LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

I call Bullshit on The Tea Party

MeeMie said:
Obviously not for Obama's buddy, Jeffrey Immelt, enterprises.


General Electric filed more than 7,000 income tax returns in hundreds of global jurisdictions last year, but when push came to shove, the company owed the U.S. government a whopping bill of $0.


Can't wait to hear about MSNBC's returns:rolleyes:
Click to expand...







This just in:


Chairman Zero's Favorite Propaganda Outlet Paid No Taxes Last Year


This is interesting. MSNBC (a.k.a. MSDNC) has been an uncompromising, one-note shill for Chairman Zero and the Obamacrat party.

So, what did MSNBC pay in taxes for 2009?


$0.


MSDNC is owned by General Electric, which received $140 Billion last year in taxpayer-funded guarantees to bailout its finance division, GE Capital. GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt is on the Chairman Zero's Board of Economic Advisors.

GE also paid $0. US taxes last year.



Enter stage left .... UD, etc.
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:
"Taxes are going up!!"

http://www.garryconn.com/images/bullshit2.jpg
Click to expand...




Unlike YOUR evidence? :rolleyes:

Neither of you can see the forest through the trees, you're so blinded by your own biased opinions.




Here's a sample of what you'll be dealing with in the next election:


WHY DID MY 2009 FEDERAL TAXES GO UP?

I'm doing my 2009 Federal taxes. All variables are the same as the previous 10 years -- NOTHING has changed. In the last several years, I received a $500 refund. (Like I said, not ONE variable is different in my life -- same job, same expenses, same everything). But this year, it works out that I get NO refund.

That means my taxes have GONE UP! How can this be??

I thought Obama was going to LOWER the taxes --- would somebody please explain why I seem to be paying 500 dollars MORE??? I am perplexed.

Did he or did he not lower the taxes???

I want my refund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Additional Details...
Wait a minute --- you're right. I just noticed my employer withheld a LOT more taxes the previous year. This year they withheld much less. I didn't tell them to change that!! What kind of a scam is this?? Why would they do this to people? This is ridiculous.



The Best Answer?

What gave you the idea 0bama was going to lower your taxes?

He's said nothing of the sort. *cough*

0bama did not request lower taxes and did not intend to. He wanted reduced withholding, which did occur. That means less money was deducted from your pay in the first place. Therefore if your pay remains the same you will have a smaller refund. *whistles*

If you review your form carefully you'll likely find you actually paid only a little more tax than last year.



45% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all.

Persons in the bottom 20% in wages pay -2% of the total tax burden. They actually earn money by filing their return. They also receive over $8 in government spending for every $1 in taxation.

Those evil "rich" people, the top 1% in wages earn 19% of the nation's income but pay 40% of the total tax burden.

Democrats call that 'fair'. The top 50% in wages pay 97% of the tax burden.
 
MeeMie said:
That means my taxes have GONE UP! How can this be??

I thought Obama was going to LOWER the taxes --- would somebody please explain why I seem to be paying 500 dollars MORE??? I am perplexed.

Did he or did he not lower the taxes???

I want my refund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Additional Details...
Wait a minute --- you're right. I just noticed my employer withheld a LOT more taxes the previous year. This year they withheld much less. I didn't tell them to change that!! What kind of a scam is this?? Why would they do this to people? This is ridiculous.



The Best Answer?

What gave you the idea 0bama was going to lower your taxes?

He's said nothing of the sort. *cough*

0bama did not request lower taxes and did not intend to. He wanted reduced withholding, which did occur. That means less money was deducted from your pay in the first place. Therefore if your pay remains the same you will have a smaller refund. *whistles*

If you review your form carefully you'll likely find you actually paid only a little more tax than last year.



45% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all.

Persons in the bottom 20% in wages pay -2% of the total tax burden. They actually earn money by filing their return. They also receive over $8 in government spending for every $1 in taxation.

Those evil "rich" people, the top 1% in wages earn 19% of the nation's income but pay 40% of the total tax burden.

Democrats call that 'fair'. The top 50% in wages pay 97% of the tax burden.
Click to expand...


How do you explain the fact that our taxes didn't go up this year? In fact, we paid about $1000 less despite making more money.

:confused:
 
MeeMie said:
This just in:


Chairman Zero's Favorite Propaganda Outlet Paid No Taxes Last Year


This is interesting. MSNBC (a.k.a. MSDNC) has been an uncompromising, one-note shill for Chairman Zero and the Obamacrat party.

So, what did MSNBC pay in taxes for 2009?


$0.


MSDNC is owned by General Electric, which received $140 Billion last year in taxpayer-funded guarantees to bailout its finance division, GE Capital. GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt is on the Chairman Zero's Board of Economic Advisors.

GE also paid $0. US taxes last year.



Enter stage left .... UD, etc.
Click to expand...


GE lost money last year, dimwit. Corporations that don't make money don't have anything to tax.
 
MeeMie said:
Unlike YOUR evidence? :rolleyes:

Neither of you can see the forest through the trees, you're so blinded by your own biased opinions.




Here's a sample of what you'll be dealing with in the next election:


WHY DID MY 2009 FEDERAL TAXES GO UP?

I'm doing my 2009 Federal taxes. All variables are the same as the previous 10 years -- NOTHING has changed. In the last several years, I received a $500 refund. (Like I said, not ONE variable is different in my life -- same job, same expenses, same everything). But this year, it works out that I get NO refund.

That means my taxes have GONE UP! How can this be??

I thought Obama was going to LOWER the taxes --- would somebody please explain why I seem to be paying 500 dollars MORE??? I am perplexed.

Did he or did he not lower the taxes???

I want my refund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Additional Details...
Wait a minute --- you're right. I just noticed my employer withheld a LOT more taxes the previous year. This year they withheld much less. I didn't tell them to change that!! What kind of a scam is this?? Why would they do this to people? This is ridiculous.



The Best Answer?

What gave you the idea 0bama was going to lower your taxes?

He's said nothing of the sort. *cough*

0bama did not request lower taxes and did not intend to. He wanted reduced withholding, which did occur. That means less money was deducted from your pay in the first place. Therefore if your pay remains the same you will have a smaller refund. *whistles*

If you review your form carefully you'll likely find you actually paid only a little more tax than last year.



45% of Americans don't pay any income taxes at all.

Persons in the bottom 20% in wages pay -2% of the total tax burden. They actually earn money by filing their return. They also receive over $8 in government spending for every $1 in taxation.

Those evil "rich" people, the top 1% in wages earn 19% of the nation's income but pay 40% of the total tax burden.

Democrats call that 'fair'. The top 50% in wages pay 97% of the tax burden.
Click to expand...

copy & paste
copy & paste
copy & paste

:nana::caning::nana:
 
MeeMie said:
This just in:


Chairman Zero's Favorite Propaganda Outlet Paid No Taxes Last Year


This is interesting. MSNBC (a.k.a. MSDNC) has been an uncompromising, one-note shill for Chairman Zero and the Obamacrat party.

So, what did MSNBC pay in taxes for 2009?


$0.


MSDNC is owned by General Electric, which received $140 Billion last year in taxpayer-funded guarantees to bailout its finance division, GE Capital. GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt is on the Chairman Zero's Board of Economic Advisors.

GE also paid $0. US taxes last year.



Enter stage left .... UD, etc.
Click to expand...

MeeMie you are such a preposterous joke. Be glad you inherited a lot of money. You are too stupid to earn much on your own.
 
Dixon Carter Lee said:
It sucks. Being in a position where you're forced to defend the Bumper Sticker Slogan poli-sci idiocy of Malibu Barbie and an army of fat white people screaming in lawn chairs.

Ten bucks says a lot of Republicans become Scientologists this year.
Click to expand...

HA! I love it. Aren't they pretty much one and the same already? Gotta love the crazies....
 
Humor vs. Contempt:
Obama and the Question of Character

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s claim to have been “amused” by the nationwide tea party demonstrations on Tax Day last week. Really, he told acolytes at a Democratic fundraiser (expected haul: $2.5 million), “they should be saying thank you.”

Applause. Cries of “Thank you.” Laugh track?

I believe that the editorialist for Investor’s Business Daily got it exactly right about the second part of Obama’s response to the rallies: “Thanks for What?” he asked.

Why should they [the tea partiers] be thankful? As the president himself said on his weekly radio address a week ago, “one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000; that’s another promise we kept.”

In fact, that wasn’t his promise at all.

Here’s what candidate Obama really said in September of 2008: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Got that? “Not any of your taxes.” The claim of no tax hikes on those below $250,000 as a result of the current administration’s policies is completely and utterly false.



A report from the House Ways & Means Committee’s GOP members notes that, since January 2009, Congress and the president have enacted $670 billion in tax increases. That’s $2,100 for each person in America. At least 14 of those tax hikes, the report says, break Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. Roughly $316 billion of the tax hikes — 14 increases in all — hit middle-class families, the report says.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DemTaxIncreases1.pdf



This comes in addition to recent data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showing U.S. spending and indebtedness growing at an alarming rate. Government spending now totals 25% of GDP, a quarter above its long-term average. By 2035, it will hit 34% of GDP at current trends — a 70% increase in the real size of government in just 25 years.



Ha, ha, ha. Very amusing, what?



What should we make of Obama’s merriment? What does it tell us about his sense of humor? What does it tell us about what an earlier age would have called his “humor,” his character?


The first thing to notice about this moment of hilarity is how consonant it is with other Obama rhetorical eructations. For example, how similar in spirit it is to his challenge to Republicans after Nancy Pelosi managed to ram the presidential health care legislation through Congress. Instantly, there were calls to repeal the law. “My attitude is,” Obama told a crowd in Iowa, “go for it” — as if it would get them anywhere!

Obama’s amusement at the spectacle of dissent was also consonant with the remarks of candidate Obama disparaging all those “bitter” folks who “cling to guns or religion” instead of getting with the big government, progressive leftism espoused by Barack Obama.

Indeed, in one sense Obama’s comments are simply natural coefficients of a basic presumption of that progressive attitude, namely, the conviction that the left-liberal view of reality is not a political view but merely the view that any enlightened, reasonable person would have. It is only dissent from that view that is political, warped by self-interest, etc. If only everyone were sufficiently enlightened, everyone would (so this fairytale goes) have essentially the same ideas about all contentious issues. Which is to say, there would in the end be no contentious issues, for to dissent from the progressive narrative would be evidence of (depending on the nature of the regime) heresy, treason, or stupidity. Ultimately, contention would not only be stigmatized as counterproductive, it would be proscribed as criminal or insane.

The popularity of this view, as I’ve noted elsewhere, owes a great deal to John Stuart Mill. It was Mill who assembled the seductive arguments and inveigling rhetoric that convinced susceptible souls to look forward to a future in which, for the first time, “general unanimity of sentiment,” “firmly grounded in reason and in the true exigencies of life,” would make dispute about any important matter otiose. What if you dispute Mill’s notion of what counts as rational? What if you think he erred in defining “the true exigencies of life”? What if you think the whole utilitarian calculus is deeply flawed and in fact elides essential dimensions of human endeavor? Then you are a candidate for re-education, restraint, or ostracization.

If you care to test the traction of this dimension of the left-liberal consensus, you need only contemplate the way in which its spokesmen in the media and political establishment treat the tea party demonstrations. It wasn’t so long ago that Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, dismissed the tea partiers as members of “the Brooks Brothers’ Brigade,” i.e., mostly middle class folks who, alarmed at the statist initiatives undertaken by the Obama administration, organized to proffer a competing point of view but who did so peaceably and with respect for the rule of law.

That was back when Obama, Gibbs, et al. could regard the tea parties as an impotent nuisance. In recent months, it is clear that the tea party has become a nuisance that, far from being impotent, might well be an electoral game-changer. Hence the establishment’s rhetoric has shifted drastically. You no longer find Barbara Boxer sneering about tea partiers being “well dressed.” Nowadays you find tea partiers accused of racism, violence, and disloyalty, never mind that the left-liberal establishment can point to no examples of these torts. The thing to grasp is that those making the accusations do not feel called upon to offer examples. The guilt of the tea-partiers transcends anything so pedestrian as actual behavior. Tea partiers are like “class enemies” under Stalin: guilty by definition.

Which brings me back to Obama’s merriment. Why did he find it “amusing” to contemplate the anti-tax rallies undertaken by (let us remember) the people he serves? Where was the humor? Let me add that I like a leader with a sense of humor. It was something that Winston Churchill, for example, possessed in spades. Clement Attlee, he said, was a modest man who had much to be modest about. Ronald Reagan had the same gift. Having been shot by John Hinckley, he said to the doctor: “I hope you are a Republican.”

But it’s one thing to have a sense of humor.
It’s quite another to regard one’s opponents with amused disdain.


One key difference is the presence of contempt. Obama’s modus operandi excels in the deployment of contempt. Is it part of his instinctive embrace of Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals“? I do not know. But in some ways Obama’s habitual expression of contempt is the most alarming component of his style of governing. Together with his evident self-infatuation and notorious sensitivity to criticism, it bespeaks a character that is volatile, heedless, and disengaged from the palpable realities faced by the people he represents. Hence his suggestion — meant, I feel sure, in all earnestness — that the people who rallied against bigger government and higher taxes should thank him for . . . for what? For not taxing them into penury?

Obama doesn’t see this, of course. He really cannot twig why everyone is not lining up to thank him for being their leader. Such imperviousness is worrisome, for it betokens a disconnection from reality. But it looks now as if the dissatisfaction represented by the tea partiers is growing by leaps and bounds. It is not dissipating, as many predicted; it is gaining definition and ever-more broad-based support. There will come a time when Obama will find it impossible to avoid acknowledging this.

That is the moment when we really have to fear the reaction of this supremely disengaged connoisseur of contempt.


Recent polls find that anger toward government is on the rise.

80 percent of Americans say they can't trust federal government
 
MeeMie said:
Humor vs. Contempt:
Obama and the Question of Character

Much has been made of Barack Obama’s claim to have been “amused” by the nationwide tea party demonstrations on Tax Day last week. Really, he told acolytes at a Democratic fundraiser (expected haul: $2.5 million), “they should be saying thank you.”

Applause. Cries of “Thank you.” Laugh track?

I believe that the editorialist for Investor’s Business Daily got it exactly right about the second part of Obama’s response to the rallies: “Thanks for What?” he asked.

Why should they [the tea partiers] be thankful? As the president himself said on his weekly radio address a week ago, “one thing we have not done is raise income taxes on families making less than $250,000; that’s another promise we kept.”

In fact, that wasn’t his promise at all.

Here’s what candidate Obama really said in September of 2008: “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

Got that? “Not any of your taxes.” The claim of no tax hikes on those below $250,000 as a result of the current administration’s policies is completely and utterly false.



A report from the House Ways & Means Committee’s GOP members notes that, since January 2009, Congress and the president have enacted $670 billion in tax increases. That’s $2,100 for each person in America. At least 14 of those tax hikes, the report says, break Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000. Roughly $316 billion of the tax hikes — 14 increases in all — hit middle-class families, the report says.

http://republicans.waysandmeans.house.gov/UploadedFiles/DemTaxIncreases1.pdf



This comes in addition to recent data from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office showing U.S. spending and indebtedness growing at an alarming rate. Government spending now totals 25% of GDP, a quarter above its long-term average. By 2035, it will hit 34% of GDP at current trends — a 70% increase in the real size of government in just 25 years.



Ha, ha, ha. Very amusing, what?



What should we make of Obama’s merriment? What does it tell us about his sense of humor? What does it tell us about what an earlier age would have called his “humor,” his character?


The first thing to notice about this moment of hilarity is how consonant it is with other Obama rhetorical eructations. For example, how similar in spirit it is to his challenge to Republicans after Nancy Pelosi managed to ram the presidential health care legislation through Congress. Instantly, there were calls to repeal the law. “My attitude is,” Obama told a crowd in Iowa, “go for it” — as if it would get them anywhere!

Obama’s amusement at the spectacle of dissent was also consonant with the remarks of candidate Obama disparaging all those “bitter” folks who “cling to guns or religion” instead of getting with the big government, progressive leftism espoused by Barack Obama.

Indeed, in one sense Obama’s comments are simply natural coefficients of a basic presumption of that progressive attitude, namely, the conviction that the left-liberal view of reality is not a political view but merely the view that any enlightened, reasonable person would have. It is only dissent from that view that is political, warped by self-interest, etc. If only everyone were sufficiently enlightened, everyone would (so this fairytale goes) have essentially the same ideas about all contentious issues. Which is to say, there would in the end be no contentious issues, for to dissent from the progressive narrative would be evidence of (depending on the nature of the regime) heresy, treason, or stupidity. Ultimately, contention would not only be stigmatized as counterproductive, it would be proscribed as criminal or insane.

The popularity of this view, as I’ve noted elsewhere, owes a great deal to John Stuart Mill. It was Mill who assembled the seductive arguments and inveigling rhetoric that convinced susceptible souls to look forward to a future in which, for the first time, “general unanimity of sentiment,” “firmly grounded in reason and in the true exigencies of life,” would make dispute about any important matter otiose. What if you dispute Mill’s notion of what counts as rational? What if you think he erred in defining “the true exigencies of life”? What if you think the whole utilitarian calculus is deeply flawed and in fact elides essential dimensions of human endeavor? Then you are a candidate for re-education, restraint, or ostracization.

If you care to test the traction of this dimension of the left-liberal consensus, you need only contemplate the way in which its spokesmen in the media and political establishment treat the tea party demonstrations. It wasn’t so long ago that Robert Gibbs, the president’s press secretary, dismissed the tea partiers as members of “the Brooks Brothers’ Brigade,” i.e., mostly middle class folks who, alarmed at the statist initiatives undertaken by the Obama administration, organized to proffer a competing point of view but who did so peaceably and with respect for the rule of law.

That was back when Obama, Gibbs, et al. could regard the tea parties as an impotent nuisance. In recent months, it is clear that the tea party has become a nuisance that, far from being impotent, might well be an electoral game-changer. Hence the establishment’s rhetoric has shifted drastically. You no longer find Barbara Boxer sneering about tea partiers being “well dressed.” Nowadays you find tea partiers accused of racism, violence, and disloyalty, never mind that the left-liberal establishment can point to no examples of these torts. The thing to grasp is that those making the accusations do not feel called upon to offer examples. The guilt of the tea-partiers transcends anything so pedestrian as actual behavior. Tea partiers are like “class enemies” under Stalin: guilty by definition.

Which brings me back to Obama’s merriment. Why did he find it “amusing” to contemplate the anti-tax rallies undertaken by (let us remember) the people he serves? Where was the humor? Let me add that I like a leader with a sense of humor. It was something that Winston Churchill, for example, possessed in spades. Clement Attlee, he said, was a modest man who had much to be modest about. Ronald Reagan had the same gift. Having been shot by John Hinckley, he said to the doctor: “I hope you are a Republican.”

But it’s one thing to have a sense of humor.
It’s quite another to regard one’s opponents with amused disdain.


One key difference is the presence of contempt. Obama’s modus operandi excels in the deployment of contempt. Is it part of his instinctive embrace of Saul Alinsky’s “rules for radicals“? I do not know. But in some ways Obama’s habitual expression of contempt is the most alarming component of his style of governing. Together with his evident self-infatuation and notorious sensitivity to criticism, it bespeaks a character that is volatile, heedless, and disengaged from the palpable realities faced by the people he represents. Hence his suggestion — meant, I feel sure, in all earnestness — that the people who rallied against bigger government and higher taxes should thank him for . . . for what? For not taxing them into penury?

Obama doesn’t see this, of course. He really cannot twig why everyone is not lining up to thank him for being their leader. Such imperviousness is worrisome, for it betokens a disconnection from reality. But it looks now as if the dissatisfaction represented by the tea partiers is growing by leaps and bounds. It is not dissipating, as many predicted; it is gaining definition and ever-more broad-based support. There will come a time when Obama will find it impossible to avoid acknowledging this.

That is the moment when we really have to fear the reaction of this supremely disengaged connoisseur of contempt.


Recent polls find that anger toward government is on the rise.

80 percent of Americans say they can't trust federal government
Click to expand...

The entire Democrat Party is "amused" by the TEA movement. That's why they are cheerfully hunting around for lobbying jobs, now that their terms in Congress are coming to an end.

;)
 
Karen Kraft said:
The entire Democrat Party is "amused" by the TEA movement. That's why they are cheerfully hunting around for lobbying jobs, now that their terms in Congress are coming to an end.

;)
Click to expand...



As well as Robert Gibbs.

A strong vote of confidence there... ;)
 
Is the Tea Party the extreme Right?

No way.

And the Left knows it. And they’re scared. Why else would they pay such attention to such an allegedly ‘fringe’ movement?

If they were actually as intelligent as the manner in which they so desperately want to see themselves, they’d ignore it altogether. They just can’t bring themselves to do that, though, because they know that the Tea Party generally represents what America was intended to be from the getgo.



This explains why the loonies make these kind of accusations about their fellow Americans:

http://www.thefoxnation.com/politics/2010/04/20/why-left-needs-racism



The loonies use pejorative terms, hateful terms against those that are carrying the message. So whether they're attacking Tea Party protestors, conservative talk radio, or conservative TV or whether it's Internet sites. The Left always attack the opponent as a human being, rather than simply just debate the opponent without dehumanizing and demonizing him because the Left is based on a fantasy of redemption — which requires that its opponents be damned. It is also a reactionary force that has learned nothing from its crimes, and therefore cannot handle a debate on the issues or over the facts. Therefore it really has only one weapon, which is slander, defamation, which it will resort to at the least provocation, which is the only way progressives know how to relate to those who disagree with them.




...
 
Last edited:
Obama's midterm election strategy: Mock 'Tea Party' members

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgI8BRtt5AQ







He can't see the writing on the wall - some recent polls show:

Tea Party members are average Americans, 41% are Democrats & Independents

63% of Americans say near future tax hikes loom

87% told Gallup they oppose Obama's healthcare legislation

A whopping 95% told pollsters that Washington "Democrats are taxing, spending and borrowing too much."

80% of Americans say they "can't trust federal government"



Besides trying to demean the Tea Party movement, the Obama administration is also advocating censorship of the Internet. They're advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them. Despite the fact that they continue to have much of the mainstream media still providing cover for all of these dramatic efforts that the Obama administration is taking. So they're very specifically and pointedly going after voices that they see are effectively telling the truth about what the Obama administration is trying to do.

The American people don't like it very much. These type of attacks only tend to strengthen the resolve of the Nation to stand up and protest.

Freedom of Speech Isn't Dangerous, It's Essential.

Standing up peacefully to a government you feel is grabbing too much power and is out of control is the answer. Voting them out of office is the solution.

That message will be heard loud and clear.
 
MeeMie said:
Besides trying to demean the Tea Party movement, the Obama administration is also advocating censorship of the Internet. They're advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet.
Click to expand...

Got anything to back this up or is your evidence "because I say so" as usual?
 
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC3XxN0pdkg


Gee, Why Hasn't Progressive Talk-Radio Caught On?

Special Ed Schultz confronts a dissident Democrat, and displays the progressive left's storied capacity for intelligent engagement.

The progressive left is really melting down. Wonder why that could be. They won the health care takeover. They won the stimulus. Their messiah won the Nobel Peace Prize. They have unchecked governmental power.

They don't seem to be too happy, though. :D
 
 
SeanH said:
Could you point out the bit about censorship, I seem to have missed it.
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read and consider the urls linked, you would understand that net neutrality IS internet censorship.

Just as an attempt was made to force talk radio stations to feature the left's version of neutrality. When an opposing viewpoint is forced to balance what people chose to listen to, it is in place of the point of view that is being stifled.

Yet, when the TV media is known as ObamaMedia, and there is only ONE network that presents the other viewpoint, no attempts to legislate what viewers can watch are introduced.

Those markets should be determined simply by their popularity and ratings.

Case in point:
PRAVDA - where the mass media was controlled by the Communist Party
 
MeeMie said:
If you had bothered to read and consider the urls linked, you would understand that net neutrality IS internet censorship.

Just as an attempt was made to force talk radio stations to feature the left's version of neutrality. When an opposing viewpoint is forced to balance what people chose to listen to, it is in place of the point of view that is being stifled.

Yet, when the TV media is known as ObamaMedia, and there is only ONE network that presents the other viewpoint, no attempts to legislate what viewers can watch are introduced.

Those markets should be determined simply by their popularity and ratings.

Case in point:
PRAVDA - where the mass media was controlled by the Communist Party
Click to expand...

Oh, i read all of them. Can't watch the video at the moment but I'll look when I get home. And there isn't anything there about censorship.

Why is that you happily c+p reams and reams of stuff but whenever you're asked to back up your bullshit you can't c+p anything?
 
SeanH said:
Oh, i read all of them. Can't watch the video at the moment but I'll look when I get home. And there isn't anything there about censorship.

Why is that you happily c+p reams and reams of stuff but whenever you're asked to back up your bullshit you can't c+p anything?
Click to expand...


Perhaps it would help if you look for the theory of censorship, rather than the word.


You know, Sean, simply making accusations doesn't hold true. Throughout this thread, I have responded to your posts ... in my own words ... trying to get through to you ... as I have in several other threads whenever you insist nothing I say is supported by facts.

The best that I can say to you is do your own research with a more open mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jessIncognito
Rant about the scoring system and series system
Replies
1
Views
356
StillStunned
StillStunned
Q
I call bullshit!
Replies
17
Views
930
JustKjell
J
M
Screenshot during work zoom call
Replies
1
Views
508
Saint_Ann
Saint_Ann
MusicForTheDeaf
This is what Grok had to say about the global elite
Replies
2
Views
200
butters
butters
maria2025
Anyone from the 714?
Replies
0
Views
96
maria2025
maria2025
Back
Top