Should Fines Be Imposed on Anyone Who Makes False Claims/Statements of Fact on TV?

[Avatar4321]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

But then he would have to actually determine whether he is being lied to or not. That would involve thinking longer than the time it takes to form a kneejerk reaction.

He doesnt want to do that. He wants the government to tell us everything. Its quite sad.

 

[Avatar4321]

No, what's retarded is throwing up one's hands and deciding to accept something that's personally unacceptable and offensive to most people. That's called a defeatist attitide. I didn't mention doing anything other than fining people. I didn't suggest arrest or prosecution or anything extreme. Just hitting people in the pocket book. Surprising how much that will get people to straigten up and fly right.

Is there ANYTHING some of you don't want to meddle in? Who is going to be the JUDGE AND JURY on whether what is said was a lie? Is is our fault some of you can't understand WHEN you are being lied to. Would you suggest we go back and fine BILL Clinton? stupid stupid idea, now carry on.

You ever hear of a fact checker? Newspapers and magazines employ them, as do reputable book publishers and their authors. I read once that George Will has one.

And what if the factcheckers are lying? What if they have an agenda?

You want to empower buearcrats to be fact checkers when they get paid by politicians? Yeah that's not a recipe for corruption.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I see your mistake. I noticed it in the first two words of your post. I would be exceedingly happy if both sides of the aisle had their little prevarication TV tap dance shut down.

Therein lies the rub..

That which contradicts the official position of the party will be called "lies" by you.

In a free country, if you don't like it, don't watch it.

 

[manifold]

Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?

There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.

That's not a reading comprehension problem on the part of the forum.

It's an abject ignorance problem on the part of you.

WTF do you think is going to run it dumbass?

 

[Avatar4321]

oh and btw Poontang, if you don't like being lied to you can do what I do and change the fucking channel you dipshit.

I don't watch those shows anymore, oh witless one.

Amazing how you know that shows you dont watch are lying.

We certainly need to start fining those shows. I mean they have to be bad if you know they are lying without watching them.

 

[manifold]

Obama has already given us a perfect example of why this is a horrible idea.

He has given us the euphamism "spending cuts in the tax code", which by all intellectually honest accounts means increases in tax revenues and not a 'cut' in spending at all.

You'd have a pundit on Fox News declaring: Obama's budget proposal does not include any spending cuts.

You'd have a pundit on MSNBC declaring: Obama's budget proposal includes targeted spending cuts.

Two pundits declaring the exact opposite. But which one gets fined I wonder?

So Poontang, who is lying in this example?

Still waiting for Poontang to give us a ruling on this one.

What do you think the odds of that happening are?

 

[Stephanie]

Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?

There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.

That's not a reading comprehension problem on the part of the forum.

It's an abject ignorance problem on the part of you.

WTF do you think is going to run it dumbass?

LOL, they haven't THOUGHT that far ahead. but hey, it sounded good for anyone who has a little fascist in them.

 

[manifold]

Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?

There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.

That's not a reading comprehension problem on the part of the forum.

It's an abject ignorance problem on the part of you.

WTF do you think is going to run it dumbass?

LOL, they haven't THOUGHT that far ahead. but hey, it sounded good for anyone who has a little fascist in them.

He posted earlier that the liar's employers would issue the fines. Like that would actually work!

 

[Avatar4321]

Even midcan5 knows that this is a horrible idea. That's midcan mother fucking FIVE man! USMB's endless repository of other people's ultra-leftwing ideology. Clearly Poontang has ventured off the talking point reservation with this tangent of lunacy.

But whatcha gonna do?

Scary that people actually want to try to silence us with government sanction. I never have understood why anyone would oppose free speech. I still don't know any geniune or reasonable argument for it. But there seems to be alot more people than I like who want to oppress others and eliminate our speech for their political gains and personal moral failings.

 

[Mustang]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

Why wouldn't I be alright with freedom of speech? What do you have against it?

Are you seriously that intellectually lazy that you have to empower the government to help you figure out what the "truth" is by prosecuting those who you say are misleading people?

Another refugee from reading comprehension program, I see.

 

[manifold]

I honestly don't know Mustang from Adam as this is the first time I recall ever reading anything he's posted. I'm seriously hoping that we've all been had and this was just a goof on his part. If that's the case then he would deserve a tip of the cap. If not, wow, just fucking WOW!

 

[Avatar4321]

As much as I miss my Dad, I'm glad he's not here to see how far his fellow Democrats of decended.

Why the hell are we debating Freedom of Speech?

How the fuck can any American even consider that?

If you think a guy on TV is lying to you, change the fucking channel!

It's easy;

Pick up the remote
aim it at the TV
look for the chanel up/down buttons
put thumb on button
re-aim at tv
drink some beer
push button until you get to some cartoons
drink some more beer
take thumb off button
put remote down
drink some beer

Or do as my dad did and tell your kids to change the channel, while drinking a beer.

Freedom of speech is not some kind of absolute sacrosanct right that the term itself is somehow an excuse for unacceptable behavior. actually, it is. There are all kinds of situations and places when and where a person can't say whatever he pleases. That's just a fact, like it or not. And as employees, TV personalities certainly aren't free to say whatever they want on the air, are they? Can they talk disparingly about their bosses (even if what they say is true)? No! Yes. They just suffer the consequinces. Can the slander someone on air? There is a law for that, where the person still has to prove slander. Yeah, if they want to get fired. So, why is lying about public policy, or legislation, or anything else related to the operation of our gov't suddenly some kind of sacred cow?

B/c Freedom of Speech is the most sacred of cows.

I can't understand that this has to be explained. How far off the rails of freedom does a person have to be that this has to be spelled out?

I'm not prepared for this. Never in my life would I have thougt I would come across a situation where someone is demanding tyranny in America, b/c they think they are being lied to.

please tell me you are a 20 something.

I fear we will see more of this in days to come.

 

[MarcATL]

No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.

Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

There are facts and there are lies.

Facts can be proven to be true.

For instance, it's a fact that Prosser choked his fellow judge Bradley. That's a fact. As it's provable to be either true or false.

An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.

You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.

Snap out of it!!!

If he hasn't been convicted of assualt, you just commited slander, b/c it's not a fact, unless he confessed. Until he confesses or is proven guilty, it's hearsay

Exhibit A:

Your honor I present to you the first ideological radical RWer.

The subject believes that if someone were to say, choke them to death, got away with it, but someone else who saw it but couldn't prove it said that the choker did it but they weren't convicted in Court, then that statement would be hearsay.

I rest my case.

 

[daveman]

What are we supposed to gather from the poll results. Are the people who voted no are okay with:

1. being lied to?

and

2. allowing the political opposition (as well as their own side) demagogue the issues by spreading misinformation and disinformation?

Why wouldn't I be alright with freedom of speech? What do you have against it?

Are you seriously that intellectually lazy that you have to empower the government to help you figure out what the "truth" is by prosecuting those who you say are misleading people?

Another refugee from reading comprehension program, I see.

Well, let's just read what you wrote, shall we?

...should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV? For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.​

1. Who decides which claims are lies?

2. Who levies the fines?

3. Who enforces the no-appearance ban?

 

[Avatar4321]

Did I say anything about this being run by the gov't?

There SURE are a lot of reading comprehension problems on this forum.

So exactly who do you think will be fining people if not the government?

You do realize that the government, whether State or Federal, is the only entity with the power to fine people right?

If private citizens and groups have the power to fine others, then I am hereby envoking my right to fine you for proposing such a ridiculous ideas. Please provide me with a check for $500.

 

[daveman]

Exhibit A:

Your honor I present to you the first ideological radical RWer.

The subject believes that if someone were to say, choke them to death, got away with it, but someone else who saw it but couldn't prove it said that the choker did it but they weren't convicted in Court, then that statement would be hearsay.

I rest my case.

You're really not very good at this. I suggest you stop.

 

[MarcATL]

No, you idiot...who decides what's the truth? Because your and I do not agree on what the truth is.

Are you a fool?!??

The bolded is utter nonsense and the crux of the problem we have today.

The idea, or reality, that many people think that truth is different depending upon ideology. Because that's exactly what you're suggesting by that statement.

There are facts and there are lies.

Facts can be proven to be true.

For instance, it's a fact that Prosser choked his fellow judge Bradley. That's a fact. As it's provable to be either true or false.

An opinion would be he's a savage for doing that, that's an opinion.

You and your ilk have a serious problem with determining what is fact from fiction.

Snap out of it!!!

Maybe someday you'll have a justification for condescension, but not today.

Of course truth is subject to interpretation. That's not even debatable. Don't attempt it.

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

 

[manifold]

Well, let's just read what you wrote, shall we?

...should fines be imposed on anyone (and/or their media employer) for making false statements or claims on TV? For the sake of argument, I won't bother to distinguish between intentional lies or mistatement and honest mistakes because it's just too hard to prove one versus the other. However, for anyone who just so happens to make careless claims on TV, which are not supported by the facts, these fines could be a way of forcing them to do their homework in order to get their facts straight. And perhaps, once a person get's a certain number of fines, they can't appear on TV for a specific period of time.​

1. Who decides which claims are lies?

2. Who levies the fines?

3. Who enforces the no-appearance ban?

Nice catch. In the OP he suggests that the employer also be subject to the fine and then later says that the employer would be the one to issue the fines.

That's a backpedal fail if ever there was one!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Fool, there's only one truth.

Truth is not opinion.

Truth = fact.

You really are a lost soul.

*SMH*

Good god but you're a fucking retard.


Seriously.

 

[Mustang]

I honestly don't know Mustang from Adam as this is the first time I recall ever reading anything he's posted. I'm seriously hoping that we've all been had and this was just a goof on his part. If that's the case then he would deserve a tip of the cap. If not, wow, just fucking WOW!

Try to use your head for something other than a hat rack. The title of this thread (and the poll question) is NOT "Fines SHOULD be imposed..."

It's "SHOULD fines be imposed..." It's called a question. That's why if followed by a question MARK, or didn't they teach that when you were in school?

I posed it as a debating question because I think it's a sad and bad thing that the media in this country has become a mockery of what it once was. Citizens who could once have a measure of trust in what was broadcast on TV are now routinely manipulated by multiple powerful forces which seem to have have far more interest in clouding the issues than they do in elucidating them.