Should government shut down media sources that tell "lies"?

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
Considering we started multiple wars under the Bush Administration, which simultaneously increased our oil usage tremendously (the military), and had us occupying and pissing off the founding country of OPEC, I think the President may have been on to something. Particularly when you consider that the extended stay in the Middle East was caused by a botched effort to catch bin Laden (we captured Hussein and let Bin Laden escape) and a disbanding of the military and paramilitary infrastructure of Iraq (putting approximately 600,000 military trained men looking for jobs in the biggest Al-Queda hotspot in the world), yes, I think it's safe to say that the Bush administration may have screwed the pooch. Some of us were paying attention in 2008.

Ok, so you believe that Bush was responsible for high gas prices in 2008 but Obama is NOT responsible for high gas prices now. Gotcha.

I don't believe presidents are responsible for gas prices. However, their policies certainly affect them. Obviously a war with Iran will result in increased prices. Even the threat of war has seemingly driven up prices. Something that would help, though, would be to allow more drilling in more locations. I'm all for developing new forms of energy (solar, wind, etc.) but for the here-and-now we need to increase the available supply of oil in order to reduce the cost of filling up our cars. This is where Obama is dead wrong.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
The Constitution protects them just like it protects this site. Who gets to decide what constitutes news? If you don't agree with them, change the channel.

So you don't believe that government should silence media outlets that spread lies? That's pretty unfascist of you! :rolleyes:
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Do you believe this is unique to Fox? What about MSNBC?
MSNBC always had reporters with conservative leanings. When's the last time you saw a liberal on Fox? Seeing as how that's still a dirty word at that studio?
The reality is that nobody hates like the loving left!
How about Fred Phelps?
Some of these guys are little
Generalizing already, but continue...
That's a right-wing philosophy :rolleyes:
Wow, you're really winning points here.
that cannot tolerate a perspective that varies from their own.
From the person who's been hyperdefensive of Fox News lately, judging by the multiple threads you've started on the subject.
They won't engage in a serious discussion because they lack the mental acumen to do so.
And you end by calling everyone who thinks different than you stupid. Considering you confused Fascism for a liberal ideal, I'll just chalk it up to a string of insults that don't really mean much. But I have to say that it calls your own mental acumen into question when you ironically throw out insults that mean the exact opposite of what you intended.

Is there anything in particular you hate about "The left" that you're like to vent? An exact instance you can state? Or are you (again, the irony) merely accusing all of the left of being this way, in the same way you say people generalize Fox News as telling outright lies all the time?
Ok, so you believe that Bush was responsible for high gas prices in 2008 but Obama is NOT responsible for high gas prices now. Gotcha.
Obama inherited the wars, nothing he could do about that except try to extract us whenever possible, and he did pull us out of Iraq. So bully for him. At this point however, we're no longer the chief users of oil in the world. The Industrialization of China has exploded in the past 5 years, and whereas we used to consume 70% of the oil sold in the world, we have dropped to about 20%. We'll have significantly less say going forward. In a way, it actually exonerates Bush to a degree; the oil prices would've happened anyway, it just happened a bit sooner because of actions from his administration.
I don't believe presidents are responsible for gas prices. However, their policies certainly affect them. Obviously a war with Iran will result in increased prices. Even the threat of war has seemingly driven up prices. Something that would help, though, would be to allow more drilling in more locations. I'm all for developing new forms of energy (solar, wind, etc.) but for the here-and-now we need to increase the available supply of oil in order to reduce the cost of filling up our cars. This is where Obama is dead wrong.
The report showing how much oil was under the Rocky Mountains was found to be greatly, GREATLY inaccurate. Like, a couple of orders of magnitude inaccurate. That said, are you for the nationalization of US oil deposits? Sure, the oil could be sold cheap, but when it's drilled up, why the hell wouldn't the company doing so sell it for the fair market rate? How exactly would oil prices significantly decrease just because we tapped a few more kegs locally? Hell, any sane company would ship it straight to Europe, where gasoline sells for ten dollars a gallon. Isn't capitalism grand?
 
Last edited:

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
There are some great examples here of the so-called "loving" left. lol! The reality is that nobody hates like the loving left! Some of these guys are little fascist cowards that cannot tolerate a perspective that varies from their own. They won't engage in a serious discussion because they lack the mental acumen to do so.

I don't agree with the sentiment that the left has the upper-hand when it comes to spewing hate; I've seen enough pictures of the President with a string of bananas around his neck or lynched on a tree at Tea Party gatherings to believe that. Your assessment my be your personal view, but to an outsider its condescending delivery seems to be based more on emotion than observation. There are fanatical, ravenous members of all parties.

Secondly, many people refuse to engage in a serious (note the term "serious") discussion with a member of any opposing party because it's fruitless. If you put 100 people in a room and throw a rock, the likelihood you will hit one who believes that disagreement doesn't equal outright hatred is slim. Mental acumen often has hell-all to do with a debate; some people just won't admit that they are so rooted and grounded in their beliefs that there simply isn't any more room in their programmed brains for other input. And yes, once again, I've seen this innumerable times from both parties.

I'd much rather someone say, "F**k you, I don't want to listen to what you have to say!" than dazzle me with their footwork by "discussing" an issue with me--to only then find out they were biding their time while I expressed myself so they could come up with ways to dispute me, no matter what it is I said. That transcends politics; that, my friend has more to do with class and manners than party affiliation.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
I'd much rather someone say, "F**k you, I don't want to listen to what you have to say!" than dazzle me with their footwork by "discussing" an issue with me--to only then find out they were biding their time while I expressed myself so they could come up with ways to dispute me, no matter what it is I said. That transcends politics; that, my friend has more to do with class and manners than party affiliation.
Bravo. Well said. :35:
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
MSNBC always had reporters with conservative leanings. When's the last time you saw a liberal on Fox?

Fox has liberals on their shows. Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and they interview liberals all the time. It seems you don't actually watch Fox News or you would or should have known that.

Posters that call others names and then put on ignore are tiny-minded people that I believe are intellectual cowards. Wanting to silence those that have a different perspective renders them fascists. That describes those other posters to the tee.

As for oil, there are massive oil deposits that are untouched. Look, if an oil company is willing to invest its time and money to look for it, why not? Wouldn't it be better to reduce gas for $4 per gallon to $2? Wouldn't it better to be able to consume our own oil as opposed to enriching a bunch of middle east dictators? Let 'em drill. If they don't find it you and I are out nothing.
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
I don't agree with the sentiment that the left has the upper-hand when it comes to spewing hate; I've seen enough pictures of the President with a string of bananas around his neck or lynched on a tree at Tea Party gatherings to believe that. Your assessment my be your personal view, but to an outsider its condescending delivery seems to be based more on emotion than observation. There are fanatical, ravenous members of all parties.

Secondly, many people refuse to engage in a serious (note the term "serious") discussion with a member of any opposing party because it's fruitless. If you put 100 people in a room and throw a rock, the likelihood you will hit one who believes that disagreement doesn't equal outright hatred is slim. Mental acumen often has hell-all to do with a debate; some people just won't admit that they are so rooted and grounded in their beliefs that there simply isn't any more room in their programmed brains for other input. And yes, once again, I've seen this innumerable times from both parties.

I'd much rather someone say, "F**k you, I don't want to listen to what you have to say!" than dazzle me with their footwork by "discussing" an issue with me--to only then find out they were biding their time while I expressed myself so they could come up with ways to dispute me, no matter what it is I said. That transcends politics; that, my friend has more to do with class and manners than party affiliation.

Well, we're on a "discussion" board, right? Those who come to this board do so to read about and, in some cases, discuss political issues, correct? In my opinion it is intellectually disingenuous to participate in a discussion and then, when another expresses an alternate view, make personal attacks, threaten to put them on "ignore" and express a desire for them to be banned. That is the way of the coward. I haven't called anyone here "stupid" for having a view that differs from my own and then tell them I'm going to put them on "ignore" and then express a hope that they be banned. I can take it as well as I can give it'; they cannot.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
Fox has liberals on their shows. Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, Bob Beckel and they interview liberals all the time. It seems you don't actually watch Fox News or you would or should have known that.
Perhaps I should have specified people who actually have a show on Fox, are a news anchor, etc. Alan Colmes considers himself "quite moderate" and is widely viewed as a "token liberal" to allow Fox to claim they are "fair and balanced". Juan Williams' true political leanings are unknown, because, like Glenn Beck, how he reports varies based off of who he is reporting for, and there was a stark contrast between what he expressed on Fox and as a radio host on NPR. He's probably fairly centrist, but he himself has said he's not liberal. Beckel's... kind of a fuck-up to be honest. Man needs to get his act straight before he tells anyone how to think on anything.

Posters that call others names and then put on ignore are tiny-minded people that I believe are intellectual cowards. Wanting to silence those that have a different perspective renders them fascists. That describes those other posters to the tee.
So by your logic, anyone that doesn't stand their ground when you mouth off, rather than ignoring you, is a coward? And as for "wanting to silence" others, has anyone actually taken steps to shut you up? Have you received warnings of complaints from the Moderators? It still wouldn't make them fascists in any case. Censorship is hardly a unique facet of fascism.

As for oil, there are massive oil deposits that are untouched. Look, if an oil company is willing to invest its time and money to look for it, why not? Wouldn't it be better to reduce gas for $4 per gallon to $2? Wouldn't it better to be able to consume our own oil as opposed to enriching a bunch of middle east dictators? Let 'em drill. If they don't find it you and I are out nothing.
First off: start up costs. oil drilling stations and refineries have to be built and implemented. Second, oil prices would not drop, OPEC controls that. Third, for the gas prices to drop that much due to straight supply and demand, we'd have to start producing and refining oil at a rate equivalent to the rest of the world combined. Fourth, if oil companies get the oil, why wouldn't they take it where they could get the most money for it? It's a pipe dream. The fact that you think gas prices would drop that low from local drilling shows the kind of propaganda you've been listening to. I didn't need someone to tell me what to think. I looked at the reports, crunched some numbers, and concluded people were living in a fantasy world.
 
Last edited:

Tee&A

Experimental Member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
345
Media
0
Likes
13
Points
163
Location
Cali
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
Well, we're on a "discussion" board, right? Those who come to this board do so to read about and, in some cases, discuss political issues, correct? In my opinion it is intellectually disingenuous to participate in a discussion and then, when another expresses an alternate view, make personal attacks, threaten to put them on "ignore" and express a desire for them to be banned. That is the way of the coward. I haven't called anyone here "stupid" for having a view that differs from my own and then tell them I'm going to put them on "ignore" and then express a hope that they be banned. I can take it as well as I can give it'; they cannot.

We are indeed on a discussion board--but when it comes to the Pol forum, that is in name only. Very little discussion goes on here now--but there are plenty of pissing contests/standoffs, temper tantrums, and yelling "Fire!" in a public theater.

You may not have called anyone stupid, but from the outside looking in (in my opinion) you can be tongue-in-cheek inflammatory--which to me, is more damaging than being insulting. I can take a "F*$k you!" What I can't take is someone who runs into a room, throws a rock, yells "F*$k you!" and then sits back and watches the ensuing confusion and/or melee. If the person(s) the rock hit decide to be the bigger person and leave you to your devices? Then they're cowards (*shrug*).

And once again, disengagement from a debate isn't about cowardice; in some cases it's about having more class, better manners, or no desire to beat Mr. Ed when he has already been in the ground for over 40 years. If someone realizes the opposing party simply refuses to listen and decides it isn't worth the effort, why continue to engage? Just to say you didn't back down from a brick wall? Oh. Wait--there's that pissing contest again. I don't have to be right, as long as I outlast you and I don't concede. Isn't that how it works.

Above all else, effective debate should be civil, factual, and most of all, edifying When it gets past that point it's a waste of time for all involved parties. ...You do remember the old Mark Twain saying about arguing with a fool, don't you?
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
We are indeed on a discussion board--but when it comes to the Pol forum, that is in name only. Very little discussion goes on here now--but there are plenty of pissing contests/standoffs, temper tantrums, and yelling "Fire!" in a public theater.

You may not have called anyone stupid, but from the outside looking in (in my opinion) you can be tongue-in-cheek inflammatory--which to me, is more damaging than being insulting. I can take a "F*$k you!" What I can't take is someone who runs into a room, throws a rock, yells "F*$k you!" and then sits back and watches the ensuing confusion and/or melee. If the person(s) the rock hit decide to be the bigger person and leave you to your devices? Then they're cowards (*shrug*).

And once again, disengagement from a debate isn't about cowardice; in some cases it's about having more class, better manners, or no desire to beat Mr. Ed when he has already been in the ground for over 40 years. If someone realizes the opposing party simply refuses to listen and decides it isn't worth the effort, why continue to engage? Just to say you didn't back down from a brick wall? Oh. Wait--there's that pissing contest again. I don't have to be right, as long as I outlast you and I don't concede. Isn't that how it works.

Above all else, effective debate should be civil, factual, and most of all, edifying When it gets past that point it's a waste of time for all involved parties. ...You do remember the old Mark Twain saying about arguing with a fool, don't you?

You wouldn't have called me out if I was posting a pro-liberal point of view, would you?
 

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
The fact that you think gas prices would drop that low from local drilling shows the kind of propaganda you've been listening to. I didn't need someone to tell me what to think.

You chastise me and then turn around make remarks like this.

Here's a fact of economics. Greater supply reduces prices. If we allowed corporations to drill more there would be, most likely, a greater supply of oil and costs would be reduced. We have have to agree to disagree on that.
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
You wouldn't have called me out if I was posting a pro-liberal point of view, would you?
She did however call you out, and there wasn't a hint of denial in your post. How would you know if she's liberal or not? What you just said was a passive aggressive accusation of her political leanings, when you really have little way of knowing most of them. Here, let me translate for you. Don't be a dick. We're all adults here. Act civil and stop trying to pick a fight.
 

manju

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Posts
406
Media
0
Likes
145
Points
128
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
What say you?

No, the government in any free society should not interfere with the free speech of its public nor police it with censorship. That will only invite abuse of power especially news critical of the government.

Those outlets which broadcast lies will ultimately have the reputation of being untrustworthy sources of news and loose credibility on their own accord.

Those people that propagate lies to as the truth merely to incite hatred often are relegated as trolls and bafoons and hopefully become ostacised, like Glen Beck.
 
Last edited:

Panda2007

1st Like
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Posts
170
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
101
She did however call you out, and there wasn't a hint of denial in your post.

I've seen some pretty radical and hateful posts in this forum but I don't recall her calling them out. So I am presuming that she is selective in who she calls out based on their political leanings.

I enjoy discussing political and social issues. Those who share this view are free to participate with me. But it's laughable that someone who disagrees with me and calls me names and runs away from the discussion is, somehow, taking a higher road.

Anyway, back to the topic, wouldn't our country be better if the government was empowered to shut down media outlets that tell lies?
 

JTalbain

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Posts
1,786
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
258
Age
34
You chastise me and then turn around make remarks like this.
That's because the views you are expressing have been propagated by a MISUNDERSTANDING of the values from a single study. Even after such views were debunked, they have continued to perpetuate themselves, and they have only done so in a small portion of HIGHLY CONSERVATIVE circles. So yes, it narrows down the tone of what you've been listening to.

Here's a fact of economics. Greater supply reduces prices. If we allowed corporations to drill more there would be, most likely, a greater supply of oil and costs would be reduced. We have have to agree to disagree on that.
Here's a fact for you. If I make a sandwich and sell it on the street corner, the prices at Subway do not decrease. If I make a million sandwiches, Subway doesn't care. Supply has increased, but not enough to matter compared to the mammoth that is Subway. Additionally, Subway's prices are controlled by their corporate headquarters, and even the Subways in an area saturated with my sandwiches WILL NOT lower their prices.

It would be much the same with the oil. Here's the unbridled truth from that study, If we harnessed all oil resources under US control, nationalized them to prevent use or price fixing by other countries or OPEC, and extracted enough to cover the oil consumption of the US, our oil reserves would be completely depleted in about one year. We do not have enough here to realistically affect the prices. Furthermore, if it was being extracted at that rate, the fact of the matter is that the companies extracting it are not under US control, and will have absolutely no reason to sell it cheap enough to make $2 gas a reality.