MOAR Winning!!!

[T1R9sledder]

1 minute ago, Snoslinger said:

3/4 of the time I just let the senile bastard keep running his pie hole. trying to get any sense into him is useless.

Come on Slinger  that's not a nice thing to say about MC

[SSFB]

2 hours ago, DriftBusta said:

He's expressing his opinion.  I don't know what obtaining a broadcast license involves, but I'm pretty sure there are integrity clauses in them, that give expectations of honesty and some semblance of balance.  Journalism used to be about non bias, report facts, etc..  We know thats long gone, and what we have now is the culture war, with various media outlets using or abusing those licenses to pitch their agenda.  Let the truth win.

I think you're romanticizing the past.

If you read old stuff, people used to bitch about Walter Cronkite supposedly being a left wing hack. LBJ was convinced that the media organizations were controlled by Communists.

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

52 minutes ago, SSFB said:

I think you're romanticizing the past.

If you read old stuff, people used to bitch about Walter Cronkite supposedly being a left wing hack. LBJ was convinced that the media organizations were controlled by Communists.

Bingo. 

[SnowRider]

News Hour on PBS is real news as are many other sources.  However it seems when one does not agree with the facts it's now fake news.  And it's no surprise the forum dummies who fall for propaganda can not tell the difference.  Russia/Dump/Putin played the dummies in our country for fools. 

[xtralettucetomatoe580]

10 minutes ago, SnowRider said:

News Hour on PBS is real news as are many other sources.  However it seems when one does not agree with the facts it's now fake news.  And it's no surprise the forum dummies who fall for propaganda can not tell the difference.  Russia/Dump/Putin played the dummies in our country for fools. 

That’s the age we live in. Why consider it fact when someone can match your own beliefs with their own facts. Conway wasn’t far off when she talked about alternate facts. She’s a moron but that’s the way uninformed, low IQ, people think. 

[motonoggin]

7 minutes ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

That’s the age we live in. Why consider it fact when someone can match your own beliefs with their own facts. Conway wasn’t far off when she talked about alternate facts. She’s a moron but that’s the way uninformed, low IQ, people think. 

That's how most humans think. It's hard to change someone's mind with facts. 

Studies have shown that when someone is confronted with facts that disagree with their beliefs, they often just dig in and reject any new facts that challenge those beliefs. 

[Angry ginger]

4 hours ago, xtralettucetomatoe580 said:

He’s expressing his opinion when he says he is going to look into revoking a license? Oh tell more...

And to your same comment, is Fox at risk of losing their license as well then? Or does your partisan loophole theorem allow them to be circumvented. Smh, you have zero critical thinking skills.

sorry you are wrong,  Woolie has told us how his critical thinking skills have been finely honed over his 100 years of life experience

[Highmark]

22 hours ago, SSFB said:

Really?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/donald-trump-libel-laws-219866

 

He's been threatening private organizations since the campaign. 

 

 

Did you guys really think he wasn't going to use the bully pulpit like this?

Far cry from pulling broadcasting rights.

I think news organizations can be sued for slander and libel.  

[Zambroski]

4 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Far cry from pulling broadcasting rights.

I think news organizations can should be sued for slander and libel.  

 

[Highmark]

39 minutes ago, Zambroski said:

 

In all honesty the "press" gets away with too much shit today.  There has to be a line in the sand when it comes to the term "sources."  

[SSFB]

13 minutes ago, Highmark said:

In all honesty the "press" gets away with too much shit today.  There has to be a line in the sand when it comes to the term "sources."  

I'll take the media's unnamed sources over the President or Congress drawing that line. 

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, SSFB said:

I'll take the media's unnamed sources over the President or Congress drawing that line. 

Not sure I agree anymore.  In the 24 hr news cycle who has the larger platform to get their message out today?  As journalistic standards have went out the window so has the whole truth.  I'm not sure what the answer is and maybe social media is doing it for us but that has become increasingly dangerous for the truth as well.  

[SSFB]

2 minutes ago, Highmark said:

Not sure I agree anymore.  In the 24 hr news cycle who has the larger platform to get their message out today?  As journalistic standards have went out the window so has the whole truth.  I'm not sure what the answer is and maybe social media is doing it for us but that has become increasingly dangerous for the truth as well.  

And that's still better than a government deciding what's real and what's not based on their agenda. 

[Highmark]

6 minutes ago, SSFB said:

And that's still better than a government deciding what's real and what's not based on their agenda. 

I agree but I also think politicians should have the right to call them out on BS reporting.   It goes both ways and politicians are not the only ones with agenda's.  News media is nothing more than agenda driven corporations.  

Edited October 13, 2017 by Highmark

[SSFB]

Just now, Highmark said:

I agree but I also think politicians should have the right to call them out on BS reporting.   It goes both ways.  

Who's stopping them from calling them out? That's free speech at it's core.

[Highmark]

Just now, SSFB said:

Who's stopping them from calling them out? That's free speech at it's core.

People.....I mean the media are sure having a hard time with Trump finally calling them out.   

[SSFB]

Just now, Highmark said:

People.....I mean the media are sure having a hard time with Trump finally calling them out.   

Well they'll just have to grow a pair and live with it.

They make up bullshit, he makes up bullshit, they're meant for each other.

[Highmark]

1 minute ago, SSFB said:

Well they'll just have to grow a pair and live with it.

They make up bullshit, he makes up bullshit, they're meant for each other.

Can't argue with that.

[SSFB]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452623/trump-first-amendment-tweet-attacks-press-first-amendment-conservative-value-hypocrisy?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Timpf

Quote

Defense of the First Amendment is something that conservatives have traditionally bragged about.

The president of the United States thinks “it’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write,” and I think what’s “frankly disgusting” is how many conservatives are defending his comments.

As I stated in my column on Sunday — after President Trump said he wanted “equal time” given to his viewpoint on television programs — I do completely agree that the coverage of this president has been incomparably negative, and often unfairly so. There is a bias; there is a vendetta, and the mainstream media would never subject a liberal politician to this kind of scrutiny. I also, however, explained that none of this matters when it comes to the government’s role in the press. The most important purpose of the First Amendment is not protection against government punishment for political incorrectness, but protection against government punishment for saying negative things about the government. The press has a sacred duty as the Fourth Estate, and it’s the sacred duty of our elected officials to protect the press’s and all of our freedoms.

Now, I ended Sunday’s column by challenging President Trump to acknowledge that he understands this — that he does see the value in having a press that’s free to criticize the government, even if the coverage can be tough sometimes. And what has he done since then? Well, first, Trump took to Twitter to threaten NBC’s broadcast license. Then he said that it’s “frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write,” leaving me somewhere between too dumbfounded to speak and screaming for Jesus to take the wheel.

Mr. President: The immense freedom that this country grants to its press is not “disgusting”; it’s beautiful. One of the best things about this country is that our leaders have absolutely no say in our criticism of them, because it’s that freedom that keeps us free. Think about it: Here I am, writing a column criticizing the president, and yet I’m not going to get my head chopped off by the Gestapo! Other countries don’t have that; we do have that, and I’ll never, ever accept its being even slightly diminished . . . and you shouldn’t, either.

Of course, I do know that people are going to disagree with me. Somehow, many so-called conservatives are going to disagree with me. Actually, what many of them will probably do is write me off as an “anti-Trump libturd” who needs a safe space and a pussy hat because President Trump is Making America Great Again and snowflakes like me need to either get over it or move to Canada with Miley Cyrus and all of my other little pussy-hat-wearing, Hillary-loving friends. But the truth is, not liking this does not make me a liberal, turd or otherwise, and agreeing with President Trump here — regardless of the party he labels himself as being a part of — does not make you a conservative. I cannot believe I even have to write this, but “conservative” does not equal “agreeing with the president no matter what he says or does because he won as a Republican.” It’s about a certain set of values and principles, and one of those principles is an unwavering commitment to free speech as guaranteed under the United States Constitution, even and especially when that speech is something controversial.

Let me be clear: Calling for government control of the media is not a conservative view; it’s a fascist one. You’re fine to think that the government should control the media; you’re fine to espouse it — thanks, of course, to the First Amendment that you’re apparently totally fine with jeopardizing — but please understand that this idea is not compatible with conservative, or even traditionally American, values.

Honestly, it’s making me so sick to see how many conservatives are bending over backwards trying to defend these kinds of comments. They’ll say: “But the media lie! Shouldn’t they be punished for their lies?” Okay, a few things about that. First of all, although the mainstream media are biased, and although journalists have incorrectly reported some things surrounding this administration, President Trump has a penchant for flippantly calling any news he does not like (true or not!) “fake.” Second of all, President Trump himself has lied, misreported, or misrepresented information countless times. Do you think he should be punished, too? Oh, and then there’s this question: Have any media outlets that you do like ever made mistakes or shown a bias? Do you really want to risk putting those outlets in jeopardy by allowing the government to create these kinds of policies, knowing full well that future administrations — potentially, administrations you may not align yourself with — will be able to use those tools as well? Think!

I’ve also, of course, seen this: “But it’s the Left that hates free speech! Look at those Antifa thugs trying to shut down speech in Berkeley!” and I have a few things to say about that one, too. First of all, what Antifa did in Berkeley is an unacceptable threat to speech, but Antifa did not take an oath on inauguration day vowing to protect our freedoms, so I think that probably we can hold the person who did do so to a little higher standard than those loons. Second — and this is a real humdinger — it is totally possible to disagree with Antifa violence and the president’s comments. It’s called being f&*$%+@ ideologically consistent, and I literally cannot believe that that is some kind of radical concept to so many people whom I know know better.

Calling for government control of the media is not a conservative view. If, in 2013 when the Edward Snowden leaks were being reported, you were saying, “The media have a right to publish leaked information! The public deserves the truth!” and now you find yourself cheering when Jeff Sessions threatens to send reporters who publish leaked information to jail, then you need to take a long, hard look at yourself. Seriously, try it. Look in the mirror and say: “It’s 2012. President Obama just threatened to revoke the license of Fox News Channel, and I am totally okay with that,” and see how it feels.

Please note that I’m not saying this as an employee of NBC or of any of the networks that President Trump is threatening. I’m a capitalist; I hate Obamacare; I’m a Second Amendment defender. I’m also, however, a First Amendment defender, and I know that defense of the First Amendment is something that conservatives have traditionally bragged about — and I’m tired of seeing so many giving this up.

I’ve had it with this political climate. Not only because it’s disgusting, but also because it’s intellectually cheap. Too many today believe that, if you support and defend the free press, you’re not pro-1A, you’re anti-Trump. If you support gun rights, you’re not pro-2A, you’re pro-Trump. If you support privacy rights, you’re not pro-4A, you’re just either pro- or anti-Trump depending on what the leaks are revealing. How are so many people, on both sides, centering their entire identity on the whims of an administration? What good does this kind of base, childish rhetoric do for any single one of us? We’re all better than this; we’re smarter than this, and we had better get it together before it’s too late.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/452623/trump-first-amendment-tweet-attacks-press-first-amendment-conservative-value-hypocrisy?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Timpf