Like I said, step down off your soap box and recognize you are arguing with your imagination.
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
...you are nuts...
ALL of you libs cant answer my point, FCC CANT FINE CABLE AND SATALITE SERVICES FOR CONTENT< PERIOD.
stop the name calling and answer with a well thought argument, I am sick of name calling without a valid point or rebuttle to someone elses point.
Cable content cant be regulated by the FCC because the FCC regulates OTA broadcast limited to UHF(includes OTA DTV and OTA HDTV)/VHF/AM/FM, they do not regulate content on cable or satalite television content, nor should they.
ALL of you libs cant answer my point, FCC CANT FINE CABLE AND SATALITE SERVICES FOR CONTENT< PERIOD.
That's because no one disagrees with this point and only a Nader supporter and a self-described conservative are advocating fining. The nader supporter didn't evern really advocate it, only the conservative did.
So while you are off in fantasy land seeing a flood of AO liberals calling for fox to be fined, the reality is that only a conservative did. It's pretty sad that you are still ranting about "libs" when this fact has now been pointed out multiple times.
Apparently, the new FCC regulations do not apply to FOX News.
Then again, they're cable?
I agree that the shot is a little over the top. But, some points:
1) Would you be posting this if we were talking about another network? I'm thinking "no".
2) It's cable, not network news.
3) The shot is not that clear. If you look at it you can obviously see the outlines of "the object in question", but it's not like it's totally unedited.
I played the clip a couple of times to see if there was something blatantly indecent. As much as I dislike Fox News' politcal lean this isn't enough to worry about.
I started a thread here a while ago that outlined my wacky new neolib conspiracy. You must have missed it.
You mean this one? I remember it now...seems I had linked to the same definitions there as well (I knew I had posted them somewhere before).
The point was / is that there is already a term, 'neoliberalism', which is used to describe a totally different ideology to the one you seem to want it to describe.
In the original thread (albeit with tongue seemingly planted firmly in cheek) you hypothesize that there is a 'neoliberal' 'conspiracy' involving George Soros, Ted Turner and various leftist / socialist / anti-globalization groups. The problem with this is that while someone like Soros may regularly promote various tenets of neoliberalism (free-trade, globalization), neoliberalism is in fact antithetical to the left.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
There's at least on other in this thread. Did you bother to read the thread? You may want to read the threads before you reply.
Ah, yes. GreggWSmith. Absolutely a "neolib" and "anti-free-speach liberal."
Like I said, step down off your soap box and recognize you are arguing with your imagination.
Originally posted by giant
Ah, yes. GreggWSmith. Absolutely a "neolib" and "anti-free-speach liberal."
Like I said, step down off your soap box and recognize you are arguing with your imagination.
Originally posted by giant
...you are nuts...
ALL of you libs cant answer my point, FCC CANT FINE CABLE AND SATALITE SERVICES FOR CONTENT< PERIOD.
stop the name calling and answer with a well thought argument, I am sick of name calling without a valid point or rebuttle to someone elses point.
Cable content cant be regulated by the FCC because the FCC regulates OTA broadcast limited to UHF(includes OTA DTV and OTA HDTV)/VHF/AM/FM, they do not regulate content on cable or satalite television content, nor should they.
Please try to prove me wrong
Originally posted by Scott
So now all you neolibs are trying to use the FCC to silence a TeeVee network you don't agree with? Stalin would be proud!
Neolibs? As in neoliberal? I don't think that means what you think it means...
Wikipedia: Neoliberalism
Wikipedia: Neoconservatism
Originally posted by a_greer
ALL of you libs cant answer my point, FCC CANT FINE CABLE AND SATALITE SERVICES FOR CONTENT< PERIOD.
That's because no one disagrees with this point and only a Nader supporter and a self-described conservative are advocating fining. The nader supporter didn't evern really advocate it, only the conservative did.
So while you are off in fantasy land seeing a flood of AO liberals calling for fox to be fined, the reality is that only a conservative did. It's pretty sad that you are still ranting about "libs" when this fact has now been pointed out multiple times.
Originally posted by Existence
http://www.majorityreportradio.com/w...es/000361.html
Apparently, the new FCC regulations do not apply to FOX News.
Then again, they're cable?
I agree that the shot is a little over the top. But, some points:
1) Would you be posting this if we were talking about another network? I'm thinking "no".
2) It's cable, not network news.
3) The shot is not that clear. If you look at it you can obviously see the outlines of "the object in question", but it's not like it's totally unedited.
4) The shot lasts for less than three seconds.
You really think they should be fined for that?
Originally posted by SDW2001
1) Would you be posting this if we were talking about another network? I'm thinking "no".
I'm thinking probably. It's the kind of screw up to draw attention to any network.
Originally posted by giant
I'm thinking probably. It's the kind of screw up to draw attention to any network.
and contrary to a buss.teacher I had in High school, there is a such thing as bad press
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Neolibs? As in neoliberal? I don't think that means what you think it means...
Wikipedia: Neoliberalism
I started a thread here a while ago that outlined my wacky new neolib conspiracy. You must have missed it.
Originally posted by Scott
I started a thread here a while ago that outlined my wacky new neolib conspiracy. You must have missed it.
You mean this one? I remember it now...seems I had linked to the same definitions there as well (I knew I had posted them somewhere before).
The point was / is that there is already a term, 'neoliberalism', which is used to describe a totally different ideology to the one you seem to want it to describe.
In the original thread (albeit with tongue seemingly planted firmly in cheek) you hypothesize that there is a 'neoliberal' 'conspiracy' involving George Soros, Ted Turner and various leftist / socialist / anti-globalization groups. The problem with this is that while someone like Soros may regularly promote various tenets of neoliberalism (free-trade, globalization), neoliberalism is in fact antithetical to the left.
Edit: typo