flipper wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:54:38 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 05:05:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:25:18 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:57:56 -0400, Boris Mohar
wrote:

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:41:51 -0700, Jim Thompson
wrote:

Just saw Canadian PM Harper on Fox News.

Very savvy fellow.

Can speak extemporaneously... no teleprompter (or wide-screen
TV ;-) needed!

I'm VERY impressed!

Wish we had a real President :-(

...Jim Thompson

FOX News - The tabloid truth

http://buffalopundit.wnymedia.net/blogs/archives/8408

(1) Who the frick is Greg Gutfeld?

(2) Which Fox News show was he on? I watch Fox all the time,

That explains a lot. lol


http://www.rense.com/general35/MEDIA.HTM

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information
by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000
jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was
pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she
knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically
declares it is technically not against any
law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news
on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its
conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report
the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a
false, distorted, or slanted" story about
the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did
not dispute
the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a
false story
to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in
court, as well
as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions,
in front of
three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds
there is no
hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the
news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock,
argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or
deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that
the Federal
Communications Commission position against news distortion is only
a "policy,"
not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation


I have yet to see an 'activist' liberal who could accurately recount
ANY thing of substance and the only use I've found for them is if
they try to tell you what was said or done you can rest assured
that isn't what happed.

Lie


Fox did not argue any of those things nor did the court make that
adjudication.

In the first place, Fox made 19 affirmative defenses. But, to the
two mentioned above Fox argued

"Eighth Affirmative Defense

As an eighth affirmative defense, the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution and Article I, Section 4 of the Florida
Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant's news judgments
and the exercise of editorial discretion, consistent with the
guarantees of a free press."

That does not say one damn thing about it being "ok to lie" nor is
it an admission of 'lying'. What it says is the Constitution
prohibits infringing on a free press. And that includes calling
someone a 'liar' simply because they have an opinion different than
yours.

Liberals, of course, don't give a tinker's dam about rights or the
Constitution and they'll drive a bulldozer over the whole thing if
necessary to 'get' whoever they don't like.

Lie


"Eleventh Affirmative Defense

As an eleventh affirmative defense, Plaintiffs have failed to state
a cause of action in that the Federal Communications Commission's
"rigging and slanting" doctrine is more in the nature of that
agency's obiter dictum, and is not a "law, rule, or regulation"
within the meaning of Florida Statutes § 448.102."

This, again, says not one damn thing about it being "ok to lie,"

HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW

It
says the issue is irrelevant because the supposed FCC 'doctrine'
fails to meet the Florida statutory requirements they purport to be
suing under.

Liberals, of course, don't give a tinker's dam what the law is
either. You're supposed to 'convict' whoever the hell they don't
like for whatever reason they dream up.

Lie


The other defenses, including the 8'th, are irrelevant because the
court ruled the 11'th to be correct. There is no cause of action
under the cited law.

And just to show how ridiculous this whole thing is, the 'point of
controversy' was over Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH), an FDA approved
product that the FDA adamantly maintains is completely safe.

The plaintiffs obviously disagree but it is patently absurd to claim
someone is 'lying' simply because they hold a reasonable and
rational position that if the FDA, and independent research, says
it's safe then it just might be safe.

Nor does it matter even if it turns out they're 'mistaken' or
'wrong'. It's not only an opinion but a reasonable and rational one.

But, of course, liberals call anyone who disagrees with them a
'liar'.

Lie


Well done, Flipper!

...Jim Thompson

Thank you.

I tell you, though, this goes a lot deeper than a silly lawsuit
because this kind of "if you disagree then you're a liar" nonsense is
becoming endemic and threatens the very nature of a democratic
republic as we devolve into unprincipled mindless lynch mobs.

The unalterable, unassailable fact is that above, you have lied, and lied,
and lied, and lied. You cannot deny it or prove me wrong. That's why
you're stuck with this weak pre-emption. lol