Broadcast Licenses & Dog Collars

Discussion in 'Media' started by Flanders, Apr 24, 2012.

  1. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,568
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    Exercising free speech requires more physical courage than does all of the other constitutional Rights combined. Movie industry Lefties are the most vocal defenders of the principle while they have the least courage when it comes to practicing free speech. I always wrote them off as con artists trying to get everybody else to speak up while they concentrated on grabbing the dough. Now I know they are simply cowards:

    April 24, 2012
    The Film Industry's Selective Bravery
    Jack Kemp

    Blog: The Film Industry's Selective Bravery

    A cottage industry

    Hollywood Lefties, and liberals in general, made a cottage industry out of attacking a dead senator, Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957). Based on that decades-long demonstration of verbal bravery liberals still claim it takes courage to be a liberal, yet the people and politics liberals attack are not nearly as violence prone as the Socialists/Communists liberals defend. Fear of a fatwa proves that liberals only attack when no courage is required. You can paraphrase the old saw and say “Liberals are guilty of every political crime that does not require courage.”

    Naturally, liberals insist they are on the side of justice and right when they defend the actions of violent black racists, Communists, and murderous Muslims, yet liberals come out of the woodwork screaming “Hate speech” whenever a well-known conservative exercises his or her free speech Right.

    Aging actress Susan Sarandon is a classic liberal:


    It took real courage for Suzy to expose the government’s brutality on that one even if it was her Democrats who did it to her.

    It gets worse for Suzy who revealed:


    I have to admit it did take courage to speak out about losing her White House security clearance.

    If SS thinks Pope Benedict is a Nazi what must she think of Hussein? So he had every right to bar a notorious Nazi hunter from the White house as a matter of self-protection.

    SS is also a pacifist —— the most cowardly political posture of all:


    SS opposes all war, but as far as I know she never criticized mass murders done by Communist governments, nor have I heard her object to violence and threats initiated by Muslim fundamentalists.

    Here’s the link to the article that includes some photos in case you are not a movie fan:


    'I've had my phone tapped': Susan Sarandon claims 'government is watching her'... and reveals she was denied White House security clearance
    By Lydia Warren

    Susan Sarandon: I've had my phone tapped | Mail Online

    Free speech and media

    Bernard Goldberg is the subject of my final observation on free speech. Please click on the link and move the cursor to 4:50 to hear his brief remarks about the necessity of a free press:


    Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos

    First let me say that BG is usually pretty good. His 2001 book —— Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News —— was earthshattering at the time even though it basically defended the media as he did last night on The Factor.

    I have two major objections to Goldberg’s media:

    1. The media does not defend free speech it defends freedom of the press. The two are incompatible.

    2. There is not one legitimate reason to have a free press if it does not attack government; all government —— liberal and conservative. Fair & Balanced is the fraud Goldberg’s beloved FOX Network is perpetrating.

    I can ignore media mouths pumping up their profession and incomes, but Goldberg really let me down when he said “We need to trust them. We need to believe them.” By “we” I assume Goldberg means “everybody” because a substantial number of Americans do believe whatever the media tells them. The people who now believe the media are the same people who believe everything people like Susan Sarandon say. That alone should make every respectable journalist’s flesh crawl.

    As for me, I’m not going to believe anybody that works for the Ministry of Propaganda (FCC). If talking heads want me to believe them they have to start criticizing their bosses for this:


    David Rockefeller's 1991 Bilderberg Quote...Ten Years Later

    That’s six decades of media lies of omission; 67 years if you start the clock in 1945.

    Finally, print press has First Amendment protection as Goldberg well-knows; so what does that make television? Answer: An instrument of government propaganda because print press can void its promise at any time, while television will forever be the government’s lap dog wearing broadcast licenses for dog collars.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Yep wireless fence dog collars are regulated by the FCC.
     
  3. whitehall
    Online

    whitehall Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    27,823
    Thanks Received:
    4,343
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Western Va.
    Ratings:
    +10,797
    I wonder what Barry does with the collars after he finishes eating.
     
  4. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,568
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To whitehall: Good one.

    My guess: He sells them to the poor to wear as scarves.
     
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,832
    Thanks Received:
    15,671
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,994

    1. Insight into Free Press, and the Center for American Progress can be seen in “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” co-authored by Mark Lloyd. The following from their policy report: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/pdf/talk_radio.pdf

    a. “…more than 90 percent of Americans ages 12 or older listen to radio each week, “a higher penetration than television, magazines, newspapers, or the Internet.”… Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006…conservative talk radio undeniably dominates the format…91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive

    b. The two most frequently cited reasons are the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and simple consumer demand….Ownership diversity is perhaps the single most important variable contributing to the structural imbalance based on the data.

    2. “This slanted paper whines that AM talk radio is dominated by conservative views and suggests that liberal views should be forced upon the talk radio industry. That left-wing idea, of course, is bad enough, but the group that Lloyd was working with to have the paper published shows ties to left-wingers, out-right Marxists and other haters of this country and that connection should have disqualified Lloyd for service in the federal government.

    At the end of September of 2001, right after the Twin Towers fell, McChesney said that the United States was the, “leading terrorist institution in the world today.” In February of 2009, McChesney recommended that capitalism be “dismantled” in the U.S.A. “It is typical communist boilerplate. In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles. This is something that the great majority of the population will undoubtedly learn in the course of their struggles for a more equal, more humane, more collective, and more sustainable world. In the meantime, it is time to begin to organize a revolt against the ruling class–imposed ceiling on civilian government spending and social welfare in U.S. society.”(A New New Deal under Obama? :: Monthly Review)
    Another of Obama’s Radical Appointees : Stop The ACLU
     
  6. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,568
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To PoliticalChic: Great response.

    Mark Lloyd and the Left would like nothing better than to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine; so anything he had a hand in writing is suspect. One of his FCC titles is Chief Diversity Officer. What the hell is that?


    To PoliticalChic: I have to admit that my OP did not incorporate my thoughts on talk radio.

    Just looking at hours alone does not cover what is being listened to. A lot of those listening hours are devoted to music.

    Also, there are no dramas, sitcoms, late night comedy shows, TV movies, Hollywood movie reruns, etc., on radio. On television those shows are major voices for liberal propaganda —— “entertainment” shows were not governed by the Fairness Doctrine when it was enforced, nor will they be governed by the Fairness Doctrine if it is reinstated in any form.


    To PoliticalChic: Some balance has been achieved since 1987. That is a balance of sorts in outlets. Liberals have more platforms than do conservatives, but that isn’t good enough for them when nobody is listening to their radio and TV talk shows.

    Liberals are further frustrated when they try to establish an audience balance because that means they have to get non-liberals to listen to Left-leaning shows. Happily, achieving balance on individual shows is impossible because the audience decides which shows it listens to. It is that freedom to choose that liberals hate. They can force children in public education to listen to the liberal message, ditto young adults in higher education, but they cannot force a free people to listen liberal garbage.


    To PoliticalChic: Liberals would whine about how unfair things are in the Garden of Eden.

    Let me close with an observation. FOX is loaded with liberals.

    No less than 30 minutes out of every hour on FOX is taken up by product commercials and lead-in times. Most of the remaining 30 minutes is devoted to junk stories reported over and over again all day long; stories that nobody cares about the first time around. That leaves maybe five minutes of talk about important political issues. I channel surf for a few minutes two or three times a day; so I can’t help noticing that a liberal is talking whenever I surf into a FOX show.

    Delivering liberal talking points to conservative ears is one of the reasons FOX can easily be added to the list of liberal outlets.
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2012
  7. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    That’s a lot of typing and effort for such a monumental failure and exhibition of ignorance.

    This has nothing to do with ‘free speech,’ the First Amendment concerns only government excess with regard to free expression violations.

    Now, when a democratic or liberal member of Congress gets a bill signed into law making Fox News illegal, then you’ll have a legitimate issue.
     
  8. Flanders
    Offline

    Flanders ARCHCONSERVATIVE

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2010
    Messages:
    6,568
    Thanks Received:
    634
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,581
    To C_Clayton_Jones: You demonstrate your own ignorance when you begin by attacking the messenger instead of the message. I’ll tell you the same thing I’ve told countless message board liberals in the past 12 years. Put some work in on your reading comprehension skills. I don’t write my messages for half-wits. Don’t read them if they are too much for you.

    To C_Clayton_Jones: “. . . government excess with regard to free expression violations.” What does that mean in relation to the First Amendment? In fact, what does it mean without considering the First Amendment?

    To C_Clayton_Jones: What the hell are you talking about? Why would the government make one of its tools illegal? Had you comprehended this in the OP:

    you would not have made such an idiotic statement.
     

Share This Page