Obama Calls for Amendment Limiting Free-Speech Rights

[frigidweirdo]

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

And people like Trump are making entertainment and passing it off as news, they get air time.

 

[Flopper]

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

And people like Trump are making entertainment and passing it off as news, they get air time.

That's because he is entertaining and fun to watch. Several publications are now covering Trump in their entertainment not their political section.

However, on the serious side, Trump has launched the first campaign for major political office based on racial paranoia since the days of Jim Crow and Dixiecrat anti-integrationists. Trump has successfully struck a a nerve among those who irrationally fear the “browning” of America. It doesn't seem to concern him that his views are not shared by the vast majority of American. He seems to be content with capturing the lead in the Republican primary polls by making the most outlandish statements and promises that the Democrats would crucify him with in a general election.

By contrast, a few weeks ago, Jeb Bush addressing immigration spoke a few lines of Spanish which may well be used in a video clip in the general election to attract Hispanic voters. This is how successful candidates win elections. They are careful about what they say and they are always looking ahead. Trump on the other hand, says whatever people want to hear as long as it will get a laugh or a round of applause. When he's questioned by reporters and other candidates, he just throws up his hands and dismisses it as totally irrelevant and stupid and his followers just love him for it.

 

[Mustang]

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

And people like Trump are making entertainment and passing it off as news, they get air time.

It's like a game show. "Who wants to be the President?"

 

[bripat9643]

And the Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the door for corporate control of the political process.

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

That's always been true of TV news as well as newspapers and now the internet. The reading level for newspapers is set at the 6th grade for a reason.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

And people like Trump are making entertainment and passing it off as news, they get air time.

That's because he is entertaining and fun to watch. Several publications are now covering Trump in their entertainment not their political section.

However, on the serious side, Trump has launched the first campaign for major political office based on racial paranoia since the days of Jim Crow and Dixiecrat anti-integrationists. Trump has successfully struck a a nerve among those who irrationally fear the “browning” of America. It doesn't seem to concern him that his views are not shared by the vast majority of American. He seems to be content with capturing the lead in the Republican primary polls by making the most outlandish statements and promises that the Democrats would crucify him with in a general election.

By contrast, a few weeks ago, Jeb Bush addressing immigration spoke a few lines of Spanish which may well be used in a video clip in the general election to attract Hispanic voters. This is how successful candidates win elections. They are careful about what they say and they are always looking ahead. Trump on the other hand, says whatever people want to hear as long as it will get a laugh or a round of applause. When he's questioned by reporters and other candidates, he just throws up his hands and dismisses it as totally irrelevant and stupid and his followers just love him for it.

Trump is beating Bush by a wide margin and he's also beating all the Democrats in the latest polls, so your theory seems to be pure horseshit. Americans are fed up with illegals and politicians who do nothing but make excuses for the problem.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

And people like Trump are making entertainment and passing it off as news, they get air time.

It's like a game show. "Who wants to be the President?"

Question 1: The rights in the Bill of Rights protect who?
A) Rich people
B) White people
C) Males
D) Everyone

 

[Slyhunter]

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

And people like Trump are making entertainment and passing it off as news, they get air time.

That's because he is entertaining and fun to watch. Several publications are now covering Trump in their entertainment not their political section.

However, on the serious side, Trump has launched the first campaign for major political office based on racial paranoia since the days of Jim Crow and Dixiecrat anti-integrationists. Trump has successfully struck a a nerve among those who irrationally fear the “browning” of America. It doesn't seem to concern him that his views are not shared by the vast majority of American. He seems to be content with capturing the lead in the Republican primary polls by making the most outlandish statements and promises that the Democrats would crucify him with in a general election.

By contrast, a few weeks ago, Jeb Bush addressing immigration spoke a few lines of Spanish which may well be used in a video clip in the general election to attract Hispanic voters. This is how successful candidates win elections. They are careful about what they say and they are always looking ahead. Trump on the other hand, says whatever people want to hear as long as it will get a laugh or a round of applause. When he's questioned by reporters and other candidates, he just throws up his hands and dismisses it as totally irrelevant and stupid and his followers just love him for it.

Explain why he got 25% of the black vote. Freedom working men and women love him.

 

[PredFan]

"President Barack Obama endorsed a constitutional amendment that would restrict the free-speech rights of political activist groups by overturning the Supreme Court decision in the landmark Citizens United v FEC case that granted First Amendment rights to corporations."

Good. Money isn't speech, and corporations aren't people. Not all that difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Then ban Trade Unions from contributions. Money isn't speech, and unions aren't people. Not at all difficult to understand if you think about it, which you don't.

Of course being an idiot hack, and unions being democrat supporters, you won't agree with this.

I have no problem banning union money at all.
What exactly we are addressing is bribing elected officials who are suppose to representing each and every constituent, instead they end up representing "dark money" from who knows where.
Of course the right is all for it as they are the bigger whores and have no problem at all with politicians for sale to the highest bidder. How patriotic of these folks.

Complete bull shit.

 

[Flopper]

LOL!!! You have no idea what the decision did. Go read it instead of getting your facts from Maddow.

I don't watch any cable news programs simply because too often there's very little information offered, and because what used to be debate has morphed into different sides offering up talking points with people on both sides considerably less concerned at what's factually true than they are at scoring some kind of transient momentary televised victory. It makes a mockery of debate and discussion. Talk radio is worse, of course, since it's nonstop propaganda which serves to offer up nonsensical arguments in an effort to garner support for phony issues which they can't win if they rely solely on facts and truth.

Absolutely. Cable news is terrible at providing real information. What they provide is selected information that they feel will be of interest to viewers. That translates into sensationalism, opinions, and exaggerations.

That's true of all news sources. So what's your point?

TV is a capsule view of the news. A story that would occupy say a 1,000 words will be reduced to 200 to 300 words to fit into a 2 minute time slot. And what criteria is used to fit the story in the segment?

Some years ago, I think it was in the 70's, the decision was made at a major network that TV news had to cover it's cost. From that point on, TV news began to compete with entertainment offerings. By the late 1990's, no network would stand for an unprofitable TV news program.

So how do you make TV news profitable? Make a third of the program commercials. Make news stories sensational, eliminate all those boring facts and figures. Don't confuse the audience with gray areas. The job of a TV news staff is take the mundane and the boring and turn it into a spectacular story, even though it grossly distorts the facts. TV news and lot of the Internet news is really not news today. It's entertainment.

That's always been true of TV news as well as newspapers and now the internet. The reading level for newspapers is set at the 6th grade for a reason.

Not always. I can remember when TV news was just plain boring, no sobbing widows, no one telling you what you need to know, no one explaining the news, just news read straight off the AP and UP wire and 4 to 6 minutes of commercials per half hour. Those were the days when news broadcasting was more of a public service, a requirement by the FCC, long before cable news.