CHAVEZ, i mean obama wants govt control of media

[asaratis]

Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting -- especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

It is certainly true that a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged in the blogosphere.

It is also true that there were many opinions, no serious fact checking, no serious attempt to put stories in context and we had people shouting across the void...and we ended up with something less than desirable.

Obama's blog support even had the media kissing his deceptive ass.

 

[obama2ndterm]

Obama has no intention of controlling the media. none!

 

[Polk]

Another fucking bailout????

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

 

[Si modo]

Another fucking bailout????

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

The premise that a newspaper is a charity, in a country founded on a principle of a free press, is ridiculous on its face. Careful, you're making the argument of government influence on a free press more rock-solid.

 

[Polk]

Another fucking bailout????

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

The premise that a newspaper is a charity, in a country founded on a principle of a free press, is ridiculous on its face. Careful, you're making the argument of government influence on a free press more rock-solid.

How is giving news agencies the ability to be tax exempt entities an assault on press freedom?

 

[bill777]

The media is a whore, period.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Obama said that good journalism is "critical to the health of our democracy," but expressed concern toward growing tends in reporting -- especially on political blogs, from which a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged during the presidential election.

"I am concerned that if the direction of the news is all blogosphere, all opinions, with no serious fact-checking, no serious attempts to put stories in context, that what you will end up getting is people shouting at each other across the void but not a lot of mutual understanding," he said.

It is certainly true that a groundswell of support for his campaign emerged in the blogosphere.

It is also true that there were many opinions, no serious fact checking, no serious attempt to put stories in context and we had people shouting across the void...and we ended up with something less than desirable.

Obama's blog support even had the media kissing his deceptive ass.

Which was far more preferable than electing a Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from being President. The American public lucked out last time.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I'm not surprised by this at all. More people need to start understanding that Liberalism is not the same as Socialism. The Democratic Party is no longer the Party of Liberals. It has now become the Party of Socialists. There really is a big difference between the two. A true & honest Liberal could never support a cretin like Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez is a National Socialist just like Adolf Hitler was. Chavez is a Nazi pure and simple. Just take a closer look at the Barack Obama supporters and you will quickly see that they do fully support Chavez in his silencing of Free Speech by shutting down all opposition Media in Venezuela. No true & honest Liberal could ever support this. So Socialists bailing out the Media makes perfect sense in the end. Lets just hope more people start understanding the dangers of Socialism before it's too late.

 

[mal]

Another fucking bailout????

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

Why do they have to be "allowed"?...



peace...

 

[Si modo]

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

The premise that a newspaper is a charity, in a country founded on a principle of a free press, is ridiculous on its face. Careful, you're making the argument of government influence on a free press more rock-solid.

How is giving news agencies the ability to be tax exempt entities an assault on press freedom?

There are strict government rules under which an organization may retain non-profit status. It's code. That's not free.

 

[Polk]

Another fucking bailout????

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

Why do they have to be "allowed"?...



peace...

I'm not an expert in business law, but I had to venture a guess, I'd imagine it's not flipping a light switch.

 

[Polk]

The premise that a newspaper is a charity, in a country founded on a principle of a free press, is ridiculous on its face. Careful, you're making the argument of government influence on a free press more rock-solid.

How is giving news agencies the ability to be tax exempt entities an assault on press freedom?

There are strict government rules under which an organization may retain non-profit status. It's code. That's not free.

In that case, we don't have freedom of religion either, since the incomes of churches aren't taxed.

 

[mal]

Explain how allowing the companies to convert themselves to non-profits is a bailout.

Why do they have to be "allowed"?...



peace...

I'm not an expert in business law, but I had to venture a guess, I'd imagine it's not flipping a light switch.

That's all Fine, what was Stopping them before that they are now being "Allowed"?...



peace...

 

[bill777]

I'm not surprised by this at all. More people need to start understanding that Liberalism is not the same as Socialism. The Democratic Party is no longer the Party of Liberals. It has now become the Party of Socialists. There really is a big difference between the two.

Agreed. I hate to say it but Liberalism has disappeared. Name one faction of either major Party that is Liberal.

 

[Si modo]

How is giving news agencies the ability to be tax exempt entities an assault on press freedom?

There are strict government rules under which an organization may retain non-profit status. It's code. That's not free.

In that case, we don't have freedom of religion either, since the incomes of churches aren't taxed.

That's a good rebuttal. However, the churches are not in the business of informing the public. We do not have a Pravda or any other sort of state-run press here. Of course, this is not state run; but I am VERY uncomfortable with any government influence in the press. Very. It's a foot in a door of a dangerous situation.

I am also not a fan of assisting those businesses who have made poor business decisions. They should fail. Business darwinism.

 

[mal]

I am also not a fan of assisting those businesses who have made poor business decisions. They should fail. Business darwinism.

peace...

 

[bill777]

[/QUOTE] We do not have a Pravda or any other sort of state-run press here. [/QUOTE]

Are you sure about that?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Socialists are not Liberals. Hugo Chavez is not a Liberal. He is actually a National Socialist which makes him a Nazi. Most Barack Obama supporters do fully support Hugo Chavez and his silencing of Free Speech by shutting down all opposition Media in Venezuela. This is just fact. No true & honest Liberal could ever support that. People need to stop thinking of today's Democratic Party as being the Party of Liberals. It has instead now become the Party of Socialists. There are very few true Liberals left in the Democratic Party at this point.

 

[Polk]

Why do they have to be "allowed"?...



peace...

I'm not an expert in business law, but I had to venture a guess, I'd imagine it's not flipping a light switch.

That's all Fine, what was Stopping them before that they are now being "Allowed"?...



peace...

Without getting in to the details of the legislation, which I admittedly have yet to read in full, it sounds like the bill would streamline the process.

 

[Polk]

There are strict government rules under which an organization may retain non-profit status. It's code. That's not free.

In that case, we don't have freedom of religion either, since the incomes of churches aren't taxed.

That's a good rebuttal. However, the churches are not in the business of informing the public. We do not have a Pravda or any other sort of state-run press here. Of course, this is not state run; but I am VERY uncomfortable with any government influence in the press. Very. It's a foot in a door of a dangerous situation.

I am also not a fan of assisting those businesses who have made poor business decisions. They should fail. Business darwinism.

Your argument is a non sequitur. Your earlier statement was that allowing media outlets to operate as non-profits (and therefore be exempt from taxes) would limit their freedom. That's really no different from arguing that since churches aren't tax, their freedoms are also limited.