PDA

View Full Version : Fox can't broadcast in Canada?



Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 06:32 AM
Fox New's lies keep them out of Canada (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada)

Seems in Canada they have a law against broadcasting falsehoods and lies. The PM was trying to revoke that law, so as to allow Fox to create a north of the border broadcast organization.

Contrasting this with the infamous defense brought by Fox against a suit by some fired program producers here in Florida, which established that there is no prohibition against broadcasting false stories (so the producers lost their wrongful firing lawsuit), and really, that's all you need to know about Fox and its practices.

LWW
03-06-2011, 06:42 AM
I find it unsurprising that you celebrate the state deciding what is and isn't the truth.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 07:15 AM
Your snark is wrong. In a difference of opinion about what is true or false, the decision would be made at the judiciary level, under adversarial proceedings with full representation by top lawyers.

pooltchr
03-06-2011, 08:01 AM
If you are suggesting that the rest of the MSM do not broadcast lies, your head is buried deeper in the sand than I had imagined.

Does the name Dan Rather ring a bell???


Steve

LWW
03-06-2011, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your snark is wrong. In a difference of opinion about what is true or false, the decision would be made at the judiciary level, under adversarial proceedings with full representation by top lawyers.

</div></div>

Then would not each episode have to be taken to court?

Fess up ... you love forced silence of all who do not sup from your brand of Kool Ade.

So far, the only substantive differences between you and the cabal are that you aren't vulgar and abrasive to their extent, and they can admit thy are hyper partisan bots.

LWW

LWW
03-06-2011, 08:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are suggesting that the rest of the MSM do not broadcast lies, your head is buried deeper in the sand than I had imagined.

Does the name Dan Rather ring a bell???


Steve </div></div>

Or Keith Overblown ... or Rachel Madcow?

LWW

Stretch
03-06-2011, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your snark is wrong. In a difference of opinion about what is true or false, the decision would be made at the judiciary level, under adversarial proceedings with full representation by top lawyers.

</div></div>

Then would not each episode have to be taken to court?

Fess up ... you love forced silence of all who do not sup from your brand of Kool Ade.

So far, the only substantive differences between you and the cabal are that you aren't vulgar and abrasive to their extent, and they can admit thy are hyper partisan bots.

LWW </div></div>

Knowone here is as hyper and delusional as you. Not surprising you don't see it in your manic posting blitzkrieg. You should be commited, but since you live on line i suppose that makes it relativly safe for the rest of society. St.

Stretch
03-06-2011, 09:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are suggesting that the rest of the MSM do not broadcast lies, your head is buried deeper in the sand than I had imagined.

Does the name Dan Rather ring a bell???


Steve </div></div>

Or Keith Overblown ... or Rachel Madcow?

LWW </div></div>

They are not even in the same league as Limpballs and Speck. St.

pooltchr
03-06-2011, 10:22 AM
Rush is a talk radio host...an entertainer. He offers his opinions on various news topics.
He is not a journalist, and does not even claim to be one.

Editorial comment is not the same as news reporting.

Steve

Sev
03-06-2011, 10:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Fox New's lies keep them out of Canada (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/276-74/5123-fox-news-lies-keep-them-out-of-canada)

Seems in Canada they have a law against broadcasting falsehoods and lies. The PM was trying to revoke that law, so as to allow Fox to create a north of the border broadcast organization.

Contrasting this with the infamous defense brought by Fox against a suit by some fired program producers here in Florida, which established that there is no prohibition against broadcasting false stories (so the producers lost their wrongful firing lawsuit), and really, that's all you need to know about Fox and its practices. </div></div>

You must not be aware of the suite the MSM brought a few years ago where the courts ruled that it is not incumbent on the media to print or air the truth.
And it was not FOX that was in the suite.

Pretty sad.

Sev
03-06-2011, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your snark is wrong. In a difference of opinion about what is true or false, the decision would be made at the judiciary level, under adversarial proceedings with full representation by top lawyers.

</div></div>

Then would not each episode have to be taken to court?

Fess up ... you love forced silence of all who do not sup from your brand of Kool Ade.

So far, the only substantive differences between you and the cabal are that you aren't vulgar and abrasive to their extent, and they can admit thy are hyper partisan bots.

LWW </div></div>

Knowone here is as hyper and delusional as you. Not surprising you don't see it in your manic posting blitzkrieg. You should be commited, but since you live on line i suppose that makes it relativly safe for the rest of society. St. </div></div>

TSK TSK. Thats not nice.

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 11:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are suggesting that the rest of the MSM do not broadcast lies, your head is buried deeper in the sand than I had imagined.

Does the name Dan Rather ring a bell???


Steve </div></div>

No, I'm suggesting that the PM of Canada thought it would take a change of that law to allow Fox to have broadcasts up there, and that this was turned down.

If all broadcasters also broadcast lies as Fox does, then there would be no broadcasters allowed in Canada.

This is not the case, so apparently what broadcasters of news they have up there SOMEHOW do not run afoul of that law, whereas the PM thought Fox couldn't. (Or, alternatively, SOMETIMES the existing broadcasters may run afoul of the law, and then correct themselves, whereas the PM knows this is too much the business model of Fox, and that they couldn't restrict themselves to the odd lie or two.)

As for your citing the Dan Rather incident, there was nothing that was shown false as to what he said. One piece of evidence he took to be real was claimed to be false on the faulty claim that proportional type and superscript type weren't available on typewriters back in that day and thus must have been a latter-day forgery, using computer type-setting available only now. That claim was proven false because at the time there was an IBM typewriter that could do both things-- proportional type, and superscripts-- and those high-end typewriters were used in the military.

The SUBSTANCE of the alleged report by that colonel, I think it was, was verified as something he indeed believed true by his long-time secretary. What truth there was to the entire report-- that W was AWOL and his commanders noted it and complained-- was lost in the blogger-manufactured kerfluffle, just as the fact that they were wrong in their claims was also lost.

Stretch
03-06-2011, 11:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your snark is wrong. In a difference of opinion about what is true or false, the decision would be made at the judiciary level, under adversarial proceedings with full representation by top lawyers.

</div></div>

Then would not each episode have to be taken to court?

Fess up ... you love forced silence of all who do not sup from your brand of Kool Ade.

So far, the only substantive differences between you and the cabal are that you aren't vulgar and abrasive to their extent, and they can admit thy are hyper partisan bots.

LWW </div></div>

Knowone here is as hyper and delusional as you. Not surprising you don't see it in your manic posting blitzkrieg. You should be commited, but since you live on line i suppose that makes it relativly safe for the rest of society. St. </div></div>

TSK TSK. Thats not nice. </div></div>

Just calls em like i sees em. I save "nice" for the deserving. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 11:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your snark is wrong. In a difference of opinion about what is true or false, the decision would be made at the judiciary level, under adversarial proceedings with full representation by top lawyers.

</div></div>

Then would not each episode have to be taken to court?

Fess up ... you love forced silence of all who do not sup from your brand of Kool Ade.

So far, the only substantive differences between you and the cabal are that you aren't vulgar and abrasive to their extent, and they can admit thy are hyper partisan bots.

LWW </div></div>

Somehow there ARE broadcasters in Canada, who abide by this law, so it does not restrict mainstream media who have a policy of truth-telling.

It was the PM's view that Fox couldn't live within this EXISTING law, and he who tried to change it.

Take it up with Fox's champion in this effort.

Either that, or encourage Fox (NewsCorp, really, I guess) to go ahead, if you think they can live within this law as all the others do.

If they are NOT WILLING to try to do so, isn't that an admission that their 'news' model uses false propaganda at its core?

wolfdancer
03-06-2011, 11:44 AM
apparently, wiser men then you have decided Fox's fate in Canada, and 3 cheers for them. "Fox News" is a misnomer, imo....and the
"Three Amigos" are not newscasters in any meaning of the term.
I see little difference between the foppish G. Beck and this man....they are both preaching hatred and intolerance towards others:
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Q-6H4xOUrs&feature=player_detailpage#t=3s)

pooltchr
03-06-2011, 11:49 AM
I guess that explains his sudden departure from CBS.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-06-2011, 12:04 PM
That would be my thoughts, as well, however if I had stated them....
"Everybody (Dems)knows that the dice are loaded Everybody(Libs) rolls with their fingers crossed"
While agitprop was originally used to describe someone promoting communism, it has become a generic term for anyone employing techniques of agitation and propaganda to influence public opinion.
I agree with you...that type of manic personality is safer online, instead of not having a public forum to vent, and possibly becoming a "mall shooter" as a result. He has already publicly "licked his chops" over having Gayle "scoped"

wolfdancer
03-06-2011, 12:18 PM
as usual....you are able to silence your detractors with proof.
The ones that are clever enough to realize they "have been had"
A few others who "can't see the forest for the trees" bravely refuse to accept defeat.....kind of like the "Black Knight" in the classic Monty Python skit:
XXX (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno&feature=player_detailpage#t=139s)

Sev
03-06-2011, 12:25 PM
Actually the problem with FOX in Canada is old news.
I heard a bunch of interviews with Canadians that are quite pissed about it.
Seems to boil down to a left vs right issue up there as well.

wolfdancer
03-06-2011, 12:47 PM
Can you point me to a "nice" post that lww has made here,or AZB ?
Is the following, your idea of a "nice" reply?
"So far, the only substantive differences between you and the cabal are that you aren't vulgar and abrasive to their extent, and they can admit thy are hyper partisan bots."
I find that,to be both rude and abrasive....and him labeling others as belonging to a cabal,for disagreeing with his warped ideas and uber-right wing politics, and/or who refuse to accept him as some kind of worldly authority...I find that to be both vulgar and the writings of some kind of psychotic personality.
Disclaimer: I have no training, nor claim any expertise in abnormal psychiatry.....I jes calls em as I sees em

Sev
03-06-2011, 01:20 PM
Of course he has. With the exception of talking to you, Q, Gayle and Hondo.

He is actually pretty nice to Sofla as the conversation is generally informative and kept within the bounds of good taste.

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess that explains his sudden departure from CBS.

Steve </div></div>

His 'sudden departure' was from anchoring the evening news. He stayed at 60 Minutes, where the 'offending' reporting was hosted, for considerably longer.

Many firestorms of bad publicity are wrongheaded (the Dean 'scream,' e.g.), but they have their effect on people and bottom-line oriented corporations. Many people have been pushed out on thin charges if they are sensationalized enough.

pooltchr
03-06-2011, 02:28 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Many people have been pushed out on thin charges if they are sensationalized enough.

</div></div>

I guess that was the plan when the left and the media went after Sarah Palin. Sensationalize her and drive her out of politics.

Yeah, I can see your point.

Steve

wolfdancer
03-06-2011, 02:49 PM
Even your own er, gentleman, here says that Fox is in the entertainment business, and is not actually, or seriously, reporting the news. It's just news parody (my words); sort of an offshoot of "Saturday Night Live" with Glen taking on Ruth Buzzi's role.
Now if only that word would get out to the close minded neo-nuts who can't tell when they are being entertained, and that the opinions, put forth as news,that are expressed on that show, are not to be taken seriously.
Don't those fans even remember Glen's other role model..."Big Bird"??

LWW
03-06-2011, 04:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Stretch</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are suggesting that the rest of the MSM do not broadcast lies, your head is buried deeper in the sand than I had imagined.

Does the name Dan Rather ring a bell???


Steve </div></div>

Or Keith Overblown ... or Rachel Madcow?

LWW </div></div>

They are not even in the same league as Limpballs and Speck. St. </div></div>

I agree ... they tell massive lies frequently.

LWW

LWW
03-06-2011, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess that explains his sudden departure from CBS.

Steve </div></div>

His 'sudden departure' was from anchoring the evening news. He stayed at 60 Minutes, where the 'offending' reporting was hosted, for considerably longer.

Many firestorms of bad publicity are wrongheaded (the Dean 'scream,' e.g.), but they have their effect on people and bottom-line oriented corporations. Many people have been pushed out on thin charges if they are sensationalized enough.

</div></div>

Are you defending Rather's fabrication of news in an attempt to turn an election?

LWW

LWW
03-06-2011, 04:45 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: pooltchr</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Many people have been pushed out on thin charges if they are sensationalized enough.

</div></div>

I guess that was the plan when the left and the media went after Sarah Palin. Sensationalize her and drive her out of politics.

Yeah, I can see your point.

Steve </div></div>

That's basic Alinsky.

LWW

wolfdancer
03-06-2011, 06:18 PM
lies !!!
I have purposely in the past, posted benign, bland, non confrontational type posts, only to have both him and ***** jump on them
I seem to have made many posts in the past few days after telling myself it isn't worth the hassle. I think that I'll call it quits for the time being, before the sexual innuendo about my sisters begins anew.
I googled sexual innuendo...and there is some inadvertent? dual meaning comments in the explanation:
E.G. :" However, full penetration of the subject requires that the reader take a long, hard look at the target and be a cunning linguist in order to avoid limp phrases and imbibe the phrase with a large handful of meanings."
"an individual using sexual innuendo will often start slow and eventually build up, increasing depth more and more until the recipient feels the actual thrust of the point and the innuendo climaxes. An innuendo is always the most pleasing when no one sees it coming, often by entering the mind through the rear."

A "cunning linguist"?

Stretch
03-06-2011, 08:35 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lies !!!
I have purposely in the past, posted benign, bland, non confrontational type posts, only to have both him and ***** jump on them
I seem to have made many posts in the past few days after telling myself it isn't worth the hassle. I think that I'll call it quits for the time being, before the sexual innuendo about my sisters begins anew.
I googled sexual innuendo...and there is some inadvertent? dual meaning comments in the explanation:
E.G. :" However, full penetration of the subject requires that the reader take a long, hard look at the target and be a cunning linguist in order to avoid limp phrases and imbibe the phrase with a large handful of meanings."
"an individual using sexual innuendo will often start slow and eventually build up, increasing depth more and more until the recipient feels the actual thrust of the point and the innuendo climaxes. An innuendo is always the most pleasing when no one sees it coming, often by entering the mind through the rear."

A "cunning linguist"? </div></div>

LMAO! It makes you feel so dirty leaving here. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

Qtec
03-06-2011, 08:41 PM
There is a God!

Q........LOL

Qtec
03-06-2011, 08:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Seems in Canada they have a law against broadcasting falsehoods and lies. </div></div>

So does the US but they don't enforce it.

Q

Qtec
03-06-2011, 08:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EXCLUSIVE: Photographer <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Slams Fox News' Distortion</span> Of His WI Protest Footage </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103040013)

Q

Sev
03-06-2011, 08:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lies !!!
I have purposely in the past, posted benign, bland, non confrontational type posts, only to have both him and ***** jump on them
I seem to have made many posts in the past few days after telling myself it isn't worth the hassle. I think that I'll call it quits for the time being, before the sexual innuendo about my sisters begins anew.
I googled sexual innuendo...and there is some inadvertent? dual meaning comments in the explanation:
E.G. :" However, full penetration of the subject requires that the reader take a long, hard look at the target and be a cunning linguist in order to avoid limp phrases and imbibe the phrase with a large handful of meanings."
"an individual using sexual innuendo will often start slow and eventually build up, increasing depth more and more until the recipient feels the actual thrust of the point and the innuendo climaxes. An innuendo is always the most pleasing when no one sees it coming, often by entering the mind through the rear."

A "cunning linguist"? </div></div>

HHAHAHAHHAA!!!

Good one. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 09:23 PM
Are you defending Rather's fabrication of news in an attempt to turn an election?

If anything, he may have been fed disinformation designed to discredit the rest of his report, which was 100% correct.

There was nothing false in his reporting about W's constructively awol status, or laxity in performing out the rest of his duties.

He took a powder on them, which he assumed would be taken care of by his father's team, and I guess he won that bet.

Soflasnapper
03-06-2011, 09:25 PM
So does the US but they don't enforce it.

Actually, I guess the US does not, or else the court could not have found in the local Fox affiliate's favor.

Now, it's true that one could sue for slander, but the bar against finding for a public figure, after Sullivan v. New York Times, is prohibitive against any public figure winning (requiring proof of actual malice, etc.).

Qtec
03-07-2011, 04:18 AM
Maybe not a law but,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox News is not operating like a news organization. In the FCC it states:

“Hoaxes. The Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false;</span> (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm
</div></div>



Fox is guilty time and time again of this.


Q link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/i-filed-an-fcc-complaint_b_363180.html)

LWW
03-07-2011, 05:08 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you defending Rather's fabrication of news in an attempt to turn an election?

If anything, he may have been fed disinformation designed to discredit the rest of his report, which was 100% correct.

There was nothing false in his reporting about W's constructively awol status, or laxity in performing out the rest of his duties.

He took a powder on them, which he assumed would be taken care of by his father's team, and I guess he won that bet. </div></div>

Not that you had much cred left with me, but it's all gone now.

CBS printed false news and knew it was false when they did so.

LWW

LWW
03-07-2011, 05:11 AM
In the background I can hear the far left cheering this all on:

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BLOCK FREE SPEECH</span>

LWW

Gayle in MD
03-07-2011, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">EXCLUSIVE: Photographer <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Slams Fox News' Distortion</span> Of His WI Protest Footage </div></div>

link (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201103040013)

Q </div></div>
The photographer statement, about Fux Noise, is perfect!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> It sickens me to see the truth so willfully distorted. In deciding to release this video, I considered how it would be used, but I (perhaps naively) believed that the facts in the video would speak for itself - the people of Wisconsin are angry, Senator Grothman got a well-deserved ribbing, the Walker administration's lockdown of the Capitol is misguided, and Representative Hulsey acted honorably. It is simply astounding that the same faction of the right-wing that would claim that torture in Abu Ghraib was "fraternity hazing" would equate heckling as a "violent attack."

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

pooltchr
03-07-2011, 07:08 AM
This administration has been trying to silence FOX since Obama took office. The FCC is trying to restructure the American broadcast news system. What they want is for only approved news outlets to get funding, and require all other broadcasters to pay for that funding.
Obama started laying the groundwork to make sure FOX couldn't get the approved status when he made a public comment that FOX was in the entertainment business, and not the news business.
You are a good little soldier, working hard to make sure that freedom of the press is repressed.
Hopefully, our courts will take the same position with the press that they recently took with freedom of speech in the Westboro church case.
The government has ZERO business censoring the free flow of information. At least, our government. In many countries, that is one way the government works to control the masses.
You really should get out more.

Steve

LWW
03-07-2011, 04:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The photographer statement, about Fux Noise, is perfect!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

Young lady ... wash your keyboard off with soap.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-07-2011, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Maybe not a law but,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Fox News is not operating like a news organization. In the FCC it states:

“Hoaxes. The Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false;</span> (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm
</div></div>



Fox is guilty time and time again of this.


Q link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/i-filed-an-fcc-complaint_b_363180.html) </div></div>

Fox is mainly a cable provider, and therefore not subject to the broadcast provisions of the FCC.

Soflasnapper
03-07-2011, 06:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you defending Rather's fabrication of news in an attempt to turn an election?

If anything, he may have been fed disinformation designed to discredit the rest of his report, which was 100% correct.

There was nothing false in his reporting about W's constructively awol status, or laxity in performing out the rest of his duties.

He took a powder on them, which he assumed would be taken care of by his father's team, and I guess he won that bet. </div></div>

Not that you had much cred left with me, but it's all gone now.

CBS printed false news and knew it was false when they did so.

LWW </div></div>

So, in your view, Bush completed his duties as required by his contract with the reserve, even though WHERE he supposedly completed them, they never saw him there?

Remember, OFFICIALLY, they never saw him there, as the commander of the base wrote in his annual evaluation of airman Bush.

LWW
03-08-2011, 04:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, in your view, Bush completed his duties as required by his contract with the reserve, even though WHERE he supposedly completed them, they never saw him there?

Remember, OFFICIALLY, they never saw him there, as the commander of the base wrote in his annual evaluation of airman Bush. </div></div>

I doubt that the CO of Fort Knox remembers me ever being there either.

And your point is what?

Here's what I believe ... until and unless someone presents actual evidence to the contrary, this moonbat crazy leftist myth remains a moonbat crazy leftist myth.

Next "I HATE BOOSH!" myth?

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-08-2011, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, in your view, Bush completed his duties as required by his contract with the reserve, even though WHERE he supposedly completed them, they never saw him there?

Remember, OFFICIALLY, they never saw him there, as the commander of the base wrote in his annual evaluation of airman Bush. </div></div>

I doubt that the CO of Fort Knox remembers me ever being there either.

And your point is what?

Here's what I believe ... until and unless someone presents actual evidence to the contrary, this moonbat crazy leftist myth remains a moonbat crazy leftist myth.

Next "I HATE BOOSH!" myth?

LWW </div></div>

The CO needn't have seen or remembered anyone in particular, because the direct commanders of a person serving under the CO would have had contact, and a report, and an evaluation, which the CO would have filed under his signature.

When he said W hadn't been seen to be evaluated on anything, he was saying there was no record of anyone having seen him there.

There were CASH REWARDS put out for anyone who could verify his service there, and I imagine at least several dozen fellow ANG personnel, if not a hundred or more, COULD have seen him there to recognize him. No one ever got the money.

According to W's biography, he continued to fly planes until his service term ended. But he was grounded because he refused to complete the required physical, so at the least, that claim was a lie.

LWW
03-09-2011, 04:13 AM
Sadly for your myth, even MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6257505/) has reported it as a myth and records do in fact place Bush at the ANG in 1973.

LWW

Soflasnapper
03-11-2011, 02:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sadly for your myth, even MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6257505/) has reported it as a myth and records do in fact place Bush at the ANG in 1973.

LWW </div></div>

Perhaps MSNBC did report it as a myth, and you only accidentally got the wrong report linked?

Because the link does not support your claim in the slightest, and appears to agree instead with my position you call a myth.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Bush says he fulfilled all of his service obligations and did nothing wrong. The newly released documents shed no new light on the most controversial periods of Bush’s guard tenure.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The altitude training came six weeks before Bush began an unexplained string of flights on two-seat training jets and simulators. On April 12, 1972, Bush took his last flight in the single-seat F-102A fighter.

The future president skipped a required yearly medical exam and was ordered grounded as of August 1972. Bush says he missed the exam because he was planning to train with an Alabama Air National Guard unit which did not fly the F-102A.

Bush went to Alabama that year to work on the U.S. Senate campaign of a family friend.

Records show Bush did no Guard training at all between mid-April and late October 1972. He’s credited with six days of training in October and November 1972, presumably with the Alabama unit.

The Alabama unit’s commanders say they never saw Bush or any paperwork showing he performed drills there. A January 1973 document says Bush got a dental examination at the Alabama unit’s base. </div></div>