# Sen. Rockefeller: FCC Should Take FOX News, MSNBC Off Airwaves



## Stephanie (Nov 18, 2010)

All Hail our commie MASTERS.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwPkQ3jKWY[/ame]


comments at site.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



Absolute BULLSHIT. Until Fox showed up NONE of the news organizations cared one whit about a Conservative view and openly tailored their programs and reporting on the left end of the spectrum. Get rid of Fox and the rest will return to one sided reporting.

Unfucking believable that you dumb asses advocate censorship because you can not compete. Allow that and you can kiss a free press goodbye.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



what ever you say, comrade.
I suppose you would include, Jon Stewart, Colbert, SNL, etc etc?


----------



## Annie (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



So you are in favor of the government deciding what you may and may not watch?


----------



## judyd (Nov 18, 2010)

Does the FCC have jurisdiction over cable stations?  They do over broadcast stations, but cable is not using the airways.  That is why the quality of programming has gone downhill so much--you can use any language or show anything without the government getting involved.   So I don't believe they would have any say over political leaning stations.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...




Please.  Are you still living in a fantasy land where FOXNews is the only voice for conservatives in the media?  GMAFB

FOXNews and MSNBC have a vested interest in keeping Americans constantly outraged and keeping the partisan divide in this nation as wide as possible.  They are not the "free press" they are a perversion of what the free press once was.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Annie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



No.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



No.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



And yet you advocate that the Government should shut down stations you disagree with. Sure thing.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 18, 2010)

> FOXNews and MSNBC have a vested interest in keeping Americans constantly outraged and keeping the partisan divide in this nation as wide as possible.



yeah man, cause the American people are too stupid to make up their own minds to be "outraged"..they have to have news channel to tell them to be.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Advocate?  

I said the country would be better off without them.  I never said the government should shut them down.  Try some reading comprehension for a change.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> > FOXNews and MSNBC have a vested interest in keeping Americans constantly outraged and keeping the partisan divide in this nation as wide as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> yeah man, cause the American people are to stupid to make up their own minds to be "outraged"..they have to have news channel to tell them to be.



You are one naive little girl if you don't think that cable news and the 24 hours news cycle has had a dramatic effect on this country.


----------



## The T (Nov 18, 2010)

Senator Rokefeller? 

Shut the Hell up.


----------



## Stephanie (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > > FOXNews and MSNBC have a vested interest in keeping Americans constantly outraged and keeping the partisan divide in this nation as wide as possible.
> ...




I find that funny.


----------



## Annie (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Good. I would have been surprised by the other answer. 

I've noticed that the 24 hour news cycle isn't so much anymore. For the most part, they are into repeats from about 10pm CST. It's been ages, (thankfully), since I've seen them covering breaking stories during inconvenient hours.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



What a total fucking asshole.   I've read some seriously stupid things here but how is pumping out news 24/7 a hazard to America?


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



I will quote myself:



> FOXNews and MSNBC have a vested interest in keeping Americans constantly outraged and keeping the partisan divide in this nation as wide as possible.



Clear enough?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Nov 18, 2010)

Annie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



You give him to much credit. He stated for the record that he thinks it is bad for the Country and that we would be better off with out them. He is now going to play semantics and claim he does not want the Government to get rid of them.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Annie said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



That's mildly promising.  I have long since turned of cable "news" stations.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2010)

Maybe it's because I'm wired differently, but I always thought it curious that Gerald Ford had 2 assassination attempts on him including a women who pointed a large caliber gun at his head, while Nelson Rocky was his VP. Then, after the 2 failed assassination attempts, when he's only longer a 45 caliber bullet away from the Presidency, Rocky dies an embarrassingly public death in the arms of his mistress.  I'm not saying Rocky had a hand in the assassination attempts, oh no, but if he did, then his ending the way he did would seem like a nice balance to it.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm sure that Mark Lloyd et al at the FCC would love to shut down Fox News.... and if the price is MSNBC going off air, that's a price worth paying to them. Nobody watches MSNBC anyway - and there's a plethora of other media outlets to support the liberal agenda. 

"Nudged" much people? 

I do wish the left would stop trying to herd the country like fucking sheep.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I stand by what I said.  You can imagine what my position is all you want ... it's what you always do.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Yes, you're a fucking asshole on this topic and I didn't need it clarified.

The NYTimes and the entire LMSM have an agenda also, or didn't you notice


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



So does talk radio the the entire CMSM.  It doesn't change my opinion of what the 24 hour cable news stations bring to the table ... garbage.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



But, I assume you will defend their right to bring that garbage to the table. Right?


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



They certainly have the right to but it doesn't make them right or right for us.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

But to answer more directly, if I had a vote to shut them down it would be a "Nay."


----------



## California Girl (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Us? What? Did someone die and put you in charge of what other people are allowed to watch? 

It may come as a shock to you - as a lefty - but.... there is this technology whereby you can change a channel to find a station more suitable to your requirements. Use it. Stop trying to silence those whose opinions you disagree with.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Did you read my post earlier in the thread where I said I have long since changed the channel?

And as to your last line please read post #28 and take your foot out of your mouth.


----------



## California Girl (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> But to answer more directly, if I had a vote to shut them down it would be a "Nay."



Thank you for that small mercy. No one has the right to decide what is 'right' for other people. It's a major problem with the left.... y'all keep forgetting that fundamental issue.


----------



## Mad Scientist (Nov 18, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> All Hail our commie MASTERS.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwPkQ3jKWY
> comments at site.


The Rockefellers are members the Bilderburg group right? The Tri-Lateral Commission? The Council on Foreign Relations?

No agenda there.


----------



## Ravi (Nov 18, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


 I think you are bad for the country but have no desire to see the government do away with you.


----------



## WillowTree (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



Bullshit. Listen to the man. What he wants is less transpaancey and more secrecy to do "his dirty work". The less we the people know the better of we'll be says he. Bullshit.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

WillowTree said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



I didn't watch the video and I don't care what the Senator's reasons are for wanting to shut them down.  I have my own reasons for disliking their impact on our nation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



You support complete government control of media?

Why is it liberals, who are obviously communist at heart, always get upset when conservatives point this out? If you don't like Fox, or MSNBC, watch something else. I do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

judyd said:


> Does the FCC have jurisdiction over cable stations?  They do over broadcast stations, but cable is not using the airways.  That is why the quality of programming has gone downhill so much--you can use any language or show anything without the government getting involved.   So I don't believe they would have any say over political leaning stations.



In theory they have the same jurisdiction over cable they do over broadcast. They want to take control over the internet, and that certainly has nothing to do with their original charter.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > > FOXNews and MSNBC have a vested interest in keeping Americans constantly outraged and keeping the partisan divide in this nation as wide as possible.
> ...



Why is that bad? Do you think we were better off when a politician could do something and no one would hear about it for months because news traveled no faster than a walking man?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



In other words, no.


----------



## goldcatt (Nov 18, 2010)

I'm with Art on this one.

I hate what the 24-hour news cycle and the rise of partisan infotainment on tv, on radio, online and in print has done to both politics and the knowledge level of the average citizen. It's shameful.

But government has no place shutting any of them down. They're a scourge we'll just have to put up with until (and unless) the trend reverses itself and partisan hackery becomes unmarketable.

Now back to your regularly scheduled partisan bickering.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

Art is 100% correct.

And there seems to be a lot of people on here who are attributing positions to him which he did not advocate.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Obama knows best.  He has to protect his flock from unvarnished "news" from subersives


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


If you've changed the channel, then quit your bitchin'.

Your "liberal male feminine itch" flarin' up today?......Ya' seem to be a lil' irritated......Go apply the gynolotrimin and sooth the irritation.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Nov 18, 2010)

Another authoritarian decreeing his manifesto to all of us serfs.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 18, 2010)

Hey here's a radical fucking idea! 

If you don't like 24 hours news, don't fucking watch it!  Spend time doing something more useful like trying to suck your own dick!


----------



## judyd (Nov 18, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> judyd said:
> 
> 
> > Does the FCC have jurisdiction over cable stations?  They do over broadcast stations, but cable is not using the airways.  That is why the quality of programming has gone downhill so much--you can use any language or show anything without the government getting involved.   So I don't believe they would have any say over political leaning stations.
> ...


As I understand it, the only reason they had control over the airwaves was because they were the "public airwaves"--i.e., they belonged to the public.  For that reason they took control over the use of airwaves by radio and television broadcasters.  

Cable is not "public".  That is why I question that they have any control over programming at all.


----------



## Meister (Nov 18, 2010)

One problem a person has with any news outlet is its biased views, no matter which one a person watches.  I remember with one broadcast from Walter Cronkite the Viet Nam War came to an end.  Who's right, and who's wrong?  The problem I would find is who makes that decision.
Having said this, I for one, am against any newscast being 86'd.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Art is 100% correct.
> 
> And there seems to be a lot of people on here who are attributing positions to him which he did not advocate.



After reading about a politician calling for the FCC to take entire stations off the air because he does not like their content a normal persons first reaction should be "Fuck NO!", not "He has a point." That makes Art wrong, and you also, even if you could prove that the 24 hour news cycle makes us worse off, which you cannot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

judyd said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > judyd said:
> ...



I totally agree with you, but cable providers are required to give equal access to anyone who requests it. Try watching some public access channels if you want to live in horror, but don't say I didn't warn you.


----------



## LordBrownTrout (Nov 18, 2010)

The news channels have turned into a 24 hour cycle of pundit, op-ed, telling us how to think, bonanza.  I haven't watched the news in 10 years, prefer reading the internet and perusing over several articles on the same subject to formulate my opinion......however, I DO NOT AGREE with shutting down or stifling speech.....never.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Art is 100% correct.
> ...



No one said that Rockefeller had a point.

Art even said that he didn't even bother to watch the video. Neither did I. Art's point is a standalone one. And is correct.


----------



## Rozman (Nov 18, 2010)

Why not let the people decide what the deal is,I watch MSNBC just to see what the enemy is up to.I watch 
Fox to get the right's perspective which I feel reflects the way I feel about things.Whatever happened to our right to view or to listen to what we the people like.You don't like the show change it or shut the TV off.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 18, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



He agrees that those stations should be off the air, so do you, that means you both think that idiot has a point. Just because he is willing to use the government, and you claim you are not willing to, does not make you right. I think there are a bunch of idiots out there, but the fact is we are better off with them than without them. they keep idiots in the government from getting away with things like this, if nothing else.

That makes you, Art, and the Senator, wrong.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 18, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Which means that you think that keeping people divided by spreading lies and misinformation is a good thing.

Your choice I guess.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



The only idiot is you, Windbag.  You and your complete lack of reading comprehension.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



How about you go call some gay vets "dishonorable liars," tough guy?  You're a disgrace to the uniform, clown.


----------



## Trajan (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



and cbs abc nbc cnn don't? you really must be kidding.


----------



## Baruch Menachem (Nov 18, 2010)

Doesn't matter if it is equal opportunity tyranny.   No government official should be allowed to tell us what to think.   We can be as smart as Sheldon Cooper or as dumb as Rdean, that is our right.

the whole point to the US is we do our own thinking.   We may not all do it all that well, but freedom is what we are.


----------



## Shadow (Nov 18, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



He knows that,he is just throwing MSNBC under the bus to make it look more fair...when he offers up FOX


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



No, I'm not.  Those networks are not the same animal that FOXNews and MSNBC are.

_Sans_ CNN none of the networks you mentioned are 24 hours a day of partisan commentary/propaganda.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 18, 2010)

Shadow said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Another idiot who believes they are a mind reader.


----------



## Jeremy (Nov 18, 2010)

Fuck you Sen. Rockefeller!

How the hell am I supposed to get my live, high speed chase coverage?


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 18, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



Of course. It's the news stations. It's not the people and it's especially not the politicians.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Nov 18, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



Too much info. You are giving people different viewpoints. Confusing them and distracting them from what the elites want. Shame on you!


----------



## Tom Clancy (Nov 18, 2010)

While I despise pretty much every news station with a fucking passion, I still believe in Freedom of the Press.  


So.. this guy is obviously an idiot. But a smart idiot.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 19, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Reading comprehension definition according to Article 15.

Take anything said by me in context, unless it makes me look stupid, then you have to take it out of context, because I was not actually responding to what you think I was responding to, I was just throwing out a random thought that has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## hipeter924 (Nov 19, 2010)

Why ban anything, first amendment anyone?

If you don't like mainstream media, read a blog and read books, make your own opinions.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 19, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So yeah between this and your display of retardation in the pedo thread I'm now convinced you got aspergers or something of that nature.


----------



## Gatekeeper (Nov 19, 2010)

The T said:


> Senator Rokefeller?
> 
> Shut the Hell up.



I shall kick it up a notch.
Sen. Rockefeller.......!


----------



## The T (Nov 20, 2010)

Gatekeeper said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> > Senator Rokefeller?
> ...


 
Rocky's problem is that he doesn't want anyone informed to the shenanigans he and his fellow travelers are doing to this Republic. 
He is being totally disingenuous in what he stated.

Hopefully those in his district will wake up and vote his ass out of office.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 20, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



more derp from the mind of art 15


----------



## California Girl (Nov 20, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



See, I would agree with you on that... except I know CNN have a political agenda... They fired a friend of mine in the run up to the '08 election because, as a researcher, he had submitted information about Obama that CNN refused to run. To this day, I don't know what that information was, only that he said it negatively impacted Obama's campaign. The information was fully verified and.... more importantly (from my perspective) is that my friend was a supporter of Obama. 

That's why I have no respect for CNN.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 20, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


CNN ABC CBS NBC were all on board the obama train. Now nothing has changed the train still keeps moving along.


----------



## jeffrockit (Nov 23, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



'Right for us"? You speak ONLY for yourself, no one else.


----------



## jeffrockit (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



You seem to be unable to separate the opinion shows (O'Reilly, Hannity) and the news shows (Sheppard Smith, Chris Wallace). It is not a 24 hour opinion only channel.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Yes, "right for us" ... the whole country ... which is my opinion ... that they are bad for the country, our nation ... us.  Do you have any other tarded "points" to make or was that your wad you just blew?


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Okay ... you keep on believing that ...


----------



## jeffrockit (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Insults are all you have it seems. Again, you only speak for yourself.


----------



## jeffrockit (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I will as it is completely accurate. You care to show some proof that the news men, not the opinion guys, I mentioned do more that report factual news stories.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 24, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Art is 100% correct.
> 
> And there seems to be a lot of people on here who are attributing positions to him which he did not advocate.



Nothing new, really. It's the same people each time who are dishonestly and purposely trying to pull such stunts.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...



Ok so even if Shep and Wallace are "news" (I still lol @ the thought of it but whatev it's your dreamworld we are living in here ... and even still the "news" they choose to report and how they report it is blatantly biased ... look no further than how they framed Obama's children's book that had a section about Sitting Bull in it) that still makes the VAST majority of their air time dedicated to retarded partisan opinion and propaganda.  It's a partisan network that pumps out propaganda yes, 24/7 ... just like their liberal counterparts at MSNBC.


----------



## Modbert (Nov 24, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Hey here's a radical fucking idea!
> 
> If you don't like 24 hours news, don't fucking watch it!  Spend time doing something more useful like trying to suck your own dick!



Ah yes, if you disagree with something, simply have no opinion on it and ignore it. I'll remember that for other issues you find of vital importance. What's that? Don't like how the government is being run? Don't vote. What's that? Don't like the way the country is going? Stop posting on USMB and do something more constructive with your time instead of posting chain emails that get your panties in a bunch.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 24, 2010)

jeffrockit said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


Ya' need to understand.....These clowns had their assses handed to 'em in the last election........Their beloved Messiah is nothing more than a lame duck fool at this point...His abject failings, along with his fellow dems abject failings caused the recent slaughter.....The bots are all in a pissy mood, and are trying to do anything they can to deflect away from the fact that their heros in life are abject failures......In their loony liberal minds it's all the fault of evil FOX news....Surely, it had nothing to do with the FACT that they elected a bunch o' friggin' morons!

Just laugh at the fools.....works for me!


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> jeffrockit said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...




You're a moron.  I've been railing on FOX and MSNBC for years.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > jeffrockit said:
> ...


Why?......Who cares?.......You either watch the pundits or not........It's a free country, that's what makes us so great. 1st amendment right is a beautiful thing......It's as simple as turning the fucking channel if one doesn't like it......Obviously, that liberal idiot Rockefeller is a moron who can't fathom the use of a remote control.....But that's not surprising, seeing as though he's just a typical elitist fuck who never wiped his own ass.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



I've already stated why.  The rest of your rant has nothing to do with my point.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


You've stated nothing except for the fact that you want them off the air, and then back tracked and said you support their right to be on the air.

You're obviously confused.

Just turn the channel.......People in this country can decide for themselves if they want to watch or not.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



Then you clearly have a reading comprehension problem.  Work on that.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Think before you speak next time.....It might eliminate ya' having to back track in the future.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Wicked Jester said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Wicked Jester said:
> ...



I didn't backtrack.  People took my opinion that the country would be better off without them and ASSumed that it meant I was for the gov't shutting them down.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


Oh, ok....i'll take your word for it.....Too lazy to read through the entire thread.

I'm goin' to bed!


----------



## R.C. Christian (Nov 24, 2010)

The senator is a notorious antagonist when it comes to free speech because never before has the global community been more aware of the treachery inherent in the devious actions of human feces like Jay. He is quite frankly, scared, and for good reason.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



Oh look another idiot that hates free speech!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

judyd said:


> *Does the FCC have jurisdiction over cable stations?*  They do over broadcast stations, but cable is not using the airways.  That is why the quality of programming has gone downhill so much--you can use any language or show anything without the government getting involved.   So I don't believe they would have any say over political leaning stations.



No.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



Oh look another idiot who lacks simple reading comprehension!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I read everything correctly, even the part where you backtracked.  You say it's BAD for America but you wouldn't vote to eliminate it, so either you don't think it's all that bad or you don't give a shit about America.

Which is it and what do you have against free speech?


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



No, you obviously didn't or you wouldn't say I backtracked.  



> You say it's BAD for America but you wouldn't vote to eliminate it, so either you don't think it's all that bad or you don't give a shit about America.



Wow.  Solid "logic" there.  I think the way the Yankees operate is "bad" for baseball but I wouldn't vote to shut them down either.  

About now is the time where you should be figuring out that both positions aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.



> Which is it and what do you have against free speech?



Given your two moronic options, neither.  Nothing.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.

Kinda like the difference between professional boxing and wrestling.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.
> 
> Kinda like the difference between professional boxing and wrestling.



Let me get this straight. You want the government to determine who does, and does not, get to call themselves a news organization. Just how do you think this will be a good thing?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Did you not say "FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain. The country would be better off without them" ?

And didn't say that you "if I had a vote to shut them down it would be a "Nay." 

On one hand you say the country would be better off without them and on the other hand you say you wouldn't vote to  get rid of the very thing thast you claim is causing this country to spiral down the drain. 

So either you don't give a shit about this country or you don't actually believe the bullshit you spew.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.
> 
> Kinda like the difference between professional boxing and wrestling.



You dislike free speech as well huh?


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Let's try option C, brainiac ... I believe exactly what I said but I also understand that it isn't my place nor the government's to shut them down.  It's the whole "I may disagree with what you are saying but I would defend your right to say it," concept ... you know, free speech.  I don't know how much more American it gets than to hold contempt for something that is Constitutionally protected yet when blessed with the power to do away it choosing not to do so.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.
> ...



It probably would be complicated..and I have no idea how to implement it. I've had some pretty fierce discussions about this with my friends in the press. They are totally against it.

It might be something along the lines of strengthening defamation/slander laws.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.
> ...



I dislike lies and falsehoods.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Fair enough. But answer me this, what exactly is it about FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle that that makes you believe it is causing this country to spiral down the drain? And please be specific.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Then you must really dislike Obama.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Nope.

He's not as honest as Carter..but compared to Nixon, Reagan, BushI, BushII..the guy is practically a saint when it comes to truth telling.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



I said all I needed to say.  It basically boils down to their vested interest in widening the divide and keeping the outrage cranked up at all times.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Then you don't really dislike lies and falsehoods unless it comes from a Republican. Typical liberal hypocrite!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



So you can't give specifics. 

You concession is duly noted.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Please.  Just because I chose not answer you question in depth doesn't mean I concede anything.  It means I spent enough time spelling crap out to you.

Now go pat yourself on the back, Barry Horowitz.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



You haven't spelled anything out and there lies your entire problem. You made a claim that you cannot back up with specifics therefore you conceded the discussion. But hey don't sweat it, it's a common M.O. for you liberal pukes that I'm quite accustomed to.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Nixon broke into an opponents office:
Violated:


> Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Secretly bombed Cambodia and Laos:
Violated:


> Section 8 - Powers of Congress
> To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;



Reagan secretly sold weapons to Iran while supporting the Contras despite ratification of arms embargo against Iran and congress voting against funding the Contras:
Violated:


> Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto
> 
> All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
> 
> ...



Bush I lied about raising taxes during the campaign. (Full disclosure..I thought he was a pretty decent president)

Bush II lied about a whole lot of things..like invading Iraq. He also lied about getting warrants before implementing wiretaps. He also had secret prisons and lied about torture.

Violated:



> Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
> 
> ...



Like I said..I don't like lies.

I just don't sweat the small stuff.


----------



## Sarah G (Nov 24, 2010)

Maybe just Fox, I like MSNBC..

Not really, I don't want them off the air, maybe a fine for every proven false comment.  I'm certain Fox would be fined the most.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



If all the accusations you made were in fact true, then why wasn't those people prosecuted?


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Fallacy: False Dilemma


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I tried to help him out:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/congr...ox-news-msnbc-off-airwaves-8.html#post3013295


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.
> 
> Kinda like the difference between professional boxing and wrestling.



the government determing the news is probably the worst thing I ever heard. I would rather have hundreds of FOX and msnbc like channels before that


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



or he simply wouldn't vote for something unconstitutional, no matter how he feels on it. your logic is flawed


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be in favor of some bi-partisan assigned "News" licenses..where it's assured that the stories that get reported are true. Bias is one thing. Complete or Semi falsehoods are another entirely.
> ...


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



constant outrage over nothing, "mustard gate" is a great example, partisan nonsense 24/7, NOT covering things that actually matter while covering "entertainmnet" / reality tv and so on. I get better news about our country from BBC than I do any MSM here


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



you have completely lost it


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



If you actually believed that you could have said it in the first place. It was not until you were called on your willingness to let the government shut down news organizations that you tried to backtrack to your current position. Funny how almost everyone who reads this thread can take your words in context and reach the exact same conclusion. The only exceptions are those who started from the back of the thread.


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Sarah G said:


> Maybe just Fox, I like MSNBC..
> 
> Not really, I don't want them off the air, maybe a fine for every proven false comment.  I'm certain Fox would be fined the most.



msnbc would have gone out of business during their tea party coverage


----------



## blu (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



no you are just making a baseless assumption. all he said was that they are destructive, assuming that he would be for something unconstitutional to shut them down is a large leap of faith


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

blu said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Perhaps you should read your own link. Fact is dumbass 15 stated that Foxnews, MSNBC and the 24 hour news cylce is harming our country, but he wouldn't be willing to do anything about it. So therefore the logical conclusion can only be one of two things, either the harm isn't as great as he first percieved or he doesn't care enough about the harm he's alleging it's causing to cast a ballot to preserve this nation. 

Call it what you will, I call it as I see it and I see it as an asshole talking out of both sides of his mouth.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Why, they work as they are. Do you think it is better to have laws like they do in Germany where a person can sue even if you are telling the truth?

Perhaps the reason your friends are against this is it is something that this country has fought against from the beginning. If the government can regulate the press we will be no better than Russia under the communists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

Sallow said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Obama has ordered the military to target US citizens.

Obama gives order to kill American terror imam - Times Online

Doesn't that violate due process?


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 24, 2010)

Stephanie said:


> All Hail our commie MASTERS.
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhwPkQ3jKWY
> ...



I agree with what the Senator said 100%

Both corporations mentioned are far more interested in fear mongering and "spinning" than actually providing truth and information that is useful to debate.

Many forget that the airways are ours..not thiers..  It would serve the public if THEY remembered that also.

Since I do not watch either of these corporations blatherings I have no problem if thier liscences were terminated for doing more harm than good with the privilege they have abused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

blu said:


> no you are just making a baseless assumption. all he said was that they are destructive, assuming that he would be for something unconstitutional to shut them down is a large leap of faith



Baseless assumption?

The second post of the thread, right after the OP posted about Rockefeller calling for the FCC to take two news channels off the air, was this.



Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.



You can argue that I am making an assumption, but it is far from baseless. He could have easily reacted to the idea of the government shutting down the press it does not like if his first thought was to defend freedom of the press. His first thought was actually that this is a good idea because these channels are a big reason this country is spiraling down the drain.

I personally despise the KKK, and would have no real problem if every single one of them was beaten within an inch of his life. Despite that, my first reaction whenever anyone tries to shut them up is that they have a right to say whatever they want, and I will stand up and fight for that right, for them, and by extension, for you.

That was not Arts gut reaction, which tells me that he would have no problem with the government shutting them up. Even his attempt to backtrack is loaded with proof that he thinks it is a good idea. What kind of defense of free speech is I wouldn't vote for it? 

My assumptions are far from baseless.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Nov 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > All Hail our commie MASTERS.
> ...



The FCC cannot regulate cable TV dumbass!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > All Hail our commie MASTERS.
> ...



First off, they are ours, that's the point. Second, the government does not have the right to shut down the press because they do not like it. And third, and actually the only thing that really matters, these are cable channels, and thus do not need anyone's permission to broadcast. they do not go over the air, they go through cables. You have to pay for them to watch them at all, and no one is forcing you, or anyone else, to buy them.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> The only exceptions are those who started from the back of the thread.



And those with comprehension skills


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Oh yes they most certainly do.

The rules are much looser in regards to content (but there are still content rules), and they also enforces business rules in regards to cable companies.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Then I suggest they be regulated under the ricco act for conspiracy to commit a fraud(callling themselves "news").

And even anti trust laws could be applied as they have pushed out the transmission of local actual airways broadcasted news and programming.  

I get it...without your "fix" of Glenn beck to masterbate with and the EVIL Oberman to get mad at you hacks wouldn't have an idea in your pin heads.

I think a good public fraud case could be built with the Florida Supreme Court ruling in favor of "the right to lie" case as it's foundation.

OH FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T TAKE AWAY MY PRECIOUS FOX!!!!!  

How would the country EVER survive??????

You people are pathetic!


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> And third, and actually the only thing that really matters, these are cable channels, and thus do not need anyone's permission to broadcast.



Except, ya know, the FCC's.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



What a genius comeback, exactly what I would expect of you. Did you miss the fact that I am defending both Fox and MSNBC? Neither of which I watch, by the way. When I did watch either of these channels I spent more time watching MSNBC than Fox. If they both disappeared without government interferance I would have no porblem at all. There is actually a principal involved here, something that is beyond your comprehension.

BTW, NBC was the network that put a report they new was faked on the Dateline long before Fox News even had a single minute of air time. Lying in news programs seems to be a cherished tradition.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > And third, and actually the only thing that really matters, these are cable channels, and thus do not need anyone's permission to broadcast.
> ...



Except, you know, they do not broadcast, which was my point.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If they do not broadcast, then they don't need permission to broadcast?

Is this your point?

OK I guess 

The FCC still regulates cable companies, and must approve of their existence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 24, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Actually, they don't. They regulate cable providers, like Roadrunner and Comcast, but they do not regulate the channels. That is why HBO can show R-rated movies and CBS can get fined for a nipple flash that was so small and fast that no one can even prove what Janet Jackson had on.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Yes.

But then you have to dissemble this whole "War on Terror" and the notion of "Enemy Combatants".

Which I am in favor of doing..once and for all.


----------



## Sallow (Nov 24, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Nixon? Quit.

Reagan? Popular President.

Bush II? Popular President.

And Presidents don't get prosecuted..they get removed from office.


----------



## Article 15 (Nov 24, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Backtracking would involve me saying I was in favor of the gov't shutting down FOX and MSNBC in the first place.  I never did that and it's either dishonesty or a lack of reading comprehension skills on your part that is keeping you from processing that.  



> Funny how almost everyone who reads this thread can take your words in context and reach the exact same conclusion.



What's funny is that "everyone" means right wing hacks like you, Steph, and Lonestar who came that conclusion.  Take a good look at the company you are keeping.



> The only exceptions are those who started from the back of the thread.



You should really stop trying to read minds, dude.

Did it ever occur to you that the exceptions are those who actually read what I said clearly and didn't kneejerk into partisan hack mode?


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wrong-o.

They regulate both.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...




Where?

General Cable Television Industry and Regulation Information Fact Sheet


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 25, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





> FCC rules generally do not govern the selection of programming that is broadcast. The main exceptions are: restrictions on indecent programming, limits on the number of commercials aired during children's programming, and rules involving candidates for public office.





> The Commission enforces regulations that were designed to ensure competition among cable companies, satellite companies and other entities that offer video programming services to the general public.



Television and Cable FAQs


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 25, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Just because a crime has gone unpunished is certainly not proof there was no crime.

I believe that we protect our war criminals from prosecution because we have lowered ourselves to the level of the terrorists and would rather present a view to the rest of the world that "we are dumber and crazier than you are and we are the best armed nation on the planet..DON'T FUCK WITH US!!!"  Sorta why nice families keep a pitbull in the front yard.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Those are two separate set of rules, one that covers broadcast TV and radio stations, and one that covers cable and satellite providers. Neither of them covers licensing cable channels. As a matter of fact, cable providers are specifically required to provide access to public, educational, or governments, even if they do not have a license. This is why you can watch your local city council meetings, or, if you are in NYC, a bunch of idiots sitting around without any clothing talking about tea, or whatever they talk about.


----------



## rdean (Nov 25, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.
> ...



So the "conservative view" is one lie after another?  Hey, you want to go on a 200 million dollar a day trip?


----------



## rdean (Nov 25, 2010)

So I know that Fox lies.  You only have to go to Youtube, search "Fox lies",  and you can watch them endlessly.

What did MSNBC lie about?  Please add links.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Nov 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> So I know that Fox lies.  You only have to go to Youtube, search "Fox lies",  and you can watch them endlessly.
> 
> What did MSNBC lie about?  Please add links.


Seriously, do you really want to go there?.....Making an ass out of you yet again, for yet ANOTHER stupid statement by YOU is just too damn easy.

Go up on YOUTUBE and the lies from MSNBC are endless.

The apologies from Maddow, Olbermann, Shultz, Mathews, Brewer etc. are endless after they were forced to apologize after their ABJECT lies have been fully exposed.

Anybody remember the "white racist" who was carying a gun in the crowd at an Obama rally?........That one alone is friggin' classic.


LMAO!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 25, 2010)

rdean said:


> So I know that Fox lies.  You only have to go to Youtube, search "Fox lies",  and you can watch them endlessly.
> 
> What did MSNBC lie about?  Please add links.



http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=msnbc+lies&aq=f


----------



## hipeter924 (Nov 26, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > So I know that Fox lies.  You only have to go to Youtube, search "Fox lies",  and you can watch them endlessly.
> ...


They all lie, especially if it improves their ratings, as far as I can tell tv news is more about making a great piece of entertainment rather than earnestly telling the truth.


----------



## rdean (Nov 26, 2010)

So you guys show a black guy carrying a gun to a political rally and the proves MSNBC lied?
You guys are hilarious.  Let me tell you, a "real" lie is "Obama spent 200 million dollars a day on a state visit".  Or Obama wants to add in "death panels".  Those things are lies.  And I have a hundred more.


----------



## Full-Auto (Nov 26, 2010)

rdean said:


> So you guys show a black guy carrying a gun to a political rally and the proves MSNBC lied?
> You guys are hilarious.  Let me tell you, a "real" lie is "Obama spent 200 million dollars a day on a state visit".  Or Obama wants to add in "death panels".  Those things are lies.  And I have a hundred more.



Appearently you do not pay very good attention.

The death panels are alive. Or in Obamas case one man says you are to old.

We are letting the lobbyists write the regs.  Damn you repubs for opposing.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 26, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Of course it's two separate rules. Point is, there are still regulations governing cable television. Which proves that the "cable is not regulated by the FCC" argument is invalid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 26, 2010)

On this one, the far right weirdos have it right.  The government should not censor propaganda mills anymore than any other form of public speech.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 26, 2010)

hipeter924 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



I agree. I stopped trusting any news agency around the time I graduated from high school.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 26, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



If you look back through the thread you will see that I pointed out that the FCC does indeed regulate cable, and would love to regulate the cable channels themselves. My only beef is your insistence that cable channels need a license.


----------



## RadiomanATL (Nov 26, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I never said they needed a license. I said that the FCC must approve of their existence:



> REGISTRATION OF A CABLE SYSTEM
> 
> Before commencing operation, a cable system operator must send the following information to the Secretary of the Commission for each community to be served:
> 
> ...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 26, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> FOXNews, MSNBC, and the 24 hour news cycle are a big reason why this country is spiraling the drain.  The country would be better off without them.


Oh please. The alternative is keeping the American people in the dark while being fed propaganda from DC?
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What you are implying is "the actions of the people in the news are not the issue, The news sources reporting those actions area the problem."..
Yes, let's turn out the lights. In fatc let's repeal the Freedom of Information Act. Let's outlaw "sunshine provisions" and transparent government.
Open meetings? Fuck it. Get rid of that....

The USSR had TAAS. The official government news agency of the Soviet Union.
Is THAT what you want?
Now you're going to spout of about bias in news reporting. You're going to tell me FNC is biased conservative and MSNBC is biased Liberal. You'll try to convince me that the Alphabets are fair and balanced.
Don't bother because we both know that is a big steaming pile of bullshit.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Nov 26, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


Not at all happy with that pesky First amendment now that liberals are not the only ones with a voice. Sheesh.
Talk about pathetic.
Look, if you are more comfy with your news censored and sanitized by a dictatorship or totalitarian government, move the fuck out.
By the way, genius that is the RICO Act.
What Is the Rico Act?.....
United States Code: Title 18,CHAPTER 96&mdash;RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS | LII / Legal Information Institute

In order for the federal government to bring a RICO case, there has to be evidence....not a pissed off feeling of an ongoing criminal conspiracy.


----------



## rdean (Nov 26, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > So you guys show a black guy carrying a gun to a political rally and the proves MSNBC lied?
> ...



Death Panels are alive.  

Republican run Death Panels in Arizona.net

In Arizona, 98 low-income patients approved for organ transplants have been told they are no longer getting them because of state budget cuts. 

---------------------

These people could have been fundraising or something to help them get the money for their needed operations.  But they didn't because those operations had *already been approved*.

So Republican Death Panels stepped in and reneged.  Now, the majority of these people will probably die.

Remember when Alan Grayson said the Republican Health Care Plan was to "Die Quickly".  Seems it wasn't just a campaign slogan.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 27, 2010)

Both MSNBC and Fox News are opinion mills, and neither really serve the public interest well.  Knowledgeable adults know that, and if they are good parents, they will make sure their kids know that and help them to grow a skill in vetting information to be aware of and eliminate the taint.  Their people often accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing.  Simple, don''t trust an opinion mill to do more than mill opinion.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 27, 2010)

thereisnospoon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I support the first amendment until it is used as a shield to do intentional harm.  Words and video have a "pesky" way of being missused by criminals.  The fact that an enterprise is able "to sell it" is not relief from responsibility of doing harm.  

Since YOU seem to like the outrageous statement as the way to communicate your case I could use many examples of outrageous free speach to suppport my argument.  Child pornography in ANY form is illegal.  Why is that?  No one is FORCED to watch it or store it on thier TVO or computer.  It is totally possible to computer generate images of a 30 year old appearing man fucking a 5 year old child.  There are many sick individuals willing to pay for such images.  Of course that is an extreme example but since we are defining parameters of an arguement we can start somewhere in THAT vicinity because most of us and the existing law can agree that THAT form of free speach is unacceptable and work back towards what is acceptable or not and WHY we should draw any lines at all as to what "doing harm" really means.

BTW..I reject your inference that "anything goes" or HUGGY must leave the country.

Fraud is generally definded as tricking someone or a group of people out of money or property or legal rights by the use of words or images.  Why is fraud a crime?  No one is FORCED to be a victim of fraud.  One could easily in YOUR world just change the chanel or not pick up the telephone or not answer the door and all would be well.  And what about accidents like the Janet Jackson "nipple shot".  No one was harmed by the original split second view of Janets nipple.  I am in the camp that unintentional harm is not culpable.  

Fraud could also be viewed morally and legally as tricking someone or a group of people into believing something using words and images intentionally so they are willing to unwittingly become a participant in a fraud or some other crime.  On a small scale..Let's say just to illustrate a point that I wanted the property right next to your house but it is occupied by a decent family.  So..I go to you and convince you that the occupants have some deadly disease or that they are plotting to murder your family.  I offer no proof.  I just call you on the phone or tap into your tv cable and keep hammering that your neighbor is your enemy and a threat to your survival.  Eventually you act on this information and burn down your neighbors home.  Extreme example..sure.. That's YOUR cup of tea so that's where we need to go for demonstration purposes.  Now I can buy thier property burnt dirt cheap from thier insurance company at a quick claim sale.  

On a much grander stage we can or should all agree that outting a CIA operation tracking funding for WMDs is treason and definitely not acceptable.  So why is no one in prison for this clear act of sabotage?  Freedom of speach?  

I remember an America when such an action would lead to quick trials and executions.

I can continue but I would like you to digest this much.


----------



## Full-Auto (Nov 27, 2010)

rdean said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yes arizona cut back, just like the feds will.

Thats the part you dont get.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Both MSNBC and Fox News are opinion mills, and neither really serve the public interest well.  Knowledgeable adults know that, and if they are good parents, they will make sure their kids know that and help them to grow a skill in vetting information to be aware of and eliminate the taint.  Their people often accuse the other side of doing what they themselves are doing.  Simple, don''t trust an opinion mill to do more than mill opinion.



Why am I not surprised that the person who thinks a statist is anyone who disagrees with him approves of the government shutting down news and opinions?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 27, 2010)

QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> I support the first amendment until it is used as a shield to do intentional harm.  Words and video have a "pesky" way of being missused by criminals.  The fact that an enterprise is able "to sell it" is not relief from responsibility of doing harm.



Intentional harm? What intentional harm is MSNBC and Fox trying to lead  people into? Are they following you around, and controlling your  thoughts through the TV? Should we ban computers because they have a "pesky" way of being used by criminals to commit crimes?



HUGGY said:


> Since YOU seem to like the outrageous statement as the way to communicate your case I could use many examples of outrageous free speach to suppport my argument.  Child pornography in ANY form is illegal.  Why is that?  No one is FORCED to watch it or store it on thier TVO or computer.  It is totally possible to computer generate images of a 30 year old appearing man fucking a 5 year old child.  There are many sick individuals willing to pay for such images.  Of course that is an extreme example but since we are defining parameters of an arguement we can start somewhere in THAT vicinity because most of us and the existing law can agree that THAT form of free speach is unacceptable and work back towards what is acceptable or not and WHY we should draw any lines at all as to what "doing harm" really means.



Because there is no way to make child pornography without committing a criminal act. That is also why anime and computer generated child pornography has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court. I think that both explains the actual, and completely valid, reasoning behind child pornography laws, and your complete lack of understanding of the subject.



HUGGY said:


> BTW..I reject your inference that "anything goes" or HUGGY must leave the country.



So do I, but you are still free to leave.



HUGGY said:


> Fraud is generally definded as tricking someone or a group of people out of money or property or legal rights by the use of words or images.  Why is fraud a crime?  No one is FORCED to be a victim of fraud.  One could easily in YOUR world just change the chanel or not pick up the telephone or not answer the door and all would be well.  And what about accidents like the Janet Jackson "nipple shot".  No one was harmed by the original split second view of Janets nipple.  I am in the camp that unintentional harm is not culpable.



Because a bunch of people are too stupid to not get defrauded, and too immature to simply take it as a lesson learned. There are enough of these idiots that they managed to convince the powers that be that fraud should be a crime, even though no force is used.



HUGGY said:


> Fraud could also be viewed morally and legally as tricking someone or a group of people into believing something using words and images intentionally so they are willing to unwittingly become a participant in a fraud or some other crime.  On a small scale..Let's say just to illustrate a point that I wanted the property right next to your house but it is occupied by a decent family.  So..I go to you and convince you that the occupants have some deadly disease or that they are plotting to murder your family.  I offer no proof.  I just call you on the phone or tap into your tv cable and keep hammering that your neighbor is your enemy and a threat to your survival.  Eventually you act on this information and burn down your neighbors home.  Extreme example..sure.. That's YOUR cup of tea so that's where we need to go for demonstration purposes.  Now I can buy thier property burnt dirt cheap from thier insurance company at a quick claim sale.



That would be slander, which is illegal because you are using a lie with the intent to harm a person's reputation. That family could sue you and force you to stop saying those things, and get money for whatever damage they suffered as a result. They could also get punitive damages to make sure you never did that again. You would end up spending all the money you wanted to spend on their property, and get nothing in return, all without committing any fraud at all.



HUGGY said:


> On a much grander stage we can or should all agree that outting a CIA operation tracking funding for WMDs is treason and definitely not acceptable.  So why is no one in prison for this clear act of sabotage?  Freedom of speach?



We could also agree that the Earth is flat, it doesn't make it flat. 



> The Constitution of the United States, Art. III, defines treason against  the United States to consist only in levying war against them, or in  adhering to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort. This offense is  punished with death. By the same article of the Constitution, no person  shall be convicted of treason, unless on the testimony of two witnesses  to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.



Legal Definition of Treason

Exactly how does reporting this constitute treason? The person who told the reporters about it is guilty of some things, but it would be difficult to convict even him of treason.



HUGGY said:


> I remember an America when such an action would lead to quick trials and executions.
> 
> I can continue but I would like you to digest this much.



I remember an America where people were blacklisted because they refused to rat our there friends. It still disgusts me, and is still indigestible. You might want to go back to that, but the rest of us have grown up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?



How do you know I am not talking about you? Aren't you the one who calls people statists whenever they advocate for a smaller government, or did you get taken over by pod people recently?


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 27, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > I support the first amendment until it is used as a shield to do intentional harm.  Words and video have a "pesky" way of being missused by criminals.  The fact that an enterprise is able "to sell it" is not relief from responsibility of doing harm.
> ...



Well..I can say without arguement that you at least got your Avie name right.  That's a lot of hot air but not enough to raise your thoughts to a level of intelligent debate on my points.  I'm not going to go point by point because the only sliver of truth might be your addressing the Child porn example.  I am certain with todays technical capabiities the burden of proof could easily be met for a crime.   And what about child porn not produced here in the USA as in Denmark where it is legal to fuck a twelve year old prostitute.  As I mentioned there are probably ways to circumvent the law ...that does not make your arguement a "good" one.  

On all of the other gas you passed..FAIL!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 27, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > QWB, I know you aren't talking about me, so tell who are you talking about?
> ...



QWB, aren't you the one in the past who called me a statist and a liberal.? You were wrong about that, so you are going to try the other approach?  Either way, kiddo, you are wrong.

Walking it backwards, you will find that I don't like either MSNBC or Fox News, because they are opinion mills, but I don't think the government has the constitutional power to regulate their content based on opinion milling.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 27, 2010)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You called me a statist my first week here because I was advocating for the government to stay out of health care. You then argued that the government is required to provide health care. That makes you both a statist, and a liberal, whatever you think it means.


----------



## rdean (Nov 27, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



Because Republicans say we need tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires.  See?  I get it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 27, 2010)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Got it wrong, but you can look it up.  You really do have me mixed up with somebody else.


----------

