The Big Lie

[kaz]

It is not our people that are rioting and burning and looting and killing in the streets, for 4 and a half years and counting now.

Seems your side might be the hate side.

Still trying to conflate the recent race riots over police conduct with the Trumpyberra foul on his final "Hail Mary" pass. "Pence for the Win!".

Haven't race riots been happening at least as long as we've had peaceful transfers of power?

No, conflating the looting, rioting, fires and violence you supported with January 6 which we condemned the ones who went into the capital and those things didn't even happen.

You're a fascist and a racist. And looting and setting fires has nothing to do with race

Phony fucking Trumpters, reminds me of Jake!

You said you should only hear news you agree with. To hear multiple sides is scary and frankly dangerous. It's "faux" news for you to hear news you disagree with. Fox News presents more than one side. It has to be stopped.

You only want the leftist fascist and racist news. And yes, that makes you a fascist and a racist. You were totally clear about your standards. You agree with it or you demand to not hear it

Never said anything remotely like that.

Why do the rabid righties have to resort to shit like that?

Kaz "kazzes," i.e., lies. It's what he does. It's who he is.

And you're a little kid who posts like a little kid, read your post. One day you'll be all gwown up!

 

[kaz]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

And Breitbart and Faux would have to give equal time to Democrats.

(They'd implode in less than a week)

Leftists are on Fox all day now, there would be no change for them. I didn't know Breitbart had a TV or radio channel.

It's fake news that would be completely different if they had to allow differing views.

LOL, it always cracks me up how you think bias is presenting multiple sides, not just the one you agree with. You just hate Fox for doing that. OMG, they present multiple sides! That is scary ... and dangerous !!!

FOX doesn't present multiple sides. They occasionally have leftists on so the rest of the panel can mock and bully them, and lie about the stuff they're talking about, but no, FOX does not present both sides, and hard news reporters with any journalistic standards at all tend to leave, due to things like Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, the Seth Rich lies.

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Media and pop culture and the internet.

Your claim on the internet is especially silly, considering the abuses of youtube.


If there was such a market for left wing radio, why has it always failed?

It hasn't "always failed". When competing on an even playing field, head to head with conservative talk, liberal talk radio did just fine. You are aware that conservative media bought up all the radio stations and only put their voices on, right? This isn't news to you, correct?

How do you define, "just fine"?

And if it did so well, why were the owners willing to sell profitable businesses? Did the conservatives pay above market rates just to shut down a lib voice?

No, it was a deliberate strategy to spread "conservative values" in rural states. It looked like a business strategy - a chain of local radio stations in conservative markets,

Right wing talk radio demonizes the left. "Femi-nazi's, "commicrats", "snowflakes" and "welfare queens" are all right wing radio staples - and all are lies you take for granted. Just like the "War on Christmas", and other things that FOX uses to gin up the outrage machine, and show you how the left is out to destroy all you hold dear!!!

The Koch Brothers spent $50 million per general election, to elect Republicans all up and down the ballots, starting with the stage houses, but focusing on the Senate. The paid special attention to the Senate, which has held the Democratic agenda in check since Clinton was in power. The Koch Corporation seeks to sabotage changes labor and immigration laws, to get those tax cuts, and to keep Democrats from prosecuting employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Right wing media tells you the MSM is "biased", and not to believe them. So now you're convinced you can't trust either the MSM or the Democrats, you can only trust conservative sources, and conservative voices - all of which are bought and paid for by the billionaires who benefit most from a Republican administration.

The Republican Party no longer has any policies or platform, beyond cutting taxes and pretending to "enforce" immigration law by locking up refugees in for-profit prisons to benefit the for-profit prison companies, and to fool the gullible Republican voters into believing "Democrats want open borders".

What Democrats do, is to prosecute, convict and fine the Koch Company, Tyson Foods and other bigtime employers of illegals. They collect millions of dollars in fines from these big money corporations, instead of paying millions of dollars to chase refugees through the desert.

THAT's why the billionaire owners of right wing media keep lying to you. If they told you the truth, you'd never vote Republican.

Yes, George the Chinese Propagandist. Republicans go into rural areas and spread nonsense, like that we should have police and government spends too much money. It's just lies!

LOL. George is your name, disinformation is your game!

Thank you for proving my point. You've been told that Democrats want to "defund the police", which is another conservative lie. Or that Republicans oppose government spending.

Republican Administrations INVENTED the economic lie that they are the fiscally responsible party, all while Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump gave you the larges governments and the biggest deficits in federal government history, in successive administrations.

Republican voters can't seem to be able to connect the dots which run like this: Republican President cuts taxes first thing into his administration, and ballooning the deficit, and giving a temporary but short lived boost to job creation (via military spending) and GDP growth. Economy crashes before the end of their administration.

Democrats clean up the mess, restabilize the economy, only to have the next Republican President do it all over again.

Yes, the Republicans are going into Rural areas and spreading nonsense, because each of those low population areas has 2 Senators. You can control the Congressional agenda, by controlling the Senate. There are a lot fewer people to convince, and they all attend the same churches. If they turn on the radio, it's right wing hate, Sinclair is promoting the Republican Agenda via their network of local news stations, FOX is the national right wing mouthpiece.

On all media sources, Republican lies and propaganda is the ONLY thing they'll hear or see. Of course they believe it and will deny anyone who tries to tell them otherwise.

Fox doesn't present multiple sides? Have you ever watched Fox? There are leftists on almost every show. Chinese disinformation is all you have, George.

So do your masters really not care if you're that bad at it? Just curious

 

[BlindBoo]

It is not our people that are rioting and burning and looting and killing in the streets, for 4 and a half years and counting now.

Seems your side might be the hate side.

Still trying to conflate the recent race riots over police conduct with the Trumpyberra foul on his final "Hail Mary" pass. "Pence for the Win!".

Haven't race riots been happening at least as long as we've had peaceful transfers of power?

No, conflating the looting, rioting, fires and violence you supported with January 6 which we condemned the ones who went into the capital and those things didn't even happen.

You're a fascist and a racist. And looting and setting fires has nothing to do with race

Phony fucking Trumpters, reminds me of Jake!

You said you should only hear news you agree with. To hear multiple sides is scary and frankly dangerous. It's "faux" news for you to hear news you disagree with. Fox News presents more than one side. It has to be stopped.

You only want the leftist fascist and racist news. And yes, that makes you a fascist and a racist. You were totally clear about your standards. You agree with it or you demand to not hear it

Never said anything remotely like that.

Why do the rabid righties have to resort to shit like that?

You said exactly that. You keep calling Fox, the ONLY major network that presents multiple sides "faux" news. You are silent on Fake News who present only one distorted side, which is yours. The implication is obvious, you oppose presenting news you disagree with, even if it's with news you agree with

That is completely clear. Grow up

Faux News is not the only 24/7 outlet masquerading as News that in reality are mostly opinion shows. They're just best at it.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. (These Pseudo Conservatives have become so touchy these days)

 

[kaz]

You said you should only hear news you agree with. To hear multiple sides is scary and frankly dangerous. It's "faux" news for you to hear news you disagree with. Fox News presents more than one side. It has to be stopped.

You only want the leftist fascist and racist news. And yes, that makes you a fascist and a racist. You were totally clear about your standards. You agree with it or you demand to not hear it

Never said anything remotely like that.

Why do the rabid righties have to resort to shit like that?

You said exactly that. You keep calling Fox, the ONLY major network that presents multiple sides "faux" news. You are silent on Fake News who present only one distorted side, which is yours. The implication is obvious, you oppose presenting news you disagree with, even if it's with news you agree with

That is completely clear. Grow up

Faux News is not the only 24/7 outlet masquerading as News that in reality are mostly opinion shows. They're just best at it.

Sorry I hurt your feelings. (These Pseudo Conservatives have become so touchy these days)

LOL, hearing both sides just really gnaws at you. You just want to hear what you agree with.

So why don't you just watch fake news then? Obviously you do. So why are you worried about what other people watch. Democrats just can't live in a world where things you disagree with happen. You and religious zealots are essentially the same thing.

Conservative bigot: But there are people out there having gay sex, I know it! I want to stop it!

BlindBoob: But there are people out there saying things I disagree with, I know it! I want to stop it!

 

[Correll]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.

Or, even if the shareholders just don't give a shit. Point is, it's their money. If they want to invest in a company that promotes its political values, that's their right.

Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

Again, businesses can have other goals besides profit. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

i clearly said, "correct" in response to your last post. If they people doing that are clear with the shareholders, then yes, it is fine with me.

BUT, that is not what I am mostly seeing.

Why? Why do you think they have to be "clear with their shareholders"? As long as they're not outright lying, or committing fraud, why does it matter?

Because if the shareholders think that they are doing their normal job, ie trying to generate profits and/or dividends, and they are doing something else, without clearly letting the shareholders know,


they are indeed defrauding the shareholders, costing them money while advancing their political agenda.

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

Where, exactly, is it that you don't feel you have fair representation? You have ALL the radio stations (despite there absolutely being a demand for liberal talk radio) and you have more than a few television stations dedicated solely to spreading your propaganda. The internet is available to all equally. Where is it that your "voice" isn't being heard? No where. Empty whine.

Media and pop culture and the internet.

Your claim on the internet is especially silly, considering the abuses of youtube.


If there was such a market for left wing radio, why has it always failed?

It hasn't "always failed". When competing on an even playing field, head to head with conservative talk, liberal talk radio did just fine. You are aware that conservative media bought up all the radio stations and only put their voices on, right? This isn't news to you, correct?

How do you define, "just fine"?

And if it did so well, why were the owners willing to sell profitable businesses? Did the conservatives pay above market rates just to shut down a lib voice?

No, it was a deliberate strategy to spread "conservative values" in rural states. It looked like a business strategy - a chain of local radio stations in conservative markets,

Right wing talk radio demonizes the left. "Femi-nazi's, "commicrats", "snowflakes" and "welfare queens" are all right wing radio staples - and all are lies you take for granted. Just like the "War on Christmas", and other things that FOX uses to gin up the outrage machine, and show you how the left is out to destroy all you hold dear!!!

The Koch Brothers spent $50 million per general election, to elect Republicans all up and down the ballots, starting with the stage houses, but focusing on the Senate. The paid special attention to the Senate, which has held the Democratic agenda in check since Clinton was in power. The Koch Corporation seeks to sabotage changes labor and immigration laws, to get those tax cuts, and to keep Democrats from prosecuting employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Right wing media tells you the MSM is "biased", and not to believe them. So now you're convinced you can't trust either the MSM or the Democrats, you can only trust conservative sources, and conservative voices - all of which are bought and paid for by the billionaires who benefit most from a Republican administration.

The Republican Party no longer has any policies or platform, beyond cutting taxes and pretending to "enforce" immigration law by locking up refugees in for-profit prisons to benefit the for-profit prison companies, and to fool the gullible Republican voters into believing "Democrats want open borders".

What Democrats do, is to prosecute, convict and fine the Koch Company, Tyson Foods and other bigtime employers of illegals. They collect millions of dollars in fines from these big money corporations, instead of paying millions of dollars to chase refugees through the desert.

THAT's why the billionaire owners of right wing media keep lying to you. If they told you the truth, you'd never vote Republican.

Do you believe that Trump said that ws are "very fine people"?

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

It's hilarious how badly you children want that phrase to mean something else.

Sorry, kid. You're stuck with it. Everyone knows what The Big Lie is.

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted and brown shirt mobs operating in the streets.

The lies were allowed during the election season. It was only after Trumpybears failed "Hail Mary" Coup that drastic action was taken against him.

Still trying to conflate the Race Rioters with Hitler's well regulated Militia.

Your non sequitur response is noted.

My point stands.

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted and brown shirt mobs operating in the streets.

The mean by which the rabid right gets it's information has not been interrupted. Your Nazi conflation is lame.

The "rabid right" might have learned to ignore the propaganda spouted by people like you in the msm, but the tens of millions of more moderate voters, still think of you types as "people" and thus deserving of some level of credibility.


THis opened them up to your lies and misinformation and as your side's control is such that the vast majority of what they hear is teh same lies constantly bellowed,


they are not an informed electorate, but a MISINFORMED electorate.


And the election is thus not legitimate.

Especially when you add in the brownshirt mobs of your people killing and intimidating in the streets, literally and figuratively.

 

[Correll]

OX doesn't present multiple sides. They occasionally have leftists on so the rest of the panel can mock and bully them, and lie about the stuff they're talking about, but no, FOX does not present both sides,

All the shows I have seen on FOX, the hosts were always careful to let the liberal guests make their case and encouraged them to do so, and always tried to be reasonable civil, even when the libs in question were complete assholes.

 

[BlindBoo]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

It's hilarious how badly you children want that phrase to mean something else.

Sorry, kid. You're stuck with it. Everyone knows what The Big Lie is.

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted and brown shirt mobs operating in the streets.

The lies were allowed during the election season. It was only after Trumpybears failed "Hail Mary" Coup that drastic action was taken against him.

Still trying to conflate the Race Rioters with Hitler's well regulated Militia.

Your non sequitur response is noted.

My point stands.

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted and brown shirt mobs operating in the streets.

The mean by which the rabid right gets it's information has not been interrupted. Your Nazi conflation is lame.

The "rabid right" might have learned to ignore the propaganda spouted by people like you in the msm, but the tens of millions of more moderate voters, still think of you types as "people" and thus deserving of some level of credibility.


THis opened them up to your lies and misinformation and as your side's control is such that the vast majority of what they hear is teh same lies constantly bellowed,


they are not an informed electorate, but a MISINFORMED electorate.


And the election is thus not legitimate.

Especially when you add in the brownshirt mobs of your people killing and intimidating in the streets, literally and figuratively.

They "Might" have, but they didn't. They just turn to Faux News, and when they didn't like the truth about the election victory for Biden, they moved on to OAN and NewMaxine.

Speaking of misinformed, the pizza guy is here with your order!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was an abuse of government and a direct violation of the First Amendment. Most of what Trumpsters are clamoring for, regarding Trump's "revenge" on Big Tech, is the same.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

In all honesty, I would lead a movement to strip FOX News of its broadcast license on the grounds of lying to the American people - about nearly everything.

I would say that the American people are entitled to the truth and that propanganda outlets like FOX which promotes lies about Iraq War, Benghazi, Caravans, Seth Rich, the Russia Investigation, the findings in the Mueller Report, and now the results of the 2020 election,, are harming the American people by lying to them.

Just look at the number of retractions and law suits they've had to pay out on for libel and defamation.

The problem isn't Fox propagating lies, the problem is the weak minded, the intellectually lazy, the dullards and willfully ignorant believing those lies.

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

It's hilarious how badly you children want that phrase to mean something else.

Sorry, kid. You're stuck with it. Everyone knows what The Big Lie is.

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted and brown shirt mobs operating in the streets.

The lies were allowed during the election season. It was only after Trumpybears failed "Hail Mary" Coup that drastic action was taken against him.

Still trying to conflate the Race Rioters with Hitler's well regulated Militia.

Your non sequitur response is noted.

My point stands.

You can't have a free and fair election with the means of information corrupted and brown shirt mobs operating in the streets.

The mean by which the rabid right gets it's information has not been interrupted. Your Nazi conflation is lame.

The "rabid right" might have learned to ignore the propaganda spouted by people like you in the msm, but the tens of millions of more moderate voters, still think of you types as "people" and thus deserving of some level of credibility.


THis opened them up to your lies and misinformation and as your side's control is such that the vast majority of what they hear is teh same lies constantly bellowed,


they are not an informed electorate, but a MISINFORMED electorate.


And the election is thus not legitimate.

Especially when you add in the brownshirt mobs of your people killing and intimidating in the streets, literally and figuratively.

They "Might" have, but they didn't. They just turn to Faux News, and when they didn't like the truth about the election victory for Biden, they moved on to OAN and NewMaxine.

Speaking of misinformed, the pizza guy is here with your order!

That "might" was me agreeing with your previous point. One of them. Sort of.


You are so full of partisan hate that you can't accept me granting you a debating point.

 

[Lastamender]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was an abuse of government and a direct violation of the First Amendment. Most of what Trumpsters are clamoring for, regarding Trump's "revenge" on Big Tech, is the same.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

In all honesty, I would lead a movement to strip FOX News of its broadcast license on the grounds of lying to the American people - about nearly everything.

I would say that the American people are entitled to the truth and that propanganda outlets like FOX which promotes lies about Iraq War, Benghazi, Caravans, Seth Rich, the Russia Investigation, the findings in the Mueller Report, and now the results of the 2020 election,, are harming the American people by lying to them.

Just look at the number of retractions and law suits they've had to pay out on for libel and defamation.

The problem isn't Fox propagating lies, the problem is the weak minded, the intellectually lazy, the dullards and willfully ignorant believing those lies.

That sounds like your resume.

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

The "Fairness Doctrine" was an abuse of government and a direct violation of the First Amendment. Most of what Trumpsters are clamoring for, regarding Trump's "revenge" on Big Tech, is the same.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a…frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others…. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

In all honesty, I would lead a movement to strip FOX News of its broadcast license on the grounds of lying to the American people - about nearly everything.

I would say that the American people are entitled to the truth and that propanganda outlets like FOX which promotes lies about Iraq War, Benghazi, Caravans, Seth Rich, the Russia Investigation, the findings in the Mueller Report, and now the results of the 2020 election,, are harming the American people by lying to them.

Just look at the number of retractions and law suits they've had to pay out on for libel and defamation.

The problem isn't Fox propagating lies, the problem is the weak minded, the intellectually lazy, the dullards and willfully ignorant believing those lies.

Do you believe that President Trump stated that ws were "very fine people"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

More rightwing victimhood mentality and lies.

 

[dblack]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.

Or, even if the shareholders just don't give a shit. Point is, it's their money. If they want to invest in a company that promotes its political values, that's their right.

Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

Again, businesses can have other goals besides profit. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

i clearly said, "correct" in response to your last post. If they people doing that are clear with the shareholders, then yes, it is fine with me.

BUT, that is not what I am mostly seeing.

Why? Why do you think they have to be "clear with their shareholders"? As long as they're not outright lying, or committing fraud, why does it matter?

Because if the shareholders think that they are doing their normal job, ie trying to generate profits and/or dividends, and they are doing something else, without clearly letting the shareholders know,


they are indeed defrauding the shareholders, costing them money while advancing their political agenda.

I don't see how. Unless they lie outright - ie they do something different than what they say.

Let me ask you this: do you think people, or businesses, should be allowed to promote political causes they believe in? Should people, or businesses, be allowed to shun people, or businesses, that they disagree with?

 

[Correll]

This is not a conspiracy. These are things that have happened. THAT MAKES THEM FACTS.

Pollak: The Real 'Big Lie' Is That the 2020 Election Was Free and Fair

The real "Big Lie" is that the 2020 election was free and fair, when it was marred by rule changes, censorship, and political violence.

www.breitbart.com

At the same time, I noted, the 2020 presidential election violated internationally accepted criteria for a free and fair election. “Voters were denied the ‘absolute’ right to a secret ballot [through flawed vote-by-mail systems]. They were denied ‘equal opportunity of access to the media, particularly the mass communications media, in order to put forward their political views.’ They were denied ‘security with respect to their lives and property.’ And they were denied “freedom of movement, assembly, association and expression.’

Someone tell me that did not happen.

Maybe we should bring back the fairness doctrine.

Just to clarify, so you think the government should force left wing media to give equal time to Republicans? That's what you're saying?

The Fairness Doctrine never did that either. Broadcast networks had to give time for opposing opinions but not equal time. Possible when there were three networks, not today.

Fair enough, Republicans don't need equal time on left wing networks, just the ability to respond would do it.

So that's what you want, Sealy?

Yes. I would love Republicans to come on MSNBC at the end of a show and explain why Rachel Maddow is full of shit and I wish Randi Rhodes was allowed to go on for 4 hours right after Rush. She was just as popular as he was on the radio. In head to head markets, she beat Rush. But putting that liberal bullshit was not what the 6 corporations wanted. Instead they put a guy just like rush on after rush. Then another guy just like rush on after him. Brainwashing.

Yes, I would love one radio station that has Rush and Randi on it. Give her the shittiest hours of the day I'm sure but still I'm sure out of 24 hours she could get better ratings than whatever they have on at that shitty hour. But they'd rather not have her on and you know it.

There is no need for liberal talk radio. I find it hard to believe that her ratings were ever good.

They were. I loved Air America. Sad that it went out of business. The point is, whatever channel Rush was on, they have 24 hours to fill. It's obvious that there is a slow 4 hours during the night or day where a liberal talk show would get better ratings than whatever they have on now. Us liberals have no show to listen to. Trust me, there is a market out there.

But like Air America, whatever channel Rush was on, is a conservative radio channel. No question about it. It's not fair and balanced. Same with every show on Fox. You could say the same thing about MSNBC. It's got a liberal slant.

I would love a new channel that has liberal and conservative shows throughout the day. Whoever is number 1 gets the 8pm time slot.

Talk Radio flourished because it was a counter point to the conventional wisdom pushed by the MSM.

Liberals already get their voices "heard" in MSM, and pop culture.

THey have no need for a counter point.

Fuck that. I should have some political talk to listen to just like you do. There is a market for it but you're ok with the corporations controlling/censoring it because you're ok with censoring talk you don't like. I get it.

You're being lied to just like everyone else.

I didn't cancel her. I would be fine with you having such a show to listen to. I just don't see how it could survive as normal talk radio.


Maybe as satellite radio.

My point is that I don't see why there would be such a market and the failure of lib talk radio seems to support my view on it.

All you have to know is you always lose the popular vote so as far as the number of Democrats compared to Republicans, we win every time. There are more of us than there are of you.

But not a lot of us listen to liberal AM talk radio. Not like cons listened to Rush. And if you liked Rush that station gave you another guy just like rush right after rush, and another guy just like him right after him. If they were smart business people they would put Randi on.

Several of you have even admitted you listened to Randi Rhodes. You liked her. Not for the same reasons I liked her, but you liked her. Same way I don't like Rush the same way you guys do but I listened and liked Rush. He was the best con talker you had.

The radio station would rather lose money and keep brainwashing republicans. It's worth the loss of money they could be making by putting Thom Hartmann or Randi Rhodes on. They don't want fair and balanced. And yet you continue to believe the media is liberal.

Yea, only enough to piss you off. They pretend to be liberal to rile up the base. YOU

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

More rightwing victimhood mentality and lies.

Listen butthead. You have come to dominate certain fields and you are using that to your advantage.

We've noticed and we are commenting on it.

That you dismiss our complaints as "victimhood mentality" is you using the Logical Fallacy of Argument by Ridicule,


because you can't refute my point honestly or logically.


BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT IS TRUE.


Also, you are an asshole.

 

[Correll]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.

Or, even if the shareholders just don't give a shit. Point is, it's their money. If they want to invest in a company that promotes its political values, that's their right.

Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

Again, businesses can have other goals besides profit. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

i clearly said, "correct" in response to your last post. If they people doing that are clear with the shareholders, then yes, it is fine with me.

BUT, that is not what I am mostly seeing.

Why? Why do you think they have to be "clear with their shareholders"? As long as they're not outright lying, or committing fraud, why does it matter?

Because if the shareholders think that they are doing their normal job, ie trying to generate profits and/or dividends, and they are doing something else, without clearly letting the shareholders know,


they are indeed defrauding the shareholders, costing them money while advancing their political agenda.

I don't see how. Unless they lie outright - ie they do something different than what they say.

Let me ask you this: do you think people, or businesses, should be allowed to promote political causes they believe in? Should people, or businesses, be allowed to shun people, or businesses, that they disagree with?

You hire someone to do a job, like be an ceo, or a reporter, you are expecting them to do those jobs to the best of their abilities, to make you money.


IF, they instead operate in favor of a different goal, say to advance their political agenda, without telling you, that is, AT BEST, a lie of omission, because you would have been assuming they were going to do the job they were hired to do.


What part of this are you having a problem with?

 

[dblack]

In all honesty, I would lead a movement to strip FOX News of its broadcast license on the grounds of lying to the American people - about nearly everything.

Exactly. That's what bothers me so much about this issue. Basically, Trumpsters are agreeing with the core premise of statist liberals - that this is the sort of thing government should be dictating. The Ministry of Truth is coming.

 

[dblack]

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.

In what way is that not a free market?

THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

Again, how is it not free?

The free market would make the decisions based on what would generate profits.

Not necessarily. Free market participants can make decisions based on whatever they like. (that's the "free" part)

True.

IF the entity is a privately owned business and the business OWNER is the one making the call.


Beyond that, you got stockholders? Or even partners? Your ethical if not professional responsibility is to generate profits for them, not to play your partisan political games.

The stockholders and partners are the owners. And they're free to hire leaders that work toward other goals, if that's what they want.

....

Correct. IF that is what they want and that is what those people tell the shareholders that is what they are doing.

Or, even if the shareholders just don't give a shit. Point is, it's their money. If they want to invest in a company that promotes its political values, that's their right.

Mostly, I see people talking shit, and running companies into the ground, or at least, leaving huge sums on the table, that they could have had, while pursuing personal, partisan goals.

Again, businesses can have other goals besides profit. Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

i clearly said, "correct" in response to your last post. If they people doing that are clear with the shareholders, then yes, it is fine with me.

BUT, that is not what I am mostly seeing.

Why? Why do you think they have to be "clear with their shareholders"? As long as they're not outright lying, or committing fraud, why does it matter?

Because if the shareholders think that they are doing their normal job, ie trying to generate profits and/or dividends, and they are doing something else, without clearly letting the shareholders know,


they are indeed defrauding the shareholders, costing them money while advancing their political agenda.

I don't see how. Unless they lie outright - ie they do something different than what they say.

Let me ask you this: do you think people, or businesses, should be allowed to promote political causes they believe in? Should people, or businesses, be allowed to shun people, or businesses, that they disagree with?

You hire someone to do a job, like be an ceo, or a reporter, you are expecting them to do those jobs to the best of their abilities, to make you money.


IF, they instead operate in favor of a different goal, say to advance their political agenda, without telling you, that is, AT BEST, a lie of omission, because you would have been assuming they were going to do the job they were hired to do.


What part of this are you having a problem with?

The part where you want to use the government to bully businesses who won't accommodate Trumpster trolling.

 

[kaz]

YOu seem to be actively ignoring my point about how the mainstream media gives you lefties all the media you need, while for the right leaning consumers, it is does not.

Look who is crying over capitalism and the free market. (It's also an empty whine.) You have plenty of media catering just to you and only you. You have ALL the radio stations, you have at least three TV broadcast channels and the internet is open to all.

It is not the free market. It is liberals abusing their positions and putting politics ahead of their professional responsibilities.


AND regardless, my point stands. It creates an environment that constantly and overwhelmingly allows people like you to wallow in easy self validation, with your preconceived notions and prejudices CONSTANTLY reinforced and magnified right back at you.


THus, no real market for liberal talk radio.

That is why liberal talk radio has not worked.


Like I said, perhaps as satellite radio.

More rightwing victimhood mentality and lies.

Clayton the Blowhard: It's because he's black, it's because she's a woman, it's because he's Hispanic, it's because she's gay, it's because, it's because, it's because ...

Clayton the Blowhard: OMG, why are you so into victimhood ...

You liars are unbelievable. literally, I don't believe you ...