• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

OC, why do you say such things? Do realize how that makes you look? Seriously?
 
Ziggae_6 said:
No, you are not reading my posts. The competitiveness of entertainment to hard news is definitely more extreme than in the past. You cannot deny that this is a different environment than Benjamin Franklin faced.

And you argue that government assistance is inherently evil and profit-driven industries are not? Actually I never said that and neither did you because neither view is accurate. You want my opinon, read my posts but don't project your own beliefs to me.
Click to expand...

Be aware that Mr. V does not actually read your posts. He just assumes whatever he wants. Look at what he did with the article. He's assuming nationalization. Clearly, he did not read the article beyond the fact that a Democrat said something about the media. So don't get annoyed when they totally screw up.

Actually, they do think that government assistance is inherently evil. What they fail to recognize (among a very, very, very long list of other things) is that government assistance has been around for decades. They fail to recognize that government assistance in allowing specific expenses allows them to reduce their taxable incomes and thereby increasing profits. If the government disallowed many media related expenses, these people would be out of business. That's direct financial assistance. For instance, newspapers can amortize equipment based largely on the life of the asset. Now those are estimates. But newspapers can reduce the estimated life and thereby taking significant depreciation deductions. Now, if the government said "No, you have to do it over straight line that we define" that would hurt. A lot. Especially now when many under went changes to digital printing. There's all sorts of stuff like this under the hood of the economy. But partisans outright refuse to even acknowledge this, especially when it occurs under their respective party.

Bush signed a ridiculous 100% conservation tax credit that directly subsidized low profit or no profit family farms. Mr. V is pretending I never argued that because it's easier for him to be a partisan then to examine the actual facts of reality.
 
MrVicchio said:
OC, why do you say such things? Do realize how that makes you look? Seriously?
Click to expand...

You got a point there. Not many people take you seriously anyways due to large amounts of ignorance, faulty logic and downright incorrect statements in your posts. Me pointing it out really doesn't help.

But considering how you argue points that were refuted before you even posted, maybe you do like the taste of fail? Logically one would conclude that since you keep making asinine arguments that do not stand up the scrutiny of reality.

After all, you define "partisan hack" as anyone who disagrees with you even when they have a history of treating both parties the same.

The thing is, I can actually prove my statements about you and your arguments. You rely on personal insults rather then actual arguments as to why I am allegedly wrong. And quite frankly, I enjoy being mean to those too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and those unwilling to learn.
 
Last edited:
Your position is in line with that of Mr. Waxman, blindly following a political position, that is the very definition of political hack... how can you claim you are not one now?
 
MrVicchio said:
Govt will need to help shape U.S. media: Waxman | Politics | Reuters

Scary, ****ing, ****.
Click to expand...

Taking profit out of the media will make it more honest. This isn't the government taking control of media outlets, but regulating their financial behavior. Corporate media in the U.S. is owned and run by five different executives and this has widespread ramifications. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, the media in the U.S. is messed up and twisting of the facts. The spectrum of debate is limited to what THEY want you to know about, and it mostly has to deal with ratings and sensationalism.

IMO this is a long time coming.
 
obvious Child said:
You got a point there. Not many people take you seriously anyways due to large amounts of ignorance, faulty logic and downright incorrect statements in your posts. Me pointing it out really doesn't help.

But considering how you argue points that were refuted before you even posted, maybe you do like the taste of fail? Logically one would conclude that since you keep making asinine arguments that do not stand up the scrutiny of reality.

After all, you define "partisan hack" as anyone who disagrees with you even when they have a history of treating both parties the same.

The thing is, I can actually prove my statements about you and your arguments. You rely on personal insults rather then actual arguments as to why I am allegedly wrong. And quite frankly, I enjoy being mean to those too arrogant to ever admit they are wrong and those unwilling to learn.
Click to expand...

You don't treat both parties the same, you have in two threads today, blindly backed the left. The Harry Reid thread is classic Hackery.

You support the government bailing out those companies in danger of failing because NO ONE IS BUYING THEIR PRODUCT. You refuse to accept that it is the PRODUCT that is faulty, and support government support.

You refute nothing, you just spam your arrogance and call people out for phantom fails, all the while ignoring the glaring holes in the arguments you present. It's almost as if you post merely to read what you type and justify some inner insecurity. That's probably why you keep trying to claim no one pays attention to me... yet you're one of the most rabid responders to my posts... like Pavlov's dog drooling to the bell.
 
MrVicchio said:
Your position is in line with that of Mr. Waxman, blindly following a political position
Click to expand...

How so?

Explain to me how my position which is nothing more then changes to the tax code to favor certain industries has occurred for decades in this country, hundreds of years elsewhere and thousands of years around the planet is in line with Mr. Waxman. Explain to me how am I a partisan hack by pointing out objectively how similar instances happened in the past. Explain to me how I am a partisan hack by explaining the concept of tax deductions and depreciation.

Please, show me how all of that is a fact. Or you flat out lying through your teeth.

I'd love to see you try. But I know you won't. Because you cannot refute a single thing I say and you are reliant upon generalizations and insults and you never, ever, ever even if your life depended on it, are able to back up anything you say.

that is the very definition of political hack... how can you claim you are not one now?
Click to expand...

You know, people can actually read my posts. Do you really think blatantly lying about my position will help you?

Note this:

"Tell me, did he mention nationalization? Or are you like J-mac talking out of your @ss? I'll ask this again, but I don't think you have the intelligence nor the guts to answer it:

Tell me how changing amortization tables results in your conclusion."

I was right. You don't have the guts or intelligence to answer it.
 
Note I have almost 33% MORE thanks from other posts then you do, and we are almost equal in number of posts made.

By merit of what peers think of you and I, you are in a distant second place.
 
MrVicchio said:
Note I have almost 33% MORE thanks from other posts then you do, and we are almost equal in number of posts made.

By merit of what peers think of you and I, you are in a distant second place.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Orius said:
Taking profit out of the media will make it more honest. This isn't the government taking control of media outlets, but regulating their financial behavior. Corporate media in the U.S. is owned and run by five different executives and this has widespread ramifications. I don't care if you're a liberal or a conservative, the media in the U.S. is messed up and twisting of the facts. The spectrum of debate is limited to what THEY want you to know about, and it mostly has to deal with ratings and sensationalism.

IMO this is a long time coming.
Click to expand...


Taking profit will make it more honest?

Are you insane? It will make the media just a mouth piece for the government.
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.php?searchid=1078067

Read it and weep buddy.
 
MrVicchio said:
Taking profit will make it more honest?

Are you insane? It will make the media just a mouth piece for the government.
Click to expand...

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.
 
MrVicchio said:
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.php?searchid=1078067

Read it and weep buddy.
Click to expand...

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:
MrVicchio said:
Taking profit will make it more honest?

Are you insane? It will make the media just a mouth piece for the government.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?

Do you even know what antitrust is?
 
Orius said:
How do you figure?

Do you even know what antitrust is?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
obvious Child said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Further more, Government "Shaping media" is a really, frightening thought.
 
MrVicchio said:
I read the article, and I found it to be, as did most people in this thread, a negative angle.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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:
I can't wait till every reporter and every article thats printed has to go through a political approval process by an appointed democratic party apparatchik.
:)

Cause they're communist right?


Get it?
:)
 
obvious Child said:
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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.
Click to expand...


Ya know, I just realized something, your signature is the epitome of Irony.
 
Scarier than a literal handful of multinational media corporations controlling American newstainment.
 
MrVicchio said:
Ya know, I just realized something, your signature is the epitome of Irony.
Click to expand...

Still pretending I'm a hypocrite eh?

Well, I can't expect you to refute anything I say now. You were never able to in the past.

Stop pretending you read the article. Still waiting for you to prove my argument is in line with Waxman. But I really shouldn't because you can't prove anything you say.
 
obvious Child said:
Still pretending I'm a hypocrite eh?

Well, I can't expect you to refute anything I say now. You were never able to in the past.

Stop pretending you read the article. Still waiting for you to prove my argument is in line with Waxman. But I really shouldn't because you can't prove anything you say.
Click to expand...

I'm soprry, you're 100% correct about everything OC, I'll stop pretending and just agree with your assessment on everything. You are the only true thinker on DP, and any that has a POV that isn't in line with yours is "obviously" wrong, and they probably didn't read the OP article.
:roll:


Trying to discuss anything with you is folly. You hinge your arguments on trivialities, you insult the intelligence of anyone that doesn't agree with you, and you make false claims that because someone disagrees, they didn't "Read the article"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom