2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTrust Buster
(7,299 posts)Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Get lost.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Your comments are foolish.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)My foolish comments just aren't worthy of such cartooning gravitas. I will aspire to grow intellectually to receive the powerful messages which are so far beyond me.
Now I haz a sad.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)IS a bigot worse than a neo-con?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)you are either clueless or blinded by your bias.
Project much?
The take away should be
that cluelessness or blinded by bias
is equally evident in BOTH camps.
Cluster bombs or empty rhetoric...
The *lesser of two evils* is NOT cluster bombs,
regime change, and endless war for profit.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)when you have nothing intelligent to say.
Ciao.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Two cents a post?
DCBob
(24,689 posts)You will have plenty of support from others who are like-minded.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Get lost.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Zynx
(21,328 posts)First of all, if you actually listen to Trump, we'll be in wars all the time. Secondly, he'll completely destroy basic freedoms that even our previously most ardent political opponents still wouldn't go after.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)Perpetual War, diminished Civil Liberties and unabated Wall Street looting. Choose your Oligarch, America...
betsuni
(25,845 posts)"Hillary is a liar" when asked about the election. No follow-up question because there's no answer. Gawker had a video of one of their writers with his five-year-old son who, when shown a picture of Hillary Clinton, said, "She tells lies to get power." Mindless.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)They have been brainwashed with listening to endless non-stop 24x7 lies and attacks. We will never reach those folks. Thankfully they are not a majority.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Last edited Sun May 8, 2016, 09:07 AM - Edit history (1)
The rise of RW media power,
(media consolidation) is a
consequence of ending
the Fairness Doctrine.
The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine#Formal_revocation
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Or Hillary's, for that matter?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Are you now admitting that you are wrong?
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)The problem is that the whole premise of your post is false. A minor edit doesn't change that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_Act_of_1996
fallout -- 2005 (10 years ago, but the media and teleciommuniucaitons giants are still pushing for more consolidation.)
http://www.commoncause.org/research-reports/National_050905_Fallout_From_The_Telecommunications_Act_2.pdf
Act of 1996. It was supposed to produce more competition, more diversity of viewpoints, lower prices
for consumers, and more wealth and jobs for the economy.
Instead, the public got more media concentration, less diversity, and higher prices.
Over 10 years, the legislation was supposed to save consumers $550 billion, including $333 billion in
lower long-distance rates, $32 billion in lower local phone rates, and $78 billion in lower cable bills.1
But cable rates have surged by about 50 percent, and local phone rates went up more than 20 percent.2
Industries supporting the new legislation predicted it would add 1.5 million jobs and boost the economy
by $2 trillion. By 2003, however, telecommunications companies market value had fallen by about
$2 trillion, and they had shed half a million jobs.
And study after study has documented that profit-driven media conglomerates are investing less in news
and information, and that local news in particular is failing to provide viewers with the information they
need to participate in their democracy.
How the Telecommunications Act of 1996 got passed, and its unexpected consequences, offer vivid lessons
in what happens when public policy is made largely without either informing or consulting the public, and
when big corporations, spending millions on political contributions and lobbying in Washington,3 get to
skew the policy debate and make promises they do not intend to keep. The story of the Telecom Act
also demonstrates what can happen when a federal agencythe Federal Communications Commission
is permitted to issue rules that flout what Congress intended.
Now, as Congress is about to pass crucial legislation affecting the nations telecommunications policy, and
as it prepares to revise the Telecommunications Act of 1996, special interests once again are mounting a
campaign to get their priorities into the law. They retain the advantages that wealth and power always give
in the political process.
Since 1997, just eight of the countrys largest and most powerful media and telecommunications
companies, their corporate parents, and three of their trade groups, have spent more than $400 million
on political contributions and lobbying in Washington, according to a Common Cause analysis of federal
records. Verizon Communications, SBC Communications Inc., AOL Time Warner, General Electric
Co./NBC, News Corp./Fox, Viacom Inc./CBS, Comcast Corp., Walt Disney Co./ABC, and the
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the National Cable & Telecommunications Association,
and the United States Telecom Association together gave nearly $45 million in federal political donations
since 1997. These eight companies and three trade associations also spent more than $358 million on
lobbying in Washington, since 1998, when lobbying expenditures were first required to be disclosed.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The reasons for your hatred of the Clintons aren't supported by the facts.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Read the damn excerpts and links before replying
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Their answer is "red".
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)There are countless lies she tells.
Many of them are trivial, but it
illuminates her character.
She says whatever she believes will
cast her in a favorable light,
or gain sympathy.
She even goes as far as to adopt fake accents.
We live in a nation of over 300 million people.
Yet somehow Hillary is the the BEST candidate
to represent Democratic values????
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/byruling/false/
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And he had a billion dollars to use to convince people of it.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)The "Hillary is a liar" meme was created long before any supposed evidence was created.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)When exactly do you beleive the
"Hillary is a liar" meme was created?
Befor of after the Cattle Futures scandal?
Was it during Travel-Gate?
Or was it White Water?
Seriously, when did the
"Hillary is a liar" meme begin?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)Link or excerpt?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And his successful campaign to reform AR's education system - led by Hillary Clinton.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)community took no action at all until the Reagans started the 'conversation'. Of course in truth Reagan did nothing and did not even say the word 'AIDS' for seven years while tens of thousands of Americans died and tens of thousands more marched in the streets trying to make Reagan take action.
Hillary's History Lessons:
"It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan in particular Mrs. Reagan we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."
It's 100% Mendacity, all lies all the time. She has yet to recant this in the televised setting in which she make these horrific and fully false statements in service to Dutch.
I opposed Reagan. I get that her supporters are largely Reagan Democrats but that's not me and they do not get to engage in the revision of history to polish Dutch's image.
NewImproved Deal
(534 posts)She claims she "misspoke" or "misremembered". Has either Clinton ever apologized to the American people?