Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about the Ministry of Truth?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?
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.
I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.
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?!?
No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.
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.
[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]
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!!!
Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?
How the fuck can any American even consider that?
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!
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?
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.
Some people want to be subjects. Fuck that. I'm a citizen.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!
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.
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.
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.)
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?
Did you advocate this sort of fascist bullshit when Bush was President?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.
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?
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.
Freedom of speech is not some kind of absolute sacrosanct right that the term itself is somehow an excuse for unacceptable behavior. actually, it is. 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! Yes. They just suffer the consequinces. Can the slander someone on air? There is a law for that, where the person still has to prove slander. 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?
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.
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?
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?
So Poontang, who is lying in this example?
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?!?
No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.
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!!!
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?
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.
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?
