Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 283

Thread: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

  1. #111
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Except look who thanks you. You don't get people who don't share your bias. Does Hazel thank you? No. Does Goldendog thank you? No. Does Captain America? No.

    Jerry has thanked plenty of my posts. Deejay just thanked one my posts this week. Do I share their views? Not usually.

    It's real easy to get lots of thanks by pandering to your peanut gallery. It doesn't make your posts valid, factual, correct or meaningful.

    By the way, only a fool argues that popularity contest equates to being right. Btw, Rev tried the same argument. He quickly abandoned it.

    Simply put, you cannot refute my arguments. If you could, you would. But you constantly run away from them.

    Oh, I see, the people that thank me don't count.

    Lol, you just don't want to admit only a small number of people thank you from time to time, and yet bad old Mr. Vic get's thanked by a wider audience then yourself.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/search...archid=1078067

    Read it and weep buddy.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  2. #112
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Taking profit will make it more honest?

    Are you insane? It will make the media just a mouth piece for the government.
    This is exactly why you don't understand how markets works. The problem with a profit driven media is that it shows what sells. What sells and what is factual are not necessarily the same thing. Trashy tabloids are huge profit makers. Are they honest and factual? Not a chance.

    Removing profits would remove the drive to pander to specific groups to earn those profits. The downside to removing profits is how one funds the media. Generally that results in public funding which opens another can of worms in that those who control appropriations have implicit control over content. Given the state of the government in the US, I'd be against public funding, but you are inherently wrong in assuming that just because profits are eliminated that it becomes a mouthpiece of the government. Furthermore, you assume that the government is always dishonest. Granted, you never said this during the Bush years (which makes you a partisan), but government as a conceptualized theory does not equate to your view of government. The Spartans had quite an honest government, partially because their Co-Kings would go under criminal trial after their terms were up. Not a bad idea if you ask me.

    There really is no way in our society at the moment to make media honest short of people demanding actual honest media. But the notion that removing profit wouldn't in theory result in more honest is wrong.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #113
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Oh, I see, the people that thank me don't count.

    Lol, you just don't want to admit only a small number of people thank you from time to time, and yet bad old Mr. Vic get's thanked by a wider audience then yourself.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/search...archid=1078067

    Read it and weep buddy.
    LOL. A link to nothing. Good job on that.

    "Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms. "

    Btw, your post did not actually address what I wrote. Ah sample of ten of your thanked posts all reveals that those who share your views are thanking you. Aside from your posts where you use depreciating humor, you don't get thanks from non-bias sharers.

    One must wonder if you can read.

    Still no reply to 107 eh? Or any of the others I posted eh?

    Keep pretending you have more skills. Well, more running away skills, I'll give you that.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 12-04-09 at 11:53 PM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  4. #114
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Profit's aren't the enemy.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  5. #115
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Profit's aren't the enemy.
    Your seemingly inability to respond to posts with something of substance suggests something inherently wrong with you. Did I say profits are the enemy? Christ sakes, can you even read?
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #116
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Taking profit will make it more honest?

    Are you insane? It will make the media just a mouth piece for the government.
    How do you figure?

    Do you even know what antitrust is?

  7. #117
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    How do you figure?

    Do you even know what antitrust is?
    It appears only three people read this section:

    Tweaks to the tax code to allow newspapers to spread losses over a greater number of years, providing a nonprofit structure to allow for public and foundation funding, and changes to antitrust laws are being considered by lawmakers and policymakers.
    Goldenboy, you and I. It's amazing just how far illiteracy has gained a foothold in this forum.

    Remember that Mr. V did not read the article other then the word "Democrat." Therefore, asking him about antitrust is kind of futile.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #118
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    It appears only three people read this section:



    Goldenboy, you and I. It's amazing just how far illiteracy has gained a foothold in this forum.

    Remember that Mr. V did not read the article other then the word "Democrat." Therefore, asking him about antitrust is kind of futile.
    I read the article, and I found it to be, as did most people in this thread, a negative angle.

    Why is it, people like yourself assume that if one holds a differing opinion, one did not read the article.

    I read it, I just draw a completely different conclusion then you did. I believe that Waxman's goals are suspect, his methods poor and the outcome of such actions amount to subsidizing media outlets that are failing due to said media outlets inability to turn a profit.His motives are far from innocent, this particular brand of media, tends to back or side with he and others like him, so it behooves him to keep said media running.

    You on the other hand, go off into a tangent in support of said moves. You claim that you see it as a positive, and yet refuse to admit there is a very real political issue at hand.

    Irrefutable fact:
    The markets haven't failed these outlets, they have failed to provide a product people want. End of Story.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  9. #119
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Further more, Government "Shaping media" is a really, frightening thought.
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



  10. #120
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I read the article, and I found it to be, as did most people in this thread, a negative angle.
    So much so you talked about issues not stated. Like nationalization while deliberately running away from explicitly mentioned proposals like changes to amortization of losses. Sure you read it. And a gay atheist republican has a good shot at winning the GOP presidential nomination. You ain't kidding anyone.

    Why is it, people like yourself assume that if one holds a differing opinion, one did not read the article.
    See above. You discussed proposals that were never mentioned as fact while ignoring proposals that were explicitly mentioned. When pointed this out, particularly how the article never mentioned such proposals, you run away. You have yet to answer my question how changing amortization tables results in your conclusions. I suspect because if you answered, you'd admit that your posts are nothing more then partisan vile. What is actually proposed was nothing what you claimed it was. Does that sound like someone who read the article? No. It sounds like someone who assumed whatever he wanted to true in the article and ran with it despite the actual article explicitly not saying what you claimed it did.

    I read it, I just draw a completely different conclusion then you did. I believe that Waxman's goals are suspect, his methods poor and the outcome of such actions amount to subsidizing media outlets that are failing due to said media outlets inability to turn a profit.
    The reason you draw a different conclusion is 1) you don't understand the history of the tax code 2) you don't understand that this occurs all of the friggin' time 3) you assume that democrats can do only bad things 4) you assume that what you think could happen will happen despite no evidence to support such a position. If you actually read the article, you would have noticed that the actual stated policies in no way represented a single thing you said. Now, people can speculate all they want, but you act like it's fact despite your own linked actual article stating no such thing. All of this would be alleviated if you actually read articles rather then assuming whatever you want.

    His motives are far from innocent, this particular brand of media, tends to back or side with he and others like him, so it behooves him to keep said media running.
    Oh boy. Where have I seen this before? Idle speculation = evidence enough for conviction. Spent some time on Whistlestopper eh?

    Do you have a nanogram of evidence that Waxman is moving towards nationalization?

    Oh wait. I know better then to ask you hard questions that forces you to examine your positions.

    You on the other hand, go off into a tangent in support of said moves. You claim that you see it as a positive, and yet refuse to admit there is a very real political issue at hand.
    Did I say it was positive? Or are you assuming that because it's easier for you then to examine the actual stated posts? What I actually said was this does not result in the conclusions you stated. The proposals stated in the article you clearly did not read do not support anything you said. Furthermore, I cited examples of similar tax changes that in no way resulted in the conclusions you claimed would occur. This again is why I question if you understand the written English language. This isn't a real political issue based on historical precedent. I actually look at evidence of what happened in the past rather then just assume whatever the hell I want like you do. I see you are still pretending that my examples don't exist.

    Irrefutable fact:
    The markets haven't failed these outlets, they have failed to provide a product people want. End of Story.
    Wrong again. Clearly you never worked in private sector firm. The business model of the newspapers is the problem. You ignore how millions of people get their news online from the very same sources just for free. If they were not providing a product people wanted, news, no one would go to their websites. The problem is that they failed to put up a toll gate on their web content. Not that their content itself was unwanted. Their distribution was the problem, not their product.

    Seriously, you expect to talk about newspaper industry mechanics without understanding that basic fact? Take some advice from Redress, don't talk about things you don't understand.

    Further more, Government "Shaping media" is a really, frightening thought.
    The words yes. But when you actually examine the actual proposals, it's hardly scary. Especially when it's been done about a gazillion times.
    Last edited by obvious Child; 12-05-09 at 01:04 AM.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

Page 12 of 29 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •