O'Reilly: "We Didn't Invade Iraq"

reply to post by centurion1211




A Bush fan telling someone to watch out for constitutional rights. I think I saw a comic strip similar to this.

Look, free speech doesn't cover stuff like this. Hate speech is the same way. It's not a slippery slope at all.

To be honest, you're right in a way. It shouldn't be Bill O'Reilly getting in trouble, he's just taking orders from people higher up. It should be the news station being censored/fined/etc.

Are you saying perjury is a slippery slope to having our freedom of speech revoked?

When you have a news agency that makes it money off lying to the public, there's a problem. And no, mass propaganda and lying are not covered by free speech (and they are all guilty of this).

A complete overhaul of our nation's media is needed. Bill O'Reilly is a prime example, but getting rid of him won't solve anything.

*Edit:

And listen Freud, I don't know what Psych 101 class you took that makes you think you are even able to dig into my psyche, but just stop. It was an epic failure.

I actually watch Bill O'Reilly so I can laugh. It's funny to see just how crazy some people actually are.

If it resonates with people, oh well. There are a lot of crazies out there.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by centurion1211



centurion, the 'Roman Empire' didn't fail because of alleged debauchery.....it folded into itself based on the 'bureaucracy'.....got too 'big for it's britches', so to speak.

Of course, back then, there was no instantaneous communations ability.....so we have a new paradigm, in today's environment.

NOW WHAT?

How to WE, The People.....survive the Powers That Be (the PTB)????

What next? Revolution????

Who, What, When Where and How???

Provide a template, to help....or just complain.....which is it???

WW

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211

 

To be honest, you're right in a way. It shouldn't be Bill O'Reilly getting in trouble, he's just taking orders from people higher up. It should be the news station being censored/fined/etc.

For what? What about Air America? Wouldn't they also be "censored/fined/etc." under your "guidelines"?

Are you saying perjury is a slippery slope to having our freedom of speech revoked?

Please get your facts straight and under control. Perjury applies to making false statements under oath (a la Bill Clinton), not what is said on a TV network.

When you have a news agency that makes it money off lying to the public, there's a problem. And no, mass propaganda and lying are not covered by free speech (and they are all guilty of this).

The problem is only for you. The vast majority of people that watch Fox must not consider what they say to be "lying". And actually, lying (unless under oath) is covered under free speech (depending on what the meaning of is is, of course).

A complete overhaul of our nation's media is needed. Bill O'Reilly is a prime example, but getting rid of him won't solve anything.

That's always the first thing a totalitarian form of government says and then attemptts to do. So, that's what you are in favor of?

And listen Freud, I don't know what Psych 101 class you took that makes you think you are even able to dig into my psyche, but just stop. It was an epic failure.

I actually watch Bill O'Reilly so I can laugh. It's funny to see just how crazy some people actually are.

If it resonates with people, oh well. There are a lot of crazies out there.

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

Ah, must have really struck a nerve with that one. Sorry to have to expose that in front of so many.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Personally I still see a lot of parallels - and it isn't pretty. Barbarians streaming across our (southern) borders is just one of them.

You mentioned communications. I would be in favor of using the internet to institute direct popular votes - as long as fairness and accuracy could be guaranteed - for president and almost all policy issues and legislation now voted on by congress. That would take care of almost all the Washington DC special interest BS. People would no longer be disenfranchised by politicians that say one thing to get elected and then do something different when in office.

Think about it. I actually see it as the only way out. All decisions would truly reflect the will of the people.



[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by centurion1211


I'm glad you think you struck a nerve. I guess you picked up from O'Reilly that trying to bully your opponent produces some sort of attractive dominance.

I prefer using intelligence and reason. To each their own.

Lying under oath is illegal, correct. Lying in general is not illegal (except when you get into tort law and such). That's my point, it could be made illegal for news organizations to purposefully lie to promote an agenda (Such as, I don't know, having military officials that are currently employed by the pentagon on while lying and saying they are retired).

The media do have an obligation to the public, do you not agree? I mean, they are in essence being paid to "inform" us of the news.

You think it should be legal for the news media to intentionally lie to it's listeners?

And I don't know about AirAmerica. I don't listen to it. If they are promoting some biased, liberal agenda, and using lies to do so... then yes, they shouldn't be licensed to broadcast under the veil of a news agency.

Why would you argue against this? It wouldn't violate the constitution, and it would make the news agencies more trustworthy. Where is the downside?

Great -- I suggest you talk to the FCC about having the corporations broadcasting rights away. See how far you get, and let us know. Even if it works it won't really pull Fox News off of cable, but atleast you'd be trying to do something other than name call.
I'm pretty disenfranchised by the media too, but I don't see how censoring opinions you don't like is healthy. Who gets to decide what's "true" and acceptable and what's "lying" and censored? You? That sounds super until it's Joe down the street who doesn't agree with you, right?
This is hysterical... (and no I don't watch Fox News or any other cable television, and very rarely watch broadcast television)

I think that by definition when troops from your country, enter another country by force... that would be invasion.

Even if the invasion is justified, it is still an invasion.

I don't have any idea why he would he would try to play a game of semantics.

reply to post by _Del_


They all lie. Every one of them, and only because they can! The anchors themselves are the ones who get in trouble, but we all know it's the organizations themselves that press the issue.

The FCC could certainly regulate this, much as they did to NBC and Howard Stern. Sure, Stern was on the air, but he watched every step he made, and he often still got hit with million dollar fines.

Large fines go a long way in making businesses follow rules.

Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal in thinking that our news organizations should be following some line of ethics.

reply to post by Sublime620


I've seen the same people who are sticking up for the MSM (probably because it supports their view) castigate Iranian websites for being government biassed.

Can you smell the irony?

That's how thick it is...

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by centurion1211

 

Lying under oath is illegal, correct. Lying in general is not illegal (except when you get into tort law and such). That's my point, it could be made illegal for news organizations to purposefully lie to promote an agenda (Such as, I don't know, having military officials that are currently employed by the pentagon on while lying and saying they are retired).

Again, you fail to think of the ultimate consequences of your positions. Let me help you by asking who then would you have decide what was a lie, or not? Could you find someone, or some body that was absolutely trustworthy and that was unable to be corrupted by their own personal bias? That would be amazing if you could, as there is no such person or body like that that exists today. And human nature says that there never will be.

The media do have an obligation to the public, do you not agree? I mean, they are in essence being paid to "inform" us of the news.

Actually, they really only have an obligation to their shareholders.

You think it should be legal for the news media to intentionally lie to it's listeners?

Perhaps unfortunately, the answer under our constitution has to be yes. Again we have no way of fairly deciding what is a lie. And second, the problem should take care of itself. People don't like to be lied to and will avoid it if possible. And if a majority don't feel they are being lied to and continue watching Fox for example, isn't that in effect a form of direct popular vote? The people are simply voting with their remote controls on who and what they believe instead of using the internet as I proposed earlier. The very difficult thing for some such as yourself is to accept that you are currently on the losing side of that vote. Then because you can't believe or explain it, you try to invent some (vast right-wing) conspiracy to explain why your views are out of touch with the majority. The pendulum will swing the other way eventually. It always does ...

And I don't know about AirAmerica. I don't listen to it. If they are promoting some biased, liberal agenda, and using lies to do so... then yes, they shouldn't be licensed to broadcast under the veil of a news agency.

Try giving it a shot, if for no other reason than to see what makes your opposition feel the same way you do about Fox. But I don't advocate shutting down Air America, I advocate letting the people with the remotes decide. And so far they seem to have done so resoundingly, since Air America is teetering on bankruptcy.

Why would you argue against this? It wouldn't violate the constitution, and it would make the news agencies more trustworthy. Where is the downside?

Oh, yes it would violate the constitution and in fact erode our rights even further than some claim Bush has already done. For that reason I will continue to raise my voice (and keyboard) against all such ideas - unless people such as yourself are successful in having me "stopped".

[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by budski


That's true. I didn't even think about calling them out on their hypocracies. I just figured anyone would agree that holding news agencies accountable for what they broadcast would be a good idea... I guess not.

Originally posted by Sublime620
Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal in thinking that our news organizations should be following some line of ethics.

Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart libertarian in thinking the government shouldn't be telling what the news organizations what to air..

Originally posted by budski
[I've seen the same people who are sticking up for the MSM (probably because it supports their view) castigate Iranian websites for being government biassed.

Can you smell the irony?

That's how thick it is...

This from the same people that want the government to tell the news what they can and cannot air? THAT's some irony...


[edit on 2-5-2008 by _Del_]

reply to post by _Del_


Do you have any better ways to get our nation's media to follow the rules (or around the world for any other countries that may be facing the same issues)?

I'm all ears for any ideas to get the media to broadcast real news.

*Edit:

And we never said what they can and cannot air. I specifically said lies. Do you have a problem with not broadcasting lies?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by budski


Yeah, well soon these same people will likely be talking about how "awesome" the foreign "news media" is, as their news will be about as accurate and unbiased as the MSM here...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

LMAO

Originally posted by Sublime620

Do you have any better ways to get our nation's media to follow the rules (or around the world for any other countries that may be facing the same issues)?

How about not watching their shows. If they don't have viewers they don't have advertisers. If they don't have advertisers they do not stay in business. News groups are not charities for the public good -- they are businesses.

And we never said what they can and cannot air. I specifically said lies. Do you have a problem with not broadcasting lies?

I have a problem with the government deciding what constitutes the "lies" you cannot report on. Don't you see the egregious threat to liberty presented under the pretext of protecting it?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by _Del_

 

And we never said what they can and cannot air. I specifically said lies. Do you have a problem with not broadcasting lies?

[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

To _Del_:

No he doesn't get it yet.


Follow on to my previous post on "lies". You seem to have the lies thing all figured out and are consequently able to tell the rest of us exactly what is and is not a lie. Are you then volunteering for the position of chief arbitrator over the rest of us? Can we all really trust you to be totally fair and balanced in all your decisions?

Get it yet?

[edit on 5/2/2008 by centurion1211]

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I can't wait to see that - I'm rubbing my hands with glee and trembling with anticipation.

I do so love good comedy

example:
"This is the RM Global News Network, Brought to you by BUSHCO the worlds number one oil company and security consultancy specialists.

And in our first item today:
The people of Iraq are very, very happy.

And now here's dan with the weather.

DAN:
The western world and iraq and israel will be sunny and glorious all day, with snow in the mountains for the skiers.

In Iran, a severe plague of locusts is expected as god continues to call down his wrath on those bad people."






[edit on 2/5/2008 by budski]

reply to post by centurion1211


Please show me how it would violate the constitution? Free speech has a limited wing span.

It is constitutional to introduce legislation that makes certain speech illegal: such as lying. In fact, besides hate speech, lying is the other most targeted type of speech (such as in contracts and under oath).

And are you saying it's impossible to prove a lie? Oh, well shut the legal system down, centurion1211 says lies are untouchable. It's not possible to prove.

It can't be proven that almost all of the MSM had pentagon analysts on that led us to war? That these analysts still worked for the pentagon, though we were told that they were retired.

That's all unprovable?

It was certainly proven when Mr. Dan Rather lied about Bush's war record. And he was certainly held accountable. Did you go down and protest that? Did you make 5,000 copies of the constitution and shed tears in front of the White House when Dan Rather was fired for lying by using obviously falsified documents?


[edit on 2-5-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by _Del_


That doesn't work. People believe what they hear, Del.

That's the problem. It wouldn't matter the MSM lied and no one heard it or believed it, but they do. People listen to these lies and base decisions off of them.

So yes, it would be a great idea to just quit watching... if it was viable.

Originally posted by _Del_
I have a problem with the government deciding what constitutes the "lies" you cannot report on. Don't you see the egregious threat to liberty presented under the pretext of protecting it?

No, I don't. Bold faced lies can be proven. They are far different from opinion - even distorted opinion.

Lies are illegal in contracts also. They are illegal under oath. Are you saying these are inherent dangers?

They aren't. Why? Because they don't involve opinion. Opinion is allowed under oath - even if it's wrong. Opinion is allowed in contracts - even if it's wrong.

Lies are not.

reply to post by Sublime620


OMG. Lying is a part of life since the beginning. It's unfortunate, but everyone lies to everyone else. The "trustworthy" people are just the ones that do less of it than their peers. I cannot believe that you cannot look far enough out into the future to see the harm the would develop from trying to legislate what is truth and what is a lie.

So, it all comes back to my original question of who will ultimately decide what we get to watch, listen to or read? And my answer to that is that I don't know anyone (or any branch of the government) other than myself that I totally trust with that decision. IMO, that's the way it should be for all of us.

It seems to me that far too many people now look to the government to solve any and all problems instead of looking to individuals. Of course, that is also one of the key differences between conservatives/libertarians and liberals.