I'm Impressed
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 | | | Voice:(480)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 ?:-) |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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. |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 | | | Voice:(480)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 |
I'm Impressed
"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. |
I'm Impressed
"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. |
I'm Impressed
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'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Liberalism is a persistent vegetative state |
I'm Impressed
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 | | | Voice:(480)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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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. |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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. |
I'm Impressed
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. |
I'm Impressed
Jim Thompson wrote: I watch Fox all the time It shows ! Graham |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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. |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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. |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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****. |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
I'm Impressed
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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter