Liberal media is already making execuse for Obama

[Minor Axis]

Tim you are simply regurgitating left wing bullshit because they want support to shut down oppossing viewpoints. But no way was it better in the 1960s than it is now.

And arguing any subject is a exercise in futility with certain forum members and I'm not referring to Tim.

 

[Fox Mulder]

At no point did I say that we had more sources of news in the 60's than we do today. I actually acknowledged that in my post. But we were talking about media monopolies and then you started in about the media monopolies of the 60's. Well let's just go back 25 years and see who controlled the media...

Now how can you call numerous corporations controlling media a monopoly? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that when these companies are all bought up and controlled by 3 corporations in the US that it's a monopoly?

left wing bullshit? You're right, the media is liberal and I want all conservative talk shut down. Hail to the fairness doctrine!!!

Do you ever stop and listen to yourself? I'm not standing up for liberal or conservative media and I'm not railing against either as well. I am talking about corporate controlled media. And if you of all people cannot admit that having 1 corporation in charge of presenting all points of view in a given area is bad, then you are being intellectually dishonest. I don't care if it's the left, the right or corporate giants, I don't want any one person controlling the media.

Who said I wanted 1 corporation in charge? or even 3? I agree with you that the more diverse any industry is the better. Remember I am a capitalist--I love competition. But the situation you are talking about is not unique to the media industry. We have anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies of any industry. I don't want to see new laws that apply solely to media companies because the argument about diverse competition applies to a lot more than the media and for very good reasons. And there are also very good business reasons not to prevent large conglomerates. In many instances we must compete against countries like France that have nationalized companies (like their airline company--forget the name). We have Boeing and McDonnel Douglas basically. Smaller companies could not compete in some of these nationalized industries

We will have to agree to disagree. My FIRM belief is that we are a much better informed society today with all the different sources of information than we were in the 1960s. Even if we had only one corporation contolling the mainstream media we would still be much better informed than in the 1960s simply because there a lot more sources. Even restrictive monopoly governments like China cannot stop the flow of information today.

The "Unfair Doctrine" would serve no other purpose than to reduce the number of sources available and restrict free speech. Its proponents have no other motive in mind except to stop the flow of information from sources they disagree with. They've done that in place like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and it wasn't a very good idea--and its not a very good idea here either. In fact, just the name, the "Fairness Doctrine" should be insulting to anyone that truly supports freedom of expression.

 

[SgtSpike]

:dunno But in your scenario, we aren't destroying them for our beliefs, we're doing it in self-defense. Anybody can sit around and bash America, it's the ones that are going to act on it that we need to stop.

Ok, that's what I mean. The Iraq war should be over when we no longer have to worry about our own self-defense.

 

[Minor Axis]

The Iraq war should be over when we no longer have to worry about our own self-defense.

This is by far the silliest statement you've made on this forum. Hopefully it's not the bedrock of your belief system. You need to include "better to fight them over there, than over here" for good measure. :smiley24:

 

[SgtSpike]

This is by far the silliest statement you've made on this forum. Hopefully it's not the bedrock of your belief system. You need to include "better to fight them over there, than over here" for good measure. :smiley24:

Lol, why is it silly? Do explain yourself.

 

[Minor Axis]

Lol, why is it silly? Do explain yourself.

Must I explain myself? You need to clarify your statement. The Iraq War will be over when we no longer have to defend ourselves- in General? from Iraqis? Al Queda? Terrorists? How about when Iraqis are just blowing each other up? If we pull out in short order, we would not be over there defending our selves as invaders in a Muslim country now would we?

BTW, if the U.S. was successfully invaded by Russia, would you be one of the ones going along with it or would you be one of the terrorists at large?

 

[SgtSpike]

Must I explain myself? You need to clarify your statement. The Iraq War will be over when we no longer have to defend ourselves- in General? from Iraqis? Al Queda? Terrorists? How about when Iraqis are just blowing each other up? If we pull out in short order, we would not be over there defending our selves as invaders in a Muslim country now would we?

BTW, if the U.S. was successfully invaded by Russia, would you be one of the ones going along with it or would you be one of the terrorists at large?

Oh come on, you and I both know that it's not the general Iraqi population who is plotting against the US - it's select terrorists within Iraq!

And yes, I mean the war should be over when we no longer have to worry about defending ourselves from the terrorists in Iraq. You and I both know that they are plotting against us regardless of whether we are "invading" their country or not.

 

[Peter Parka]

The terrorists only got in Iraq when there wasn't a nutjob like Saddam to keep them out. Bin Laden hated Saddam, he thought he was too Capitalist.

 

[skyblue]

this obama bashing is getting boring.......send him over here and we'll make him PM anytime

 

[Peter Parka]

this obama bashing is getting boring.......send him over here and we'll make him PM anytime

Obama is a hammer!

I'd have thought that after all this time on here, Americans would be pleased that I approve of their President, call me an American basher now! lol!

 

[skyblue]

well he does have his bad points

 

[Peter Parka]

True but he's a step in the right direction, still think he'd actually be too radical for British PM to be honest.

 

[skyblue]

True but he's a step in the right direction, still think he'd actually be too radical for British PM to be honest.

nope...we need a pm thats going to call black black.......he'd kick some arse over here