcATL said:


> For instance, it's a fact that Prosser choked his fellow judge Bradley. That's a fact. As it's provable to be either true or false.



If it can be proven false it is not a fact.

But thanks for making my point for me.



MarcATL said:


> An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.
> 
> You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.



As opposed to you and your ilk that think things that can be proven to be false are facts?
*
*


MarcATL said:


> * Snap out of it!!!*



Lovely advice. I suggest you look in a mirror and yell it until the guy you see there recognizes reality.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
> 
> How the fuck can any American even consider that?



Because Fox News... FOX NEWS!


They MUST be silenced - for they fail to support Dear Leader as they should!


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
> ...



It can't be just that.

There's got to be a mental break down in a person that would seek out tyranny of any kind.

Even if they assume they will be in charge.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> 
> 1. being lied to?
> 
> ...



What I gather is that the people who voted no understand that:


It is better to be lied to than spoon fed the truth by some government agency.
They are smart enough to figure out without help what is true and what is a lie.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> It can't be just that.



I think it is just that, Mustang is obsessed with silencing the opposition, through any means necessary.



> There's got to be a mental break down in a person that would seek out tyranny of any kind.



Oh, I agree. However, the faction of the democratic party running the nation, absolutely does promote tyranny. (Yeah, I mean Obama.)


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> > Two Thumbs said:
> ...


Some people want to be subjects.  Fuck that.  I'm a citizen.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
> 
> How the fuck can any American even consider that?
> 
> ...


 
Freedom of speech is not some kind of absolute sacrosanct right that the term itself is somehow an excuse for unacceptable behavior.  There are all kinds of situations and places when and where a person can't say whatever he pleases.  That's just a fact, like it or not.  And as employees, TV personalities certainly aren't free to say whatever they want on the air, are they?  Can they talk disparingly about their bosses (even if what they say is true)? No!  Can the slander someone on air?  Yeah, if they want to get fired.  So, why is lying about public policy, or legislation, or anything else related to the operation of our gov't suddenly some kind of sacred cow?


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > It can't be just that.
> ...


 
I see your mistake.  I noticed it in the first two words of your post.  I would be exceedingly happy if both sides of the aisle had their little prevarication TV tap dance shut down.


----------



## Wonky Pundit (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Freedom of speech is not some kind of absolute sacrosanct right that the term itself is somehow an excuse for unacceptable behavior.  There are all kinds of situations and places when and where a person can't say whatever he pleases.  That's just a fact, like it or not.  And as employees, TV personalities certainly aren't free to say whatever they want on the air, are they?  Can they talk disparingly about their bosses (even if what they say is true)? No!  Can the slander someone on air?  Yeah, if they want to get fired.  So, why is lying about public policy, or legislation, or anything else related to the operation of our gov't suddenly some kind of sacred cow?



It isn't. People have been doing it from the beginning.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
> ...


Did you advocate this sort of fascist bullshit when Bush was President?


----------



## Two Thumbs (Jul 6, 2011)

As much as I miss my Dad, I'm glad he's not here to see how far his fellow Democrats of decended.



Mustang said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
> ...



B/c Freedom of Speech is the most sacred of cows.

I can't understand that this has to be explained.  How far off the rails of freedom does a person have to be that this has to be spelled out?

I'm not prepared for this.  Never in my life would I have thougt I would come across a situation where someone is demanding tyranny in America, b/c they think they are being lied to.

please tell me you are a 20 something.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
> ...



Actually, it is. You do not have any right not to be offended, nor do I have any right to silence your calls for censorship, even though they are more offensive than being lied to to me.

See how that works now?


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has already given us a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea.
> ...


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Yes. Facts can be proven. yet you still try to claim Glenn Beck is lying.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> What are we supposed to gather from the poll results.  Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> 
> 1. being lied to?
> 
> ...



Why wouldn't I be alright with freedom of speech? What do you have against it?

Are you seriously that intellectually lazy that you have to empower the government to help you figure out what the "truth" is by prosecuting those who you say are misleading people?


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > One thing I've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of BS in the world. It takes many forms. You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> ...


 
Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?

There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.



But then he would have to actually determine whether he is being lied to or not. That would involve thinking longer than the time it takes to form a kneejerk reaction. 

He doesnt want to do that. He wants the government to tell us everything. Its quite sad.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



And what if the factcheckers are lying? What if they have an agenda?

You want to empower buearcrats to be fact checkers when they get paid by politicians? Yeah that's not a recipe for corruption.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> I see your mistake.  I noticed it in the first two words of your post.  I would be exceedingly happy if both sides of the aisle had their little prevarication TV tap dance shut down.



Therein lies the rub..

That which contradicts the official position of the party will be called "lies" by you.  

In a free country, if you don't like it, don't watch it.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?
> 
> There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.



That's not a reading comprehension problem on the part of the forum.

It's an abject ignorance problem on the part of you.

WTF do you think is going to run it dumbass?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.
> ...



Amazing how you know that shows you dont watch are lying.

We certainly need to start fining those shows. I mean they have to be bad if you know they are lying without watching them.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has already given us a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea.
> ...



Still waiting for Poontang to give us a ruling on this one.

What do you think the odds of that happening are?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?
> ...



LOL, they haven't THOUGHT that far ahead. but hey, it sounded good for anyone who has a little fascist in them.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...




He posted earlier that the liar's employers would issue the fines.  Like that would actually work!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> Even midcan5 knows that this is a horrible idea.  That's midcan mother fucking FIVE man!  USMB's endless repository of other people's ultra-leftwing ideology.  Clearly Poontang has ventured off the talking point reservation with this tangent of lunacy.
> 
> But whatcha gonna do?



Scary that people actually want to try to silence us with government sanction. I never have understood why anyone would oppose free speech. I still don't know any geniune or reasonable argument for it. But there seems to be alot more people than I like who want to oppress others and eliminate our speech for their political gains and personal moral failings.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:
> ...


 
Another refugee from reading comprehension program, I see.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

I honestly don't know Mustang from Adam as this is the first time I recall ever reading anything he's posted.  I'm seriously hoping that we've all been had and this was just a goof on his part.  If that's the case then he would deserve a tip of the cap.  If not, wow, just fucking WOW!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> As much as I miss my Dad, I'm glad he's not here to see how far his fellow Democrats of decended.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I fear we will see more of this in days to come.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

Two Thumbs said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Exhibit A:

Your honor I present to you the first ideological radical RWer.

The subject believes that if someone were to say, choke them to death, got away with it, but someone else who saw it but couldn't prove it said that the choker did it but they weren't convicted in Court, then that statement would be hearsay.

I rest my case.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


Well, let's just read what you wrote, shall we?

...*should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV?* For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. *And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.*​1.  Who decides which claims are lies?

2.  Who levies the fines?

3.  Who enforces the no-appearance ban?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?
> 
> There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.



So exactly who do you think will be fining people if not the government?

You do realize that the government, whether State or Federal, is the only entity with the power to fine people right?

If private citizens and groups have the power to fine others, then I am hereby envoking my right to fine you for proposing such a ridiculous ideas. Please provide me with a check for $500.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Exhibit A:
> 
> Your honor I present to you the first ideological radical RWer.
> 
> ...


You're really not very good at this.  I suggest you stop.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> Well, let's just read what you wrote, shall we?
> 
> ...*should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV?* For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. *And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.*​1.  Who decides which claims are lies?
> 
> ...





Nice catch.  In the OP he suggests that the employer also be subject to the fine and then later says that the employer would be the one to issue the fines.

That's a backpedal fail if ever there was one!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Fool, there's only one truth.
> 
> Truth is not opinion.
> 
> ...



Good god but you're a fucking retard.


Seriously.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> I honestly don't know Mustang from Adam as this is the first time I recall ever reading anything he's posted. I'm seriously hoping that we've all been had and this was just a goof on his part. If that's the case then he would deserve a tip of the cap. If not, wow, just fucking WOW!


 
Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack.  The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."

It's "SHOULD fines be imposed..."  It's called a question.  That's why if followed by a question MARK, or didn't they teach that when you were in school?

I posed it as a debating question because I think it's a sad and bad thing that the media in this country has become a mockery of what it once was. Citizens who could once have a measure of trust in what was broadcast on TV are now routinely manipulated by multiple powerful forces which seem to have have far more interest in clouding the issues than they do in elucidating them.


----------



## manifold (Jul 6, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Fool, there's only one truth.
> ...




Ain't that the truth, although perhaps not quite a fact.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



Let's go with that definition then, I'll give you that.

Fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fact | Define Fact at Dictionary.com

That being said, there's only ONE truth.

It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.

The fact that many people seem to believe and/or be comfortable with two different realities aka truths, is evidence that they aren't based in reality themselves.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Good job.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Actually, Opinion can be truth.

For example, it's my opinion Eliminating free speech and empowering the government to fine/punish those who the politicians decide are "lying" is a stupid idea.

And it is a stupid idea.

Truth is things are they were, things as they are, and things as they will be. The problem is that men are imperfect, and dont see clearly so don't see the facts clearly. They can disagree and interpret facts differently without being untrue.

But you don't take that into account. You want to give the politicians and bueacrats a power that can easily be abused and misused to take out any of their political enemies. Not exactly a smart move there. I trust myself to determine whats true and whats false alot more than i trust some politician or bueacrat to exercise that power honestly.

Tyranny can only come about if we remain ignorant. And we will if any law like this was ever passed. It would silence speech faster than a donut would disappear in a police station.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack.  The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."
> 
> It's "SHOULD fines be imposed..."  It's called a question.  That's why if followed by a question MARK, or didn't they teach that when you were in school?
> 
> I posed it as a debating question because I think it's a sad and bad thing that the media in this country has become a mockery of what it once was. Citizens who could once have a measure of trust in what was broadcast on TV are now routinely manipulated by multiple powerful forces which seem to have have far more interest in clouding the issues than they do in elucidating them.



Are you bothering to follow your own posts. You're arguing for imposing fines on people. You're arguing for silencing people.

Yes. The title asks a question, but you picked a position and you are arguing with it.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

I hope you people who argue to be lied to also argue the EXACT same way for people who want to marry the same sex.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> I hope you people who argue to be lied to also argue the EXACT same way for people who want to marry the same sex.



We will most certainly argue for those who want to marry the same sex to have the freedom of speech to do so. Has anyone suggested otherwise?

See, unlike you we don't have a problem supporting the rights of people simply because we disagree with them.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> That being said, there's only ONE truth.



That which utterith from the mouth of Obama....



> It's not that person A has one truth, and person B has another. Truth = reality.



Perception equals reality.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > I hope you people who argue to be lied to also argue the EXACT same way for people who want to marry the same sex.
> ...



Uhm, yeah......riiiiiiight.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> neat idea but impossible to actually do


 
It's not impossible.  Touching your elbow to your nose is impossible.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > neat idea but impossible to actually do
> ...



not if your nose has been cut off from your body... or your arms.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

Plasmaball said:


> neat idea but impossible to actually do



Fining/punishing/prosecuting people for exercising their right to free speech is a neat idea?


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.
> ...



On the contrary.  For instance, I think it's the truth that you're an idiot.  I have evidence to back it up, too.

You do not agree, however.

So...we have two people with opposite views of the truthfulness of an assertion.

Do you really want the government to weigh in here?  What if they decide that you are indeed an idiot?


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

manifold said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's just read what you wrote, shall we?
> ...


He really hasn't given this much thought, nor is he likely to.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


Exhibit B:

Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.

See...?

I rest my case.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


Not at all.  As I said, I have evidence.  You have offered no conflicting evidence, either.


But let's try something else.  Did the stimulus succeed, or did it fail?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Again, opinions can be truth. And that's a fact.

Looks like you are disagreeing.

Wow you mean two people are disagreeing about whether this is true or not.

Kind of destroys your argument.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...



You are such a damn fool.

Listen fool, you saying "I have evidence" is not providing evidence.

What a fool!!!

Put up or shut up fool!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Exhibit B:
> 
> Your Honor, as you can see here the subject CLEARLY is flumoxed by what is truth from what is fact from what is opinion.



Assumes facts not in evidence and calls for speculation.

Dismissed.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


Okay.

The science is settled.  The debate is over.  You are indeed an idiot.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack. The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."
> ...


 
Nonsense.  This is a debating forum.  I argue that it could be done while other people say it can't be done or shouldn't be done.  

Additionally, the notion that people are someone "silenced" would tend to give the impression that they're not allowed to be speak some fundamental truth in much the way that the citizens of the Soviet Union were not allowed to speak the truth while the gov't controlled the TV stations and newspapers.  But preventing someone from misrepresenting truth across the public airwaves is not a form of censorship unless a person places a higher value on false propaganda than they do on honest discourse.  In such cases, anyone who defends broadcasting statements over the air that are factually untrue is someone who probably has a secret fondness for the old Soviet Union and WND both.  I don't like either one of them.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Why don't you answer these questions?


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > daveman said:
> ...


That's it....?

Really....?

Fool!!!


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Why don't you like science?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Why don't you like science?



Because science denies the idea of Obama as Messiah®, of course!


----------



## Iridescence (Jul 6, 2011)

The idea of individuals being held accountable for more of their words on open tv than not IS _very_ appealing. It could also prove far less worth saying...


----------



## idb (Jul 6, 2011)

Not quite what the OP was talking about I know but...a new law has been drafted here regarding celebrity endorsements of financial services.


> Celebrities who make misleading endorsements of finance companies will face hefty fines under laws being drafted by the Government.
> 
> Commerce Minister Simon Power has released further details of a major rewrite of securities law, including a liability regime under which anyone making misleading comments in a disclosure statement or advertisement for a financial product will be liable for a penalty of up to $1 million, plus compensation orders.
> 
> Companies would face fines of up to $5 million, as well as compensation.


Celebrity endorsements risk $1m fine - National - NZ Herald News

Quite why anyone would put all of their money into a finance company just because an ex-newsreader or sports star told them to is beyond me but anyway...


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



See?  I knew you'd disagree.  You don't even realize you're proving my larger point.

But that's because you are, like I said, an idiot.

Oh, and the link was to all of your posts.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

1melissa3 said:


> The idea of individuals being held accountable for more of their words on open tv than not IS _very_ appealing. It could also prove far less worth saying...



Television talking heads are accountable now.  They piss off their viewers, their ratings go down, and pretty soon, you're Keith Olbermann on the Global Warming's Gonna Kill Us All and Make Me Rich Network, somewhere way on up in the cable triple digits.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
I assume you're making an effort to be humorous?  Too bad that it only comes across as being obtuse.

I used to watch those shows once upon a time.  I just got sick of them.  The supposed purpose of the shows is to shed light on subjects.  All they end up doing is confusing people who are too ill-informed to know better, or cloud the issues with so much nonsense and disinformation as to make finding a kernel of truth tantamount to a scavenger hunt.  The only thing some of these so-called commentators manage to do is turn their forums into the verbal version of a WWE cage match with viewers rooting for some kind of rhetorica TKO.  Hell, I've seen better HS debates.  Our Democracy/Republic deserves better than verbal jousting which panders to the LCD while only clouding the issues.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...


Answer these questions, please.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

daveman said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...


 
1. Who decides which claims are lies?

2. Who levies the fines?

3. Who enforces the no-appearance ban? 

All the network stations would have to do is have a person or people affiliated with their shows who reviews statements of fact which are made by someone.  So, for example, if someone says that the unemployment rate in March of 1990 was x, that's a statement that is verifiable.  It wouldn't, as I said, be a question of lying as much as it would be about being factually accurate.  As the saying goes, everyone is entitled to their own opinions; they're not entitled to their own facts.  The bottom line is this:  If a person intends to go on a show and present statements as fact, they had better be factually true.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Did you miss the part where I provided a peer reviewed study about how truth is subjective to one's beliefs? If I present you with the fact that prove your worldview is wrong you will simply ignore them. Not your fault, simple human nature. Education only makes you more inclined to cling to your beliefs, which explains why many people can have a college degree and still believe that trickle down did not increase the relative wealth of the US. 

Truth is, and always will be, subjective.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

Avatar4321 said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...



Or your arm is broken.


----------



## daveman (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> > Mustang said:
> ...



Media already does their own fact-checking.  Sometimes they still get it wrong.  When they do, corrections are made in varying degrees of visibility.

This is much ado about nothing, really.  

And you didn't answer the second and third questions.  But don't bother, if your answers aren't going to be any better than the first.


----------



## Mustang (Jul 6, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


 
Belief and truth are sometimes, but not always, the same thing.  Believing something no more makes it true than disbelieving something makes it untrue.

None of that changes the definition of what constitutes a fact.  A fact is immutable, regardless of how people interpret it or what kind of meaning they attach to it.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Belief and truth are sometimes, but not always, the same thing.  Believing something no more makes it true than disbelieving something makes it untrue.
> 
> None of that changes the definition of what constitutes a fact.  A fact is immutable, regardless of how people interpret it or what kind of meaning they attach to it.



Thank you!!!!


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 6, 2011)

Jay Rosen has it right:

PressThink: What CNN Should Do With Itself in Prime-Time


A year old, but still correct.


----------



## saveliberty (Jul 6, 2011)

Media is almost incapable of discerning fact any more.  I just watched a commerical about the #1 new show on ABC.  Problem is, it hasn't aired yet.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

Mustang said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Since I called MarcATL on his definition of a fact you are lecturing the wrong person.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2011)

MarcATL said:


> Mustang said:
> 
> 
> > Belief and truth are sometimes, but not always, the same thing.  Believing something no more makes it true than disbelieving something makes it untrue.
> ...




You are thanking him for agreeing with me.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 7, 2011)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > You may not be able to manufacture news today, but you can certainly embellish it to the point that it has little resemblance to the truth.
> ...





> Perhaps, but that's irrelevant as there are dozens of other sources which offer the other side of the story.



IMHO, you will find the most unbiased news coming from news sources with the most  diverse audience. TV writers and commentators structure their material to please their audience.  Fox News has 3 times as many Republican viewers as Democrats.  MSNBC has twice as many Democrats as Republicans.  Too think that you will get objectivity from either of these news sources is ridiculous.  You can't take news written for the right and combine it with news written for left and come up with the real story.  Two lies never equal the truth.

http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/03/political-party-affiliation-varies-among-u-s-news-sites/


----------



## eots (Jul 7, 2011)

mustang said:


> one thing i've come to know over the years, is that there is a tremendous amount of bs in the world.  It takes many forms.  You can call it lying, dissembling, disinformation, prevarication, fabrication, deception, distortion, defamation, slander, deceit,...
> 
> Personally, i'm sick of it.  Most people won't put up with it in their real lives if and when they discover it.  They'll just toss it out of their lives even if it means ending the relationships with the people who are being dishonest with them.
> 
> ...



yet...you appear to be one of them... interesting


----------

