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
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

If Bush was a MORON, what does that make Obama... an IMBECILE ?:-)

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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

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 :-(


You'll have to go a long way back for that.


Carter no less, pity that it coincided with the Shah of Iran being evicted, he's still doing good work - talking to Hamas,
monitoring elections - far better than the rubbish of the last two terms.
Failing that JFK.

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


--
Boris

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, and I
don't recognize the screen image at all. You sure it wasn't a Bill
"Douche Nozzle" Maher creation ?:-)

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine Sometimes I even put it in the food

"Jim Thompson" wrote in
message ...
Just saw Canadian PM Harper on Fox News.

snip
...Jim Thompson

Thought you were making the old joke: "I'm impressed" said the American
seamen in the war of 1812.
Favorite quote of Richard Bell who I went to college with.

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Not so far back. Clinton is up there with Jefferson and T. Roosevelt in
terms of native, raw intelligence. As to his speaking prowess, Clinton
blows any GOP pres. that I can remember completely away.

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

Jim Thompson wrote:
Just saw Canadian PM Harper on Fox News.

Very savvy fellow.

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

Yes, it must be nice not to have an entire political party of lying
republicans distorting your every word. lol

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.

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.

"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," 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.

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'.

Well done, Flipper!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state

On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:10:03 -0500, 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.

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.

"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," 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.

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'.

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.

Absolutely! It's getting scary, and the general populace hasn't even
noticed :-(


And our 'leaders' who, in the past, were supposed to be cool rational
'informed' representatives calming down and 'educating' the mob to
fact and principle are now in front carrying the noose.

And calling it "populist".


It's not a 'fine point'. Sound principles gave us the Declaration of
Independence, the American Revolution, and a Constitution. The mob and
unprincipled leaders gave us the French Revolution, the reign of
terror, and Napoleon trying to conquer the world.

Get armed while you can. Taking away our right to be armed is coming
next :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and
the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery." -Winston Churchill

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.

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.

"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," 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.

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'.

No cite = unsubstantiated bull****.

Not to mention your long list of outright lies. lol

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

Jim Thompson wrote:
On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 19:10:03 -0500, 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.

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.

"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," 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.

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'.

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.

Absolutely! It's getting scary, and the general populace hasn't even
noticed :-(


And our 'leaders' who, in the past, were supposed to be cool rational
'informed' representatives calming down and 'educating' the mob to
fact and principle are now in front carrying the noose.

And calling it "populist".


It's not a 'fine point'. Sound principles gave us the Declaration of
Independence, the American Revolution, and a Constitution. The mob
and unprincipled leaders gave us the French Revolution, the reign of
terror, and Napoleon trying to conquer the world.

Get armed while you can. Taking away our right to be armed is coming
next :-(

ROFLMAO Yeah, if you listen to right wing liars, it's been coming for
decades. It just never seems to actually happen.

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:37 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Not so far back. Clinton is up there with Jefferson and T.
Roosevelt in terms of native, raw intelligence. As to his speaking
prowess, Clinton blows any GOP pres. that I can remember completely
away.


Just goes to show where some folks priorities a talk pretty, act
stupid.

translation: drooool

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:18:28 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:37 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Not so far back. Clinton is up there with Jefferson and T.
Roosevelt in terms of native, raw intelligence. As to his speaking
prowess, Clinton blows any GOP pres. that I can remember completely
away.


Just goes to show where some folks priorities a talk pretty, act
stupid.

translation: drooool


President Clinton: Bridge to the 21'st century

Pretty words

Stupid.

Where's the "bridge?" Did you cross it? Did the 21'st century get here
anyway?

A Thousand Points Of Light (abdicated government responsibility)
No Child Left Behind (left thousands of underperforming kids behind)
Readiness And Range Preservation Initiative (insured that perchlorate
contamination of our food continued)
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (eroded civil liberties fought for by our founding
fathers)
Clear Skies Initiative (neuters the Clean Air Act, increasing pollution)

....And that's just scratching the surface. lol

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




"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




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.




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

Thanks for proving the point in so succinct a manner.

More three year old logic. lol

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

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


Is the fact sic that you claimed to have grown up, mean that the "HAW
HAW HAW HAW" crap was a mature act?

LOL indeed, ****tard.

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:37:26 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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.

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.

"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," 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.

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'.

No cite = unsubstantiated bull****.

No, it means "oops."

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm#RESPONSE

But thank you for considering me so versed in law that I could cite
Florida Statute, like § 448.102, off the top of my head in a post.


Not to mention your long list of outright lies. lol

Typical liberal 'one word' vocabulary: "lie."


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.


Really? Where do you find that in the below? lol

Wherefore, the PLAINTIFFS demand:

a. That the court assert jurisdiction over this claim;

b. Compensatory damages and prejudgment interest;

c. Trial by jury on all issues so triable;

d. Costs of this action and a reasonable attorney's fee;

e. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.



WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS demand:

a. A declaratory judgment construing the rights of the parties under the
Employment Agreements.

b. A declaration that requiring PLAINTIFFS to participate in the preparation
and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading
information is not a reasonable assignment of duties within the meaning of
¶1(B) of the Agreements;

c. A declaration that the direction to the PLAINTIFFS that they participate
in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or
misleading information is not reasonable or valid and cannot predicate a
charge of misconduct or insubordination within the meaning of ¶2(B)(i) or
(ii) of the Employment Agreements;

d. A declaration that, because the DEFENDANT breached the Employment
Agreements, the provisions in ¶¶4, 5, 7(B) and (C) are void or voidable by
the PLAINTIFFS;

e. A declaration that notes, records, copies of tape recorded interviews and
materials obtained from the public domain do not fall within the scope of
¶4(A) or 5 of the Employment Agreements;

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.



WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS demand against DEFENDANT:

a. Judgment against Defendants.

b. Trial by jury on all issues so triable.

c. Lost wages and other benefits attending employment.

d. Reinstatement to employment or front pay in lieu thereof.

e. Compensatory damages and damages as may be awarded as permitted by and in
the manner provided by §768.72, Fla. Stat.

f. Costs of this suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.

g. Such additional relief which the court deems just and equitable.



The 'point of controversy' was Fox's firing of a whistleblower, which they
only got away with because state statutes required the act exposed be a
criminal act. lol

Busted. Enjoy your dustbin.

Jim Thompson wrote:

I watch Fox all the time

It shows !

Graham

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:48:45 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:18:28 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:37 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Not so far back. Clinton is up there with Jefferson and T.
Roosevelt in terms of native, raw intelligence. As to his
speaking prowess, Clinton blows any GOP pres. that I can
remember completely away.


Just goes to show where some folks priorities a talk pretty,
act stupid.

translation: drooool


President Clinton: Bridge to the 21'st century

Pretty words

Stupid.

Where's the "bridge?" Did you cross it? Did the 21'st century get
here anyway?

A Thousand Points Of Light (abdicated government responsibility)
No Child Left Behind (left thousands of underperforming kids behind)
Readiness And Range Preservation Initiative (insured that
perchlorate contamination of our food continued)
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (eroded civil liberties fought for by our
founding fathers)
Clear Skies Initiative (neuters the Clean Air Act, increasing
pollution)

The fact that you can place an uninformed, distorted, and typically
liberal slanderous 'opinion'

ROFLMAO

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:48:45 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:18:28 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:37 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Not so far back. Clinton is up there with Jefferson and T.
Roosevelt in terms of native, raw intelligence. As to his
speaking prowess, Clinton blows any GOP pres. that I can
remember completely away.


Just goes to show where some folks priorities a talk pretty,
act stupid.

translation: drooool


President Clinton: Bridge to the 21'st century

Pretty words

Stupid.

Where's the "bridge?" Did you cross it? Did the 21'st century get
here anyway?

A Thousand Points Of Light (abdicated government responsibility)
No Child Left Behind (left thousands of underperforming kids behind)
Readiness And Range Preservation Initiative (insured that
perchlorate contamination of our food continued)
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (eroded civil liberties fought for by our
founding fathers)
Clear Skies Initiative (neuters the Clean Air Act, increasing
pollution)

The fact that you can place an uninformed, distorted, and typically
liberal slanderous 'opinion'

ROFLMAO

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:32:41 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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


Is the fact sic that you claimed to have grown up, mean that the
"HAW HAW HAW HAW" crap was a mature act?

When in rome...lol

****tard.

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

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:40:06 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 13:37:26 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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.

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.

"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,"
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.

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'.

No cite = unsubstantiated bull****.

No, it means "oops."

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm#RESPONSE

But thank you for considering me so versed in law that I could cite
Florida Statute, like § 448.102, off the top of my head in a post.


Not to mention your long list of outright lies. lol

Typical liberal 'one word' vocabulary: "lie."


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.


Really? Where do you find that in the below? lol

Notice how the liberal partial quotes bits and pieces out of context
and then demands things be 'found' in the culled text.


"FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

13. PLAINTIFFS' reports clearly revealed, .... new drug commonly
known as Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH)......

And could have benn any other topic. lol

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:58:26 -0500, "marcodbeast" wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:32:41 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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


Is the fact sic that you claimed to have grown up, mean that the
"HAW HAW HAW HAW" crap was a mature act?

When in rome...lol

****tard.


Sad excuse... nice sig though. It fits you perfectly.

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:58:26 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:32:41 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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


Is the fact sic that you claimed to have grown up, mean that the
"HAW HAW HAW HAW" crap was a mature act?

When in rome...lol

****tard.


Sad excuse... nice sig though. It fits you perfectly.

More 'maturity', no doubt. lol

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:14:28 -0500, "marcodbeast" wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:58:26 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

Archimedes' Lever wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 16:32:41 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

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


Is the fact sic that you claimed to have grown up, mean that the
"HAW HAW HAW HAW" crap was a mature act?

When in rome...lol

****tard.


Sad excuse... nice sig though. It fits you perfectly.

More 'maturity', no doubt. lol

More like my mature response to your immature horse****.

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I watch Fox all the time

It shows !

And how much do you watch FOX?

Enough on the net to know they couldn't tell black from white.

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I watch Fox all the time

It shows !

And how much do you watch FOX?

Enough on the net to know they couldn't tell black from white.

Graham

That's what I thought, none. So, as is typical, pontificating on
things you know nothing about past listening to other know nothing
pontificates.

So you approve of a network that seriously covered the 'water for fuel'
scam ?

One of today's lead stories. Yeah real quality journalism ! A bit like
The Sun ( also one of Murdoch's ) in the UK.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514376,00.html

Graham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I watch Fox all the time

It shows !

And how much do you watch FOX?

Enough on the net to know they couldn't tell black from white.

Graham

That's what I thought, none. So, as is typical, pontificating on
things you know nothing about past listening to other know nothing
pontificates.

So you approve of a network that seriously covered the 'water for fuel'
scam ?

I have no idea what 'story' you're talking about and I'd bet you don't
either.

Fox News sent some reporters to South America to report on yet another water = fuel scam.

How can you defend an organisation as gullible as that.

Grham

flipper wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
flipper wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Jim Thompson wrote:

I watch Fox all the time

It shows !

And how much do you watch FOX?

Enough on the net to know they couldn't tell black from white.

Graham

That's what I thought, none. So, as is typical, pontificating on
things you know nothing about past listening to other know nothing
pontificates.

So you approve of a network that seriously covered the 'water for fuel'
scam ?

I have no idea what 'story' you're talking about and I'd bet you don't
either.

Fox News sent some reporters to South America to report on yet another water = fuel scam.

How can you defend an organisation as gullible as that.

I have no idea what 'story' you're talking about and I'd bet you don't
either.

You've never heard of people claiming they can run their cars on water by electrolysing it
with electricity from the battery ? Fox sent a team to S America to cover such a story.

Graham

flipper wrote:
On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 10:57:58 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 09:48:45 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 14:18:28 -0500, "marcodbeast"
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 21:19:37 -0400, "Charles"
wrote:


"Eeyore" wrote in
message ...


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 :-(

You'll have to go a long way back for that.

Not so far back. Clinton is up there with Jefferson and T.
Roosevelt in terms of native, raw intelligence. As to his
speaking prowess, Clinton blows any GOP pres. that I can
remember completely away.


Just goes to show where some folks priorities a talk pretty,
act stupid.

translation: drooool


President Clinton: Bridge to the 21'st century

Pretty words

Stupid.

Where's the "bridge?" Did you cross it? Did the 21'st century get
here anyway?

A Thousand Points Of Light (abdicated government responsibility)
No Child Left Behind (left thousands of underperforming kids
behind) Readiness And Range Preservation Initiative (insured that
perchlorate contamination of our food continued)
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (eroded civil liberties fought for by our
founding fathers)
Clear Skies Initiative (neuters the Clean Air Act, increasing
pollution)

The fact that you can place an uninformed, distorted, and typically
liberal slanderous 'opinion'

ROFLMAO


Typical liberal, not one rational word or thought.

President Clinton: Bridge to the 21'st century

Pretty words

Stupid.

Where's the "bridge?" Did you cross it? Did the 21'st century get
here anyway?

ROFLMAO