USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[gsleighter 0]

@Scubaman

We basically agree on all our sources, I just watch CNN, MSNBC, and CSPAN instead of Fox News.

High five for not just taking it all from one source, anyway.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to scubaman3D and billybob2002 and the aberant affiliate argument.

On the "right to lie" to America Fox's lawyers in general have actually stated that defense in court now on no less than 6 occasions.

Here is another case where the same defense was used by Fox Lawyers for Fox and Friends, so that you can see it is across the board in the Fox group and not just some aberant affiliate.

In this case Fox and Friends plagerised a satire and presented it as fact when all of the accusations were false. They were sued by the person they defamed and once again asscerted their "right to lie" in this case they additionaly argued they were stupid and failed to fact check but the key defense was the "right to lie" and that was what won the case.

http://outsidecablenews.blogsome.com/2008....ox-news

This link includes a video of the actual report that triggered the case.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060010

That case states the ruling more explicitly. Essentially the "right to lie" and suffer no consequences it is argued is a First Amendment Right.

On the matter of a general "right to lie" to America, in the case:

Quote[/b] ]STEVE WILSON and JANE AKRE, Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 98-2439 Div. D NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC. d/b/a WTVT-TV, A Florida corporation, Defendant

Amici Curiae or friend of the defendant briefs were filed to support FOX’s argument by the following media companies:

* Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.

* Cox Television Inc.

* Media General Operations, Inc.

* Belo Corporation.

* Gannett Co. Inc.

Google them to find out which media outlets they own.

Essentially they were all saying they wanted the same "right to lie to America" as Fox had asked for.

Kind regards walker

[scubaman3D 0]

@Scubaman

We basically agree on all our sources, I just watch CNN, MSNBC, and CSPAN instead of Fox News.

High five for not just taking it all from one source, anyway.

Hmm, this strange feeling I have right now...what is it?

Ahh, its agreement

Alright then. We agree.

@walker

Thanks you for taking the time to find that information. I will look at it but the thing is that I still stand by my argument, that you will be able to find lawsuits and allegations against any news network, not just Fox.

My theory on Fox is that a small, yet very vocal group of people have been active in trying to undermine their credibility because Fox presents opinions, which differ from their own.

Fox is one of the only news networks that will present news from the "conservative's" POV and is, as such, a target.

These same people want to enact something called the fairness doctrine, which is nothing more than state control over media.

The liberal side has had a monopoly on TV, theater, and film forever so the fairness doctrine could bite them in the ass but when you're talking about opinion, who decides what's "conservative" or "liberal". It will be the government (the FCC) - so the government will decide what the news networks can air.

I would rather tolerate an allegedly lying network than the alternative of a state-controlled medium.

[billybob2002 0]

Hi all

In reply to scubaman3D and billybob2002 and the aberant affiliate argument.

On the "right to lie" to America Fox's lawyers in general have actually stated that defense in court now on no less than 6 occasions.

Here is another case where the same defense was used by Fox Lawyers for Fox and Friends, so that you can see it is across the board in the Fox group and not just some aberant affiliate.

In this case Fox and Friends plagerised a satire and presented it as fact when all of the accusations were false. They were sued by the person they defamed and once again asscerted their "right to lie" in this case they additionaly argued they were stupid and failed to fact check but the key defense was the "right to lie" and that was what won the case.

http://outsidecablenews.blogsome.com/2008....ox-news

This link includes a video of the actual report that triggered the case.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200806060010

That case states the ruling more explicitly. Essentially the "right to lie" and suffer no consequences it is argued is a First Amendment Right.

On the matter of a general "right to lie" to America, in the case:

Quote[/b] ]STEVE WILSON and JANE AKRE, Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 98-2439 Div. D NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC. d/b/a WTVT-TV, A Florida corporation, Defendant

Amici Curiae or friend of the defendant briefs were filed to support FOX’s argument by the following media companies:

* Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc.

* Cox Television Inc.

* Media General Operations, Inc.

* Belo Corporation.

* Gannett Co. Inc.

Google them to find out which media outlets they own.

Essentially they were all saying they wanted the same "right to lie to America" as Fox had asked for.

Kind regards walker

You failed to read what was contained in the Media Matters (a liberal watchdog group) link:

Quote[/b] ]

In fact, the segment aired after Fox News' Vice President for News John Moody reportedly warned staff in January 2007 that "seeing an item on a website does not mean it is right. Nor does it mean it is ready for air on FNC."

Shoddy fact checking more so than they are lying on purpose (malice).

It wasn't "Fox" making that argument in the HGH case. It was New World Communications of Florida making that arugment. If "Fox" was making that argument, then CBS and NBC also support that because Balo owns CBS, Fox, ABC, and NBC affiliates.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to billybob2002

I pointed out that other companies had jumped on the "right to lie to America" bandwagon. So I am obviously aware of it. I would have thought you would be more concerned about Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. than the Belo Corporation.

That all media is biased and and on occasions subject to the law is I would say a given. And the old saying "Publish and be damned." is a worthy statement for both publisher and those who seek to curb their excesses. It enshrines the concept of the first amendment whether your protected by the law or not but it also means take your licks, or if can't do the time don't do the crime.

The problem is that this interpretation of the First Amendment, protecting as it does corporations and not people, drives a horse and cart through the concept of "Publish and be damned." and America's right to a press that is honest and truthful. That any free press should want it means that Fox and those corporations who submitted Amici Curiae briefs instead of performing their role as public guardian have taken up the role of the flimflam man.

That said only the Fox group have actually used the "right to lie" defense and as I pointed out they have utilised that defense on no less than six occasions in court and I gave two examples showing it was across the corporation.

You note that Fox and Friends also did not fact check and that was in their defense, I also pointed it out that it was actually used in the Fox and Friends defense BUT while the court castigated them for it it had no bearing on the case; in fact it would have been a slam dunk admission if it had, so quite the opposite affect to how you interpreted it.

They key factor is simply a corporation's, and it is only corporations "right to lie" defense under the first amendment as long as it is a stated policy of the corporation to lie to their audience.

In Reply to scubaman3D

Quote[/b] ]These same people want to enact something called the fairness doctrine, which is nothing more than state control over media.

The liberal side has had a monopoly on TV, theater, and film forever so the fairness doctrine could bite them in the ass but when you're talking about opinion, who decides what's "conservative" or "liberal". It will be the government (the FCC) - so the government will decide what the news networks can air.

I would rather tolerate an allegedly lying network than the alternative of a state-controlled medium.

If what you said was true, then no laws could exist; murder theft and rapine would be legal.

We are talking about a law passed by government but enforced by the courts. The courts should be independent of the government this is the basic separation of powers that an American learns in civics.

We are talking about a law that punishes you for presenting lies as facts and truth; nothing more, it is merely the re-establishment of "Publish and be Damned." There is nothing to stop you publishing.

Kind regards walker

[scubaman3D 0]

In Reply to scubaman3D

If what you said was true, then no laws could exist; murder theft and rapine would be legal.

That is a ridiculous argument.

Presenting news via opinion and omitting or twisting facts has no moral equivalency to rape and murder. If so, these alleged liars should be subject to capital punishment or life imprisonment - depending on the state.

That sounds more like tyranny than freedom.

You're acting as if Fox has a monopoly on lying and you still haven't given me a solid example of this or shown me that this is not the case for any other network or network affiliate.

So please don't use these lame straw-man arguments on me.

[walker 0]

In Reply to scubaman3D

If what you said was true, then no laws could exist; murder theft and rapine would be legal.

That is a ridiculous argument.

Presenting news via opinion and omitting or twisting facts has no moral equivalency to rape and murder. If so, these alleged liars should be subject to capital punishment or life imprisonment - depending on the state.  

That sounds more like tyranny than freedom.

You're acting as if Fox has a monopoly on lying and you still haven't given me a solid example of this or shown me that this is not the case for any other network or network affiliate.

So please don't use these lame straw-man arguments on me.

Hi all

In reply to scubaman3D.

Your argument is the straw-man.

The equivalency is in the commission of a crime, not in the punishment of it.

I presume you are for law and order.

Do we fail to punish thieves because they have not committed a genocide?

No we punish proportionally because they are thieves.

Ergo a corporation that lies should suffer the consequences. I truly believe in "Publish and be Damned!" they have right to publish it but they have right to be punished if they get it wrong.

The choice of punishment is while, guided by the government in the laws it enacts, at the discretion of the courts.

I am not acting as if Fox are the only ones lying. That all media or opinion, and I include mine and yours in this, is biased I have already stipulated and like you I read media from many sources; I agree it is ones best defense.

I stated clearly other news media corporations submitted Amici Curiae briefs, read last two post, especialy the last one in reply to billybob2002.

What is true is that Fox corporation was the first corporation to use the defense of a "right to lie" to America and is the only one to actually use the defense in court so far and they have stated the defense in court on six occasions and I have posted two examples to show it is not just an aberrant affiliate.

Those are just the Facts.

BUT

If a news media has a stated policy to lie to its audience and actually uses it as a defense in court I have the right to call them on it. That Fox is the only American media corporation to have enacted a policy of lying to its American audience is to the Fox corporations abiding shame.

I believe I have adequately defended calling it Faux News but I am happy to argue the point if you have additional evidence.

The current state of play

I do not think you have thoroughly thought out the consequences of this ruling.

If a corporation within America wishes to say that "You are a male prostitute and take drugs." whether it is true or not they can and you cannot do a thing about it.

Because that is exactly what has happened. No if buts or maybes. The case is there in Fox and Friends v. Leon Levesque. That is what happened.

I do not see why a corporation, and it is only corporations, who libels a person should be protected from the consequences.

But it is more than that.

A Corporation can now legally say "McCain burnt the flag"

A Corporation can now legally say "All Republicans are traitors"

A Corporation can now legally say "Tobacco is good for Republican children"

etc.

etc.

etc.

That is after all exactly what the case

Quote[/b] ]STEVE WILSON and JANE AKRE, Plaintiffs, v. CASE NO. 98-2439 Div. D NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC. d/b/a WTVT-TV, A Florida corporation, Defendant

was about. The right for Fox to alter a report about health risks of hormones in milk. And the courts accepted the truth of the original reports and that the Fox alterations at the insistense of Monsanto were worthy of a whistle-blowing case and Jane Akre won it, but the "right to lie" that the corporations won has trumped that.

Think about that:

The Right of a Corporation to lie to America now trumps the right of American's to hear the truth.

That is what has happened.

They can tell you lies and if you try to do something about it you are the one who looses out for that is exactly what happened in both cases. In both cases the plaintiff is out of pocket thousands of dollars. Essentially they were fined for telling the truth.

The freedom you call for, is not your freedom, it is a corporations freedom, and only a corporations freedom; a freedom to lie to you.

It is the freedom of a world turned upsidedown.

Welcome to your new "freedom" but it is not the freedom of the praries, I would submit it is the freedom to roam the sewers, enjoy your stay.

Kind Regards walker

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

11/09/01 turns 7 today...

Never forget!

. (silent post)

[scubaman3D 0]

In reply to scubaman3D.

Your argument is the straw-man.

Haven't checked this discussion in a while but wow walker...

Well in response, I'll first say no, you gave the straw man argument. There is no further point in arguing this any further, because I maintain that comparing a network affiliate twisting truths is in no way equivalent to rape or murder.

And second, I can take comfort in the fact that nobody, including myself, will have bothered to closely read your response. It appears to be editorialized regurgitation of the same controversy surrounding the Fox affiliate and, yet again, you can't provide evidence that these occurrences of alleged lying doesn't occur in the greater media.

I mean, for goodness sake man, you can find thousands of webpages alleging lies from CNN, MSNBC, BBC. You're taking one example of one affiliate and completely disqualifying the credibility of the entire network.

If this is the standard you use, you MUST reject all news from all networks. In most people's eyes, this might seem obtuse.

[.kju 3245]

Quote[/b] ]Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert

Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in

television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News

and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of

the public's right to know.

Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

http://www.outfoxed.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed

[froggyluv 2136]

Fox has always baffled me on why they are considered a 'News' show. I can certainly see a Leftist-slant on CNN minus Lou Dobbs and few others on their sister Headline, but Fox strikes me as unabashed Right-Wing propaganda. No compliment of a Democrat goes unchallenged and no compliment toward a Republican unchecked. I'm a registered Independent voter an I have to look for outside and International news to protect me from their diluted garbage.

Going to check out that video Q

[Balschoiw 0]

I´m following the US pre-elections quite closely as I´m interested if the US people will vote for another chimp-team again.

The interview with Palin where she got asked about the Bush doctrine made me fall off the chair. She doesn´t even know what the Bush doctrine is ? She proclaims a NATO war against Russia if Georgia joins the NATO right away and there are hostile acts from the russian side ? She´s one of those crackheads that still thinks that Iraq has planned the 9/11 attacks as she tells soldiers (including her very own son) to fight those in Iraq who are responsible for thousands of killed US citizens on 9/11.

To be honest for me she would match up best with GW on the same intellectual level or better grab a gun (she likes that so much) and go for a hunting run on not-endangered species (her own words) like the polar bears and educate her own daughter on conservative principles like not talking about sex

Seriously, she seems to be the female chimp version of GW.

Do the US people really need someone like her or wouldn´t it hurt to look for someone who´s a bit *cough* more informed and intelligent ?

Keep in mind that Mc Cain is in an age where death strikes sudden so Palin would take over in that case and do some really stupid things right away....

Do the US people really want that ?

Quote[/b] ]PALIN: We have to keep our eyes on Russia. Under the leadership there.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They're our next door neighbors. And you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska.

Good night US

[scubaman3D 0]

Fox has always baffled me on why they are considered a 'News' show.

Its just as much "news" as the other 24hr news networks are "news". Surely, you've never watched MSNBC. Its the liberal equivalent of FNC - but nobody is out there trying to shut them down or criticizing them to the extent FNC gets.

Look, I'm not here as a Fox cheerleader but I think refusing to admit that bias can just as easily be found on any other network is foolishness.

Its a double standard. Lets be fair, if Fox should be totally dismissed as a news network because of the opinions they air, then so should MSNBC and so should CNN "minus Dobbs", as you say. (Though I agree with you there, Dobbs criticizes equally the Democrats and Republicans)

[TFatseas 0]

The interview with Palin where she got asked about the Bush doctrine made me fall off the chair. She doesn´t even know what the Bush doctrine is ?

OP-ED piece from the man who coined the term.

Washinton Post

[froggyluv 2136]

Fox has always baffled me on why they are considered a 'News' show.

Its just as much "news" as the other 24hr news networks are "news". Surely, you've never watched MSNBC. Its the liberal equivalent of FNC - but nobody is out there trying to shut them down or criticizing them to the extent FNC gets.

Look, I'm not here as a Fox cheerleader but I think refusing to admit that bias can just as easily be found on any other network is foolishness.

Its a double standard. Lets be fair, if Fox should be totally dismissed as a news network because of the opinions they air, then so should MSNBC and so should CNN "minus Dobbs", as you say. (Though I agree with you there, Dobbs criticizes equally the Democrats and Republicans)

We don't have MSNBC here so I'll take your word for it. And I have to disagree with you on equating CNN bias with Fox's unadulterated propaganda. At least CNN when discussing a political point, generally has 2 Liberals and 2 Conservatives to duke it out. Fox, will have 4 conservatives to shake their heads or pat each other's backs. Sometimes they use that one Liberal who's got the public speaking power of a small mouse.

I just think it's funny when I hear Conservatives crying about the unfair treatment of the "Liberal Media Elite" when within 3 channels press of my TV remote I can hear Glenn Beck (Headline); Lou Dobbs (CNN) and Hanitty and Colmes (FOX) all decrying this. - Uhmm, you guys are the media  

Edit- I was wrong, the one Liberal on Fox, Charles Krauthammer, is actually a Neo-Conservative according to Wiki. I guess he's either just not as far-leaning Right or he's playing the 'Good Cop' role.

[scubaman3D 0]

The interview with Palin where she got asked about the Bush doctrine made me fall off the chair. She doesn´t even know what the Bush doctrine is ?

OP-ED piece from the man who coined the term.

Washinton Post

yeah, and just because you didn't know what the media calls "preemptive" strikes, colloquially, dosn't mean you don't know what the ideas behind it are.

Hell, I had no idea what "Bush Doctrine" is and I asked a more left leaning friend of mine if he knew, and he didn't.

[Balschoiw 0]

Imo a person running for the position of the vice president of the USA should know about essential political guidelines the current leadership is following and practising. Looking at the interview she had no clue at all about the Bush doctrine, none of the 4 meanings, she simply had no idea what the Bush doctrine could be. That´s too little knowledge for the position she´s running for imo.

[billybob2002 0]

She proclaims a NATO war against Russia if Georgia joins the NATO right away and there are hostile acts from the russian side ?

For the record, ABC News edited their interview with her. She didn't proclaim that there is going to be a NATO war right away.

Quote[/b] ]

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Also,

Quote[/b] ]

Palin: We cannot repeat the Cold War. We are thankful that, under Reagan, we won the Cold War, without a shot fired, also. We’ve learned lessons from that in our relationship with Russia, previously the Soviet Union.

We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Do the US people really want that ?

ABC News edited out what Gibson asked her after the land comment.

Quote[/b] ]

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

She talks about it more later on in the interview; however, that part was edited out too...

Quote[/b] ]

Palin: And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors. We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/ <---Transcript to the unedited interview.

Saint Obama's experience is very questionable and he is actually running for the presidency. Where is the moaning about his lack of experience?

[scubaman3D 0]

Imo a person running for the position of the vice president of the USA should know about essential political guidelines the current leadership is following and practising.

She knows what they are.

Excuse me, who did you say you are voting for in November?

[Scorpio 0]

Seriously, she seems to be the female chimp version of GW.

Do the US people really need someone like her or wouldn´t it hurt to look for someone who´s a bit *cough* more informed and intelligent ?

No, the voters will be distracted by her fabulous hair-do and her shiny expensive glasses, and will vote McCain-Palin in; that I will bet a month's salary on.

As for McCain, it never ceases to amaze me how Americans never learn. In words of Pat Buchanan, "McCain is Bush on steroids".

[froggyluv 2136]

All I know is as a small business owner, I made far more money during the 'Clinton years' than the current disaster. I may pay slightly more during Democratic administrations in tax, but the value of the dollar was much stronger and gas prices weren't thru the roof. The economy now is a joke.

As far as social issues I'm split down the middle having some liberal views and some very conservative. But I certainly don't want some moral demagogue's trying to legislate those social conservative views while often commiting those very offences on the slide.

[sparks50 0]

With all this talk about Obama, Mcain and Palin, I'm starting to wonder when they will find time to talk about voters issues, which is the whole goddamn point about a democracy in the first place

[scubaman3D 0]

Well froggy, would you agree that the current problem has mostly to do with low confidence in investments, caused by oil prices and the housing markets?

If so (like I think it is), then you should look at the reasons why these things happened.

Why hasn't the US built an oil platform or a nuclear powerplant in like 50 years? Why are we sitting on huge reserves of oil and coal and seem content to let our people and economy buckle under the preasure?

Who was it that forced mortgage banks into lending sub-prime loans to people unable to afford them?

I'll give you a hint. It wasn't Georgie or the vast Right Wing Conspiracy (RWC), to which I belong.

Now, I'll admit to you that the Republicans were not able to change the course of things before this happened, and I'm by no means a big fan of Bush, but these problems were a result of policies enacted before Bush took office. These aren't new - this has been in the works for years and years.

Anyways, these dosn't even sound like something a Republican would do...it sounds like something Democrats would do...think about it.

[-Snafu- 79]

I just came back from Boston a few days ago, did all the tourist things, mostly friendly people (except one tour operator who had a chip on his shoulder with the Brits and the Revolution, his knowledge was a total shambles, the twat) I loved Boston and all the other places in the US I have been.

Anyhoo I saw a bit of TV while I was there and the political ads and some "news reporters" were funny to watch. Here are some interesting ones:

Political Ads;

"Obama and his Liberal allies want to destroy your way of life"

"McCain doesn't know how to use a computer and can't send an e-mail."

LMFAO

The only thing those ads are good for is so the Candidates can slag each other off. It's ridiculous.

I also saw Michael Moore being interviewed at a "Bowlers for Obama" event. While I find him incredibly irritating like piles he has a few good points. However he falls flat on his face when he doesn't realise the Democrats and Republicans are not that different from each other. Blackwater may have risen during the Bush years but it was the Democrats that passed legislation allowing such PMC's to be formed.

Glenn Beck. Who gave that cunt a job? Making up crap on his show about "the brave few" Conservative Hollywood actors. WTF? Then the blatant lies espoused by him on GTAIV and how the "American way of life is under threat" by video games, music and film and another load of utter tosh like that.

[Staos 0]

What the US really needs is electoral reform. Imagine if we could get parties that actually talk about real issues in the white house, as opposed to who's hairdo looks the best or who's wearing a lapel pin and who isn't.

I personally would consider myself a fairly diehard libertarian, and I'll be voting for Bob Barr this year even though I know it won't make a bit of difference. I can't bring myself to vote for either of the candidates who actually have a snowball's chance in hell of winning. The old "turd sandwich vs. giant douche" phrase comes to mind.