PDA

View Full Version : What would you say about the media...


Fast_Eddie
11-13-2009, 12:12 AM
You know, you guys are right. You keep telling me that the media can't be trusted. Why, I never would have believed it unless I had seen it with my own two eyes.

While covering a major news event, one of the news networks actually used footage of A DIFFERENT EVENT to make it look as if more people had attended than actually did!

Anyone else find this absolutely unacceptable? Why, when Dan Rather did something much less obviously manufactured he lost his job. Does anyone think the people who did this should be fired?

Oh, by the way, it was FOX News. You guys still drinkin' the Kool Aid? Seriously, how far do they have to go before you say "yeah, that's a bit too much"?

Oh, and who reported it? Your favorite reporter!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-november-10-2009/sean-hannity-uses-glenn-beck-s-protest-footage

JJIII
11-13-2009, 05:46 AM
Busted! :eek: :mad:

d-ray657
11-13-2009, 06:11 AM
Fox Fiction.

Regards,

D-Ray

Grumpy
11-13-2009, 06:28 AM
I don't have a favorite reporter nor network.

noonereal
11-13-2009, 06:36 AM
We need to legislate truth in news.


(just like we had to legislate safety in the work place or corporate responsibility)

d-ray657
11-13-2009, 06:54 AM
When did we legislate corporate responsibility.

While I understand your frustration with the news, I do not want to give those in power the opportunity to use the coercive power of the government the opporttunity to define the truth.

Regards,

D-Ray

Charles
11-13-2009, 06:59 AM
And Hannity admitted on air to his mistake.

While using a file video clip is disingenuous, it's not quite the same as manufacturing a fake document.

Chas

Grumpy
11-13-2009, 07:15 AM
We need to legislate truth in news.


(just like we had to legislate safety in the work place or corporate responsibility)


Your advocating state run news agencies ?

noonereal
11-13-2009, 07:21 AM
Your advocating state run news agencies ?

nope

I am advocating legislating truth in news.

Labels things honestly. If it is news it is honest. If it is labeled commentary anything goes. No different than what we do with the food we eat. We label it so we know what is what.

noonereal
11-13-2009, 07:26 AM
When did we legislate corporate responsibility.

While I understand your frustration with the news, I do not want to give those in power the opportunity to use the coercive power of the government the opporttunity to define the truth.

Regards,

D-Ray

I have spoken to this and insisting on truth has nothing to do with giving the government any power over it. That's silly.
Are you advocating repealing the perjury charges if you lie under oath?
same thing.
This argument holds no water.

noonereal
11-13-2009, 07:27 AM
And Hannity admitted on air to his mistake.

While using a file video clip is disingenuous, it's not quite the same as manufacturing a fake document.

Chas

Not at all.

Like with any laws we can take into account circumstance, intent and responsibility.

d-ray657
11-13-2009, 07:56 AM
I have spoken to this and insisting on truth has nothing to do with giving the government any power over it. That's silly.
Are you advocating repealing the perjury charges if you lie under oath?
same thing.
This argument holds no water.

The analogy does not fit. I have explained this before. Prosecution for perjury has a limited application to statements made under oath. Most situations when people are placed under oath there is a ceremonial solemnity to the occasion. Courtrooms are often impressive august rooms that emphasize the importance of the events occurring within. In almost all trials someone is determined to be right and others determined to be wrong. That means the jury has rejected some things that were stated under oath. Nevertheless perjury is rarely charged. The nuances of intent, perception, and perspective make proof of intent difficult.

News reporting is done quickly, without the opportunity to research and examine everything that occurs before a trial. Reporting is not given under oath. Moreover, the testimony given in a courtroom will generally involve a specific set of circumstances that relate to a personal or business dispute. News reporting, however, involves identifying matters of interest to the public, controversial matters about which there is a great deal of dispute. The determination about which news to devote airtime to is a judgment call. News reporting can also involve revealing facts about public officials or power brokers that are not favorable to their positions. Such people would have the incentive, the influence and the access to information to take action against one who has reported on a controversial issue. That power would have a chilling effect on the dissemination of information about critical matters of public concern.

There is no parallel between the use of perjury to prosecute lies intentionally told while under oath, under solemn circumstances, with prosecution of individuals who are trying to report information about matters of public concern. The legislation you advocate is not only bad public policy, it would cause the chilling effect on free speech that violates the First Amendment.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
11-13-2009, 08:02 AM
With all respect D-Ray, this is America. If we want to do something we can do it. To say that there is no way to get truth in news is to say I have no desire to have truth in news. You have every right to feel this way but I choose not to. I prefer my fellow Americans and I base our decisions on facts and not blatant biased lies.

d-ray657
11-13-2009, 08:26 AM
With all respect D-Ray, this is America. If we want to do something we can do it. To say that there is no way to get truth in news is to say I have no desire to have truth in news. You have every right to feel this way but I choose not to. I prefer my fellow Americans and I base our decisions on facts and not blatant biased lies.

This is the United States, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment to that Constitution guarantees free speech. Any law that tried to provide punishment for the content of news programming would not pass constitutional muster. If it did, it would be an invitation to tyrrany.

Just ask yourself what would happen if Dick Cheney had the opportunity to use that law. Don't you think he would have one of the politically beholden US Attorneys to find a way to prosecute some of those unpatriotic treasonous reporters who reported information damaging to the war effort. Because of the cost of defense, even being charged with an infraction is punishment in itself.

Regards,

D-Ray

Fast_Eddie
11-13-2009, 09:11 AM
And Hannity admitted on air to his mistake.

While using a file video clip is disingenuous, it's not quite the same as manufacturing a fake document.

Chas

lol, OH! That changes eveything!

Man, if the "left wing media" made a slip like that the Teabaggers would decend on them like a swarm of locust. Imagine if while covering the teabagging convention NBC 'accidently' used file video (why would you use file video for a current story in the first place?) of a much smaller gathering. How much outrage would we hear from the right? They would demand people be fired! Boycot the network sponsors! But with Fox, oh, they admitted the mistake! Eveything is okay now.

What's amazing is that people can hold such an obvious double standard but not be aware of it. Astonishing really.

noonereal
11-13-2009, 09:22 AM
This is the United States, and the supreme law of the land is the Constitution of the United States of America. The First Amendment to that Constitution guarantees free speech. Any law that tried to provide punishment for the content of news programming would not pass constitutional muster. If it did, it would be an invitation to tyrrany.



Sorry, can't see any correlation.

The way you explain it, it should be impossible to prosecute someone for yelling fire in a theater.

BlueStreak
11-13-2009, 11:24 AM
OMG!!!!!!

Are you suggesting Sean Hannity is capable of misleading people????
(Insert patriotic backround music here. And roll the rotating images of the flag, Iwo Jima statue, and crucifixion here.)
That's not possible, why he is a Christian and a GREAT AMERICAN,
therefore totally incapable of pulling something like this!!!!! Why would this uber-patriotic, Yankee Doodle Dandy need to do such a thing when he is clearly angelic, God-like and pristine in every way? Why, I've heard, that when he farts it sounds like a Souza Band and smells of Lilacs!!!!

Shame! Shame on you Eddie for casting aspersions upon the GREATEST AMERICAN to have ever lived! Shame on you, you Jesus hating, Stalinist, Neo-Nazi, anti-Christ, monster-in-the-closet, tax and spend Boogeyman!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where's my sign? The one with ObamaHitler on it! I'm hittin' the streets!!

Geez.

Dave

Fast_Eddie
11-13-2009, 01:24 PM
Woah, Dave. Gettin' pretty personal! lol

I've been called worse. I wouldn't have cast those aspersions if I had known he said "sorry" later.

Take care,

Ed

d-ray657
11-13-2009, 02:00 PM
Sorry, can't see any correlation.

The way you explain it, it should be impossible to prosecute someone for yelling fire in a theater.

The words are not punished in that example, it is the action of placing others in a clear and present danger from a stampede. Time and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, not content related restrictions. You are proposing punishment based on the content of the speech, and that is a tool that could easily be abused. News reporting is not subject to black and white analysis. Making the distinction between news reporting and opinion reporting, as you have previously suggested, is a much blurrier line.

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).

Charles
11-13-2009, 04:57 PM
lol, OH! That changes eveything!

Man, if the "left wing media" made a slip like that the Teabaggers would decend on them like a swarm of locust. Imagine if while covering the teabagging convention NBC 'accidently' used file video (why would you use file video for a current story in the first place?) of a much smaller gathering. How much outrage would we hear from the right? They would demand people be fired! Boycot the network sponsors! But with Fox, oh, they admitted the mistake! Eveything is okay now.

What's amazing is that people can hold such an obvious double standard but not be aware of it. Astonishing really.

I agree with your final sentence. And it cuts both ways.

But I'm not exactly astonished. People have mistaken sarcastic and inflammatory rhetoric for an argument every since the start of time.

My initial statement was that Hannity corrected himself. Let's just forget about my statement that an out of context video clip shown in the background of a story is not the same as a manufactured document that WAS the story. I realize that this is a mighty fine hair to split...so I'll let it go.

And your response starts out with the term "teabaggers", which, in case you don't realize it, is a personal insult. To some people.

You have a knack for getting along with people.

And as far as imagining how the right would respond if the left were to pull the same stunt...well, they have. And I've seen the call for boycotts also coming from the left.

I'll wrap this up, I actually have better things to do tonite. A narrow minded asshole is a narrow minded asshole, whatever side of the fence he's on.

BTW Noon, I concur with D-Ray's line of reasoning. His arguments are valid.

Adios schmucks...I'm off to Beer Camp. I'm the chef tonite.

Chas

Fast_Eddie
11-13-2009, 07:08 PM
Wow, Chas, we're just chatting buddy. Don't need to get so worked up. Teabaggers thing is a joke. You should lighten up a bit there tiger.

Fast_Eddie
11-13-2009, 07:19 PM
Wait, so he only apologized because Stewart called him out?

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-12-2009/sean-hannity-apologizes-to-jon

noonereal
11-13-2009, 08:23 PM
The words are not punished in that example, it is the action of placing others in a clear and present danger from a stampede. Time and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, not content related restrictions. You are proposing punishment based on the content of the speech, and that is a tool that could easily be abused. News reporting is not subject to black and white analysis. Making the distinction between news reporting and opinion reporting, as you have previously suggested, is a much blurrier line.

).

and you don't think deliberately lying to the masses is endangerment???:confused:

all blurry lines can be un blurred ;)

noonereal
11-13-2009, 08:25 PM
Wow, Chas, we're just chatting buddy. Don't need to get so worked up. Teabaggers thing is a joke. You should lighten up a bit there tiger.

It's Friday night. Chas is likely feelin "liberal" by now. :D

Boreas
11-13-2009, 09:00 PM
My initial statement was that Hannity corrected himself.

This is, of course, only my opinion but I believe it was Fox's intention to deceive when they ran that footage of the September rally. The footage was tagged in the upper left "EARLIER" so as to give themselves an out but Hannity blew that when he remarked that the crowd in the September video was "very big for a Thursday".

Let's just forget about my statement that an out of context video clip shown in the background of a story is not the same as a manufactured document that WAS the story.

The video was very much "in context" if you think about it. It just distorted the truth.

And your response starts out with the term "teabaggers", which, in case you don't realize it, is a personal insult. To some people.

But, Chas, the Tea Party goers referred to themselves as "Teabaggers", even doing stuff like decorating themselves with teabags, even after they discovered the other definition for the term. Clearly, though, the term causes you offense so is there another term you'd prefer us to use?

And as far as imagining how the right would respond if the left were to pull the same stunt...well, they have. And I've seen the call for boycotts also coming from the left.

Yes, boycotts can be a useful tool for either side. No argument there but I don't think that was the point. It wasn't a comparison of what the Right would do versus what the Left would do. Rather it was a question of the Right's tendency to cry out for blood when one of their political oponents is caught in some transgression or other but turn a blind eye, deaf ear and mute tongue when it's one of their own.

Of course, both sides can be guilty of that but I believe the Right is much worse than the Left in that regard. Compare the Democrat's response to William Jefferson's troubles (stripped of all committee assignments) to the Republicans response to David Vitter (standing ovation from his fellow Democratic senators.

John

Fast_Eddie
11-13-2009, 09:13 PM
This is, of course, only my opinion but I believe it was Fox's intention to deceive when they ran that footage of the September rally. The footage was tagged in the upper left "EARLIER" so as to give themselves an out but Hannity blew that when he remarked that the crowd in the September video was "very big for a Thursday".



It's difficult to imagine any other way archive footage would have wound up in the story. I mean, what scenario leads to footage from several months ago "accidentally" being edited into a story from today? And, okay, if there is a mistake, it just so happened to work out that it was footage that looked as if it belonged in that story? Come on.

BlueStreak
11-13-2009, 11:48 PM
My opinion of Hanitty, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, is this;

They all claim to be doing what they do out of "Love of Country".

Really?

Okay, let's cut off the multi-million dollar paychecks. Then we'll see just how fast the faux patriotism runs out.

Dave

Charles
11-14-2009, 01:31 AM
My opinion of Hanitty, Limbaugh, Beck, et al, is this;

They all claim to be doing what they do out of "Love of Country".

Really?

Okay, let's cut off the multi-million dollar paychecks. Then we'll see just how fast the faux patriotism runs out.

Dave

I thought that they were advancing their viewpoints and making a buck doing so.

The only problem you libs have with them is that they're not advancing YOUR viewpoints.

If you watch, they all pretty much report the same stories...only with a different spin. Entertainment Tonight masquerading as the news.

Fox has a history of touching on stories that the other newscasters ignore. And Fox, IMHO, tends to grate on my nerves. Just like the rest of them.

Now this is just my opinion.

You libs like to think of yourselves as as enlightened and open minded, but you become almost rabid when you encounter an opposing viewpoint. It's not that you can't see an opposing viewpoint, it's more like you REFUSE to see an opposing viewpoint. You're no different than the far right wing when it comes to being narrow minded.

This is the only reason that I defend Faux News. They have as much of a right to advance their position as anyone.

Instead of trying to pick apart another's argument, why not try to see what they are saying.

And allow me to apologize for referring to you fine folks as libs. It truly is a meaningless term...no one is that simplistic.

Random thoughts.

Chas

d-ray657
11-14-2009, 04:13 AM
If you watch, they all pretty much report the same stories...only with a different spin. Entertainment Tonight masquerading as the news.

Chas

Chas, it sounds like you are agreeing with one of the primary criticisms of Fox. To pretend to be neutral and instead advance an agenda - in a means-spirited way, I might add - is flat dishonest. The confrontational style that Fox misidentifies as fair and balanced almost appears to be designed to provoke the type of reaction that you see here.

Here is an example of their confrontational style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9gXD0wSRo

Just because I believe that it would be a dangerous policy to criminalize the type of conduct in which Fox engages does not mean I believe that they are ethical or honest.

I don't mind being called a lib or a lefty, just don't call me Johnson. I do have serious issues with the values espoused by the Right. I believe that they value money over human beings, that they look down on those who have not been as fortunate as they. They act as if it is the fault of the poor for being poor, but advocate policies that make it harder for workers to get their fair share. They also show tremendous arrogance in claiming to have a stranglehold on the truth. It does become difficult to seriously consider such views, because it appears that the only way to come to an understanding is to see it their way.

Regards,

D-Ray

noonereal
11-14-2009, 05:22 AM
You keep telling me that the media can't be trusted. Why, I never would have believed it unless I had seen it with my own two eyes.

]

It's 6am and I stumbled upon Fox News. It's unbelievable. I can see no distinction between their broadcast and what I have read about the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany. These people place corporate values ahead of US vales and distort essentially everything they show. If I did not know what lies they were I would be up in arms and scared about the future also.
You folks that embarrass Fox really need to step back and reevaluate why you watch it. Sorry, that is my heartfelt observation.

You do realize rupert murdoch is not American and that he allows or disallows everything you see on his networks? Do you really think this is acceptable to gather your facts from? Honestly, I have to question how patriotic his viewers are for this reason alone. Read about the mass psychology of fascism. The similarities are stunning.

merrylander
11-14-2009, 07:17 AM
Sorry noon, Rupert applied for and was naturalized as a U.S. citizen about a year or two ago. Not that this makes him any less a scheming bandit.

But we don't need some nanny to watch over our TV viewing, anyone whose IQ at least matches their age know FOX for what it is, serving the schemes of Murdoch to take over all the media in the world.

Fast_Eddie
11-14-2009, 07:21 AM
If you watch, they all pretty much report the same stories...only with a different spin. Entertainment Tonight masquerading as the news.

"News" doesn't have spin. I've heard the tired explanations of the "Liberal Media" and even the most venomous detractors say it is an unintentional addition of personal beliefs. Fox "spin" is not unintentional.

And Chas, some of us are offended by the derisive term "libs". We're just Americans expressing our opinion.

Fast_Eddie
11-14-2009, 07:22 AM
But we don't need some nanny to watch over our TV viewing, anyone whose IQ at least matches their age know FOX for what it is, serving the schemes of Murdoch to take over all the media in the world.

I agree. I wish the bar you set applied to voting rights.

merrylander
11-14-2009, 07:46 AM
I agree. I wish the bar you set applied to voting rights.

Unfortuantely they won't allow that, I always wondered if I ever committed a crime where they would find a jury.:rolleyes:

noonereal
11-14-2009, 08:05 AM
Unfortuantely they won't allow that, I always wondered if I ever committed a crime wher they would find a jury.:rolleyes:

lOL, it would be difficult.

Charles
11-14-2009, 10:06 AM
Chas, it sounds like you are agreeing with one of the primary criticisms of Fox. To pretend to be neutral and instead advance an agenda - in a means-spirited way, I might add - is flat dishonest. The confrontational style that Fox misidentifies as fair and balanced almost appears to be designed to provoke the type of reaction that you see here.

Here is an example of their confrontational style. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9gXD0wSRo

Just because I believe that it would be a dangerous policy to criminalize the type of conduct in which Fox engages does not mean I believe that they are ethical or honest.

I don't mind being called a lib or a lefty, just don't call me Johnson. I do have serious issues with the values espoused by the Right. I believe that they value money over human beings, that they look down on those who have not been as fortunate as they. They act as if it is the fault of the poor for being poor, but advocate policies that make it harder for workers to get their fair share. They also show tremendous arrogance in claiming to have a stranglehold on the truth. It does become difficult to seriously consider such views, because it appears that the only way to come to an understanding is to see it their way.

Regards,

D-Ray

I do agree. Being fair and balanced is a high bar, and one that Fox is unable to leap. Are they more fair and balanced than CBS, NBC, ABC, ETC...probably not. Are they less F&B than the above, once again, probably not.

At times they seem to address issues that the other networks won't, which is their only redeeming quality in my eyes.

Your clip of Megan Kelly is the rule and not the exception. The majority of Fox's coverage is commentary, pretty much right leaning, their anchors remind me of some smart assed college kid who they won't jet join the debating team because he doesn't know when to shut up, their actual newcasts are nothing more than a series of car chases, intertwined with other mindless bullshit, and I find it difficult so sit through the 90% of the trash in order to catch the 10% of some thing of conquesence.

When you get down to it, I don't really like any of the networks. What did Mencken say about a journalist being someone who is unable (or unwilling) to differate between a bicycle wreck and the end of civilization?

BTW, I don't see you as a liberal, only because you appear to be to complex to be defined by a single term.

No doubt that some on the right demonstrate the qualities that you have listed above. While not an excuse for their behavior, I've noticed pretty much the same arrogant qualities coming from the left. Different policies to be sure, but the same arrogance.

Anyway, the time has come for me to report back to beer camp. I need to round up the chuck eyes, my gambling money, fishing pole, sidearm.....and more beer.

Have a good day, and I would never call you Johnson. Not even behind your back!!!!!

Chas

BlueStreak
11-14-2009, 10:15 AM
It's not a matter of whether what you're hearing is or isn't bullshit.
It's a matter of whose bullshit is more appealing to you?

Dave

Boreas
11-14-2009, 11:09 AM
I don't mind being called a lib or a lefty, just don't call me Johnson. I do have serious issues with the values espoused by the Right. I believe that they value money over human beings, that they look down on those who have not been as fortunate as they. They act as if it is the fault of the poor for being poor, but advocate policies that make it harder for workers to get their fair share. They also show tremendous arrogance in claiming to have a stranglehold on the truth. It does become difficult to seriously consider such views, because it appears that the only way to come to an understanding is to see it their way.

Regards,

D-Ray

Can you say "Calvinism"?

John

BlueStreak
11-14-2009, 11:46 AM
Can you say "Calvinism"?

John

I'd seen you mention "Calvinism" before, but didn't know what that meant.
So, I took the time to read up. Wow, does that smack the nail directly, flat square on the head. Man, you guys are smart. I am learning so much.

Thanks, John.

Dave

merrylander
11-14-2009, 12:07 PM
Someone mentionned Mencken, this quotation is probably what he would have said about Fox;

"No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the Americn public."

Boreas
11-14-2009, 12:18 PM
Someone mentionned Mencken, this quotation is probably what he would have said about Fox;

"No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the Americn public."


We could go on all day with Mencken quotes, (and maybe I will ;) ), but this one says a lot about a lot of what we discuss here.

"Truth would quickly cease to be stranger than fiction, once we got as used to it."

John

Boreas
11-14-2009, 12:41 PM
Someone mentionned Mencken, this quotation is probably what he would have said about Fox;

"No one ever lost money underestimating the taste of the Americn public."

Been looking through Mencken quotes and found this one:

"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."

It says much the same thing as the one you cite above and more besides. I like it better but it's too long to have ever caught on.

John

merrylander
11-14-2009, 01:40 PM
Yours sounds more like old H.L.

Alan
11-15-2009, 07:26 AM
First post...

I'm basically putting my two cents in from posts I read on the first page I really do not have the time to read through 5 pages so bear with me and keep that in mind...

I'm a conservative and I would never consider Hannity, Rush, Beck, O'Rielly ect.... to be news.... these are commentators and should be taken with that in mind. These are not hard news shows... these are opinion based entertainment shows. I also would not give a left wing comedy show any credence what so ever! It's funny how the left seems to use comedic redicule rather then serious discussion to forward there agenda...

All the major networks for the most part have become entertainment. Responsible level headed citizens have to sift through the BS and form our own opinions. Anyone that swallows the media from either view point to form there opinion is delusional.

merrylander
11-15-2009, 07:33 AM
Welcome aboard Alan. I guess the reason why what you call the left wing uses ridicule is that it is really difficult to take the right wing here seriously.

Fast_Eddie
11-15-2009, 09:58 AM
I also would not give a left wing comedy show any credence what so ever! It's funny how the left seems to use comedic redicule rather then serious discussion to forward there agenda...

Did you catch this thread?

http://www.politicalchat.org/offroad/showthread.php?t=576

Eh, not so sure it's a "left" thing.

noonereal
11-15-2009, 10:10 AM
The words are not punished in that example, it is the action of placing others in a clear and present danger from a stampede. Time and manner restrictions on speech are permissible, not content related restrictions. You are proposing punishment based on the content of the speech, and that is a tool that could easily be abused. News reporting is not subject to black and white analysis. Making the distinction between news reporting and opinion reporting, as you have previously suggested, is a much blurrier line.

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." 9 Writings of James Madison 103 (G. Hunt ed. 1910).

How can you say that misleading folks is not a clear and present danger to the future of our country?
if you do it in the private sector it is illegal.
My suggestions limits no ones rights to free speech, it simply would educate the population in regards to fact vs opinion.
Are you against education?
Isn't that the way it is supposed to be? When I was a kid the paper had an Oped page that was opinion and the rest was news. Now most the paper is oped but not labeled as such.

You can disagree with me but you can't say that my suggestion is unconstitutional or unenforceable.
I think most folks left and right simply don't have comfort level for thinking out of the box.

noonereal
11-15-2009, 10:13 AM
BTW Noon, I concur with D-Ray's line of reasoning. His arguments are valid.

Adios schmucks...I'm off to Beer Camp. I'm the chef tonite.

Chas

So you don't agree with me.:confused:

Well I'm devastated.:D

Beer Camp :eek:

no invite?

noonereal
11-15-2009, 10:15 AM
But we don't need some nanny to watch over our TV viewing,.

But I agree!

I want labels, not nannies.

noonereal
11-15-2009, 10:21 AM
I do agree. Being fair and balanced is a high bar, and one that Fox is unable to leap. Are they more fair and balanced than CBS, NBC, ABC, ETC...probably not. Are they less F&B than the above, once again, probably not.


I totally disagree. (big surprise) CBS, NBC, ABC, ETC are not fair and balanced but not nearly as ridiculous as Fox.

At times they seem to address issues that the other networks won't, which is their only redeeming quality in my eyes.

I have never observed this.



Anyway, the time has come for me to report back to beer camp.


Chas

still no invite?:(

Boreas
11-15-2009, 11:02 AM
I'm a conservative and I would never consider Hannity, Rush, Beck, O'Rielly ect.... to be news.... these are commentators and should be taken with that in mind. These are not hard news shows... these are opinion based entertainment shows. I also would not give a left wing comedy show any credence what so ever!

You do see the double standard here, don't you?

John

Centralflori
11-15-2009, 11:10 AM
So many different view points are either the truth or biased propaganda. The difference being whether or not the person doing the viewing has been persuaded by the opinion being put forward. Many different points of view are put forward by lobbyist hired by specific interest groups to protect what is valuable to them, whether that is a moral issue or more likely than not a monetary issue.

Someone who has a lot of money more than likely wants to find a way to preserve it and make more. The question is "what is a lot of money?". If the recession has a silver lining, it is that it really exposes what has value and how that can change at anytime with no one person having control over that. Homes in many areas are worth half to a quarter what they were a few years ago. Gold and silver are worth significantly more. Stocks in some companies are worthless while others are worth much more.

When the price of oil and consequently gas went to $4.00 plus a gallon homes that were in nice rural areas became almost worthless. Many people that used to work in cities and drive to where they could afford a decent home had to walk away from their homes because they couldn't afford to drive back and forth. SUV's values plumetted and suddenly many people found that they couldn't afford the gas and they couldn't afford to sell the vehicle.

Health care is another issue that many disagree on based on how much money the have or where that money is derived from. Those that make their money from insurance are mad as hell that the government may compete or even try to regulate the industry. The insurance industry is pretty much the same as the casino's in Las Vegas.

Some may argue that it is the right of those that develop medicines to charge what they want for their product. So why are drugs so much cheaper in other parts of the world.

I can't help but ask though "what is more important than the right of every citizen to decent health care without the thought of losing everything you ever worked for?". How many people have died because they either couldn't obtain health insurance because of a pre-existing condition or who they work for or who they don't work for?

There are arguments on this issue that are numerous and many may say that these advances in medicine would not have been made without the financial incentives that our current system provided. How many advances in medicines would have been made by those that lost their lives prematurely because of a lack of health care?

Another thought is how can some be so adamantly defend medicare and social security and be so opposed to someone else having the right to basic healthcare?

I know there are many topics that have different view points but healthcare should not be something where profit is put ahead of the public good.

All these challenges are a product of capitalism. Many will say that giving a hand out from the government will not solve anything, only make people dependent and unmotivated. If you look at the social programs such as social security and medicare is that what has happened?

Capitalism provides the best opportunities in the world and allows hardwork and inteligence to be rewarded. It is the best system in my opinion. That doesn't mean that there can't be some essential government services to protect public health and safety.

Most here seem to be very intelligent and have taken advantage of opportunities they have had. Opportunities that we receive through the influence of chance circumstances are the same as inheriting a fortune.

We are no more "entitled" to this than the person who inherited a fortune. We should all feel a debt of gratitude that we could never payback and try to help others.

noonereal
11-15-2009, 01:29 PM
Capitalism provides the best opportunities in the world and allows hardwork and inteligence to be rewarded.

I agree that it offers the best opportunities however I disagree with the over sold advertisement that hard work is the key to success.


It is the best system in my opinion. That doesn't mean that there can't be some essential government services to protect public health and safety.


.

I agree, capitalism "unbridled" however is no system for the common man to prosper in.

Centralflori
11-15-2009, 06:47 PM
I agree, capitalism "unbridled" however is no system for the common man to prosper in.

Capitalism "unbridled" or any other system "unbridled" is not a system for anyone but a few to prosper in.

As far as whether hard work is necessary for success, I guess that depends on your definition of hard work. Hard work alone does not guarantee success, but any one I've ever known that maintained wealth for any period of time spent great amounts of time doing so.

noonereal
11-15-2009, 07:02 PM
As far as whether hard work is necessary for success, I guess that depends on your definition of hard work. Hard work alone does not guarantee success, but any one I've ever known that maintained wealth for any period of time spent great amounts of time doing so.

I have never found that. I have always found the poorest folks doing the worse jobs and working the longest hours.

I do agree that the definition of hard work is important. Personally when I have made a very good living I hardly considered it work at all yet I put in many hours. The biggest single deal I have ever done I did from the beach when cell phones were in their infancy. Didn't miss a ray.

My observations are that the most important ingredient to success is who you know. Second is "right time right place" and a distant third is hard work.

But of course we all have different experiences.

Centralflori
11-15-2009, 08:09 PM
I have never found that. I have always found the poorest folks doing the worse jobs and working the longest hours.

I do agree that the definition of hard work is important. Personally when I have made a very good living I hardly considered it work at all yet I put in many hours. The biggest single deal I have ever done I did from the beach when cell phones were in their infancy. Didn't miss a ray.

My observations are that the most important ingredient to success is who you know. Second is "right time right place" and a distant third is hard work.

But of course we all have different experiences.

What is the old saying? "Success is when hard work meets opportunity". Not sure if I have that right, but the bottom line is "didn't you have to be available to take that phone call and "wasn't there something you did prior to being at the beach that caused that phone call to come to you"? Didn't you make contact with someone that created your success?

Many people do work hard and don't get the rewards that others do. Don't you find the people that work hard and don't get the success you have had are those that work for someone else? Isn't one of the main benefits of capitalism the ability and right to own your own business? I believe that with the right information anyone can enjoy success. All people can be successful and that it is not a requirement for one person to not be successful so that someone else can.

Glad you have been able to enjoy your chosen profession. It is always easier to be successful when you enjoy what you do. I too have had the opportunity in my life to be exposed to many positive influences and have a career that I enjoyed and found to be very rewarding.:)

Charles
11-15-2009, 08:11 PM
still no invite?:(

Sorry Noon, I've been busy at beer camp, cooking gruel, playin' nickel ante poker, fishin', gettin' drunk and chewing the fat with my liberal buddies.

It's been a rough session. I do have a life beyond here....and it may put me into rehab. Although I don't think anyone is up for a replay for the time being.

Were we arguing about something?

Chas

Charles
11-15-2009, 08:24 PM
First post...

I'm basically putting my two cents in from posts I read on the first page I really do not have the time to read through 5 pages so bear with me and keep that in mind...

I'm a conservative and I would never consider Hannity, Rush, Beck, O'Rielly ect.... to be news.... these are commentators and should be taken with that in mind. These are not hard news shows... these are opinion based entertainment shows. I also would not give a left wing comedy show any credence what so ever! It's funny how the left seems to use comedic redicule rather then serious discussion to forward there agenda...

All the major networks for the most part have become entertainment. Responsible level headed citizens have to sift through the BS and form our own opinions. Anyone that swallows the media from either view point to form there opinion is delusional.

Hi, Alan.

An excellent first post, and I agree with you 100%.

Personally, I'm most impressed with your first shot from a cold barrel.

You've stated your position plainly, and done so in a way which should offend no one.

If you can maintain you composure through the upcoming brickbats that you will be dealt, you will be a welcome addition indeed.

Chas

Charles
11-15-2009, 08:39 PM
What is the old saying? "Success is when hard work meets opportunity". Not sure if I have that right, but the bottom line is "didn't you have to be available to take that phone call and "wasn't there something you did prior to being at the beach that caused that phone call to come to you"? Didn't you make contact with someone that created your success?

Many people do work hard and don't get the rewards that others do. Don't you find the people that work hard and don't get the success you have had are those that work for someone else? Isn't one of the main benefits of capitalism the ability and right to own your own business? I believe that with the right information anyone can enjoy success. All people can be successful and that it is not a requirement for one person to not be successful so that someone else can.

Glad you have been able to enjoy your chosen profession. It is always easier to be successful when you enjoy what you do. I too have had the opportunity in my life to be exposed to many positive influences and have a career that I enjoyed and found to be very rewarding.:)

Welcome Centralfloia.

More fresh meat!!!!!!

A well thought out and reasoned response. Thank you.

Now Noon: Isn't sitting on your ass on the beach and making you're biggest score by simply fielding a phone call (I know what it takes to get the phone call in the 1st place) the type of behavior that you dislike about the American way of capitalism?

Apparently you didn't make the widget, you didn't truck it form point A to B, you simply made your cut from talking the good game.

Are you actually worth more than the poor bums who did the hard work?

Just a passing thought,

Chas

BlueStreak
11-15-2009, 09:22 PM
Welcome Centralflori!

I am already enjoying you're posts.
Seem to be a level headed individual.
Much more so than I, at any rate.

Dave

merrylander
11-16-2009, 06:32 AM
Welcome Alan and centralflori, it is always happy hour here on the funny farm.