flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:32:41 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:41:12 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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

Go ahead and prove where *I* ran across one.

Sorry, you are already exposed as a liar.

The only thing 'exposed' so far is you behaving just as I described,
including calling anything you disagree with a 'lie'.

Of course, you have no such evidence. lol



If you are trying to pretend
you can read the minds of half the population, that's just more
proof. lol

I didn't say one thing about 'mind reading' and, again, thank you for
proving my point that "I have yet to see an 'activist' liberal who
could accurately recount ANY thing of substance."

Of course, you have no such evidence. lol




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

The observable facts show it to be true. In this case it's the
attempt to bulldoze over the first amendment protections of a free
press.

Actually, it was Fox who went to court, so they could fire a
whistleblower. Another lie on your part.

The, so called, 'whistlblowers' had already been fired. The courts
became involved when FOX was sued and FOX then defended themselves

Yep.

but
thanks again for proving my point that "I have yet to see an
'activist' liberal who could accurately recount ANY thing of
substance."

Of course, you have no such evidence. lol



"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

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem.

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."

You don't think that means it's legally OK to lie? Then what are
you arguing for? lol

What you 'think' it means is irrelevant.

Reading comprehension problem? On which republican fantasy world does my
"You don't think" refer to me? lol


The argument made, and to
which the court agreed, is that the supposed 'law' the plaintiffs
cited as the basis for their suit does not exist as claimed.

Making it legally OK to lie. Unless of course you are an infant trying
hard to deny the obvious. lol



It says not one thing about whether there are other laws which may, or
may not, deal with what you please to call 'lying' but thanks again
for proving my point that "I have yet to see an 'activist' liberal
who could accurately recount ANY thing of substance."

Of course, you have no such evidence. lol


The proof of the pudding is that if the FCC "rigging and slanting"
doctrine" did constitute a "law, rule, or regulation" then the case
should be taken to the FCC for prosecution.

Which proves my point that the object was to show it's OK to lie.



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

Your "HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW" proves it to be true.

For one with a mental age of three, perhaps. The rest of us grew
up and learned to think.

And I suppose to your mental age of three the "HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW"
shows you 'grew up'.

When I want a lesson in manners from a serial liar who specializes in
baseless generalizations with no relation to reality, I'll kick your cage.
OK? lol