- Joined
- Aug 26, 2007
- Messages
- 50,241
- Reaction score
- 19,243
- Location
- San Antonio Texas
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
OC, why do you say such things? Do realize how that makes you look? Seriously?
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.
OC, why do you say such things? Do realize how that makes you look? Seriously?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Taking profit will make it more honest?
Are you insane? It will make the media just a mouth piece for the government.
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.
Profit's aren't the enemy.
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?
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.
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.
Further more, Government "Shaping media" is a really, frightening thought.
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.
Ya know, I just realized something, your signature is the epitome of Irony.
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.