USA Politics - TV Talking Heads
-
And we are lead to believe that some twit going to one of the most expensive schools in the USA, vacationing in Italy, can't afford $9.00/month for birth control is the crises of the day.
"Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.
Thus, federal agents whose work is to protect public officials and their friends may prohibit the speech and the gatherings of folks who disagree with those officials or permit the speech and the gatherings of those who would praise them, even though the First Amendment condemns content-based speech discrimination by the government.
The new law also provides that anyone who gathers in a “restricted” area may be prosecuted. And because the statute does not require the government to prove intent, a person accidentally in a restricted area can be charged and prosecuted, as well."
Between projects, bored. Don't mean to offend anyone, however, it just frustrates me on how the "talking TV heads" can focus on BS.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/15/can-secret-service-tell-to-shut-up/#ixzz1pMiVxhpK
-
Can you please give a different link, Fox news is not a credible source.
It's all opinion and there are no links to the actual law or even a reference, now we all know Fox news and MSNBC are very biased left and right so I'd not take anything they say as fact but opinion.
Secondly the whole birth control BS you mention is in fact a GOP issue that they messed up so badly when they decided to only let men discuss it and then to add fuel to the flames by allowing their leading noise maker Rush Limbaugh loose to attack Ms. Fluke.
-
'Credible News Source' is a relative term.
As far as Rush goes, Rush is to the GOP as Bill Mahr is to the Dems. I do find it fascinating that when Mahr attacks conservative women no one raises an eyebrow but rather defend his right to free speech, but when Limbaugh says something he's lambasted across the media as a hate monger.
Ah the power of an unbiased liberal media. It's only free speech if they say it.
-
@o2bwln said:
'Credible News Source' is a relative term.
As far as Rush goes, Rush is to the GOP as Bill Mahr is to the Dems. I do find it fascinating that when Mahr attacks conservative women no one raises an eyebrow but rather defend his right to free speech, but when Limbaugh says something he's lambasted across the media as a hate monger.
Ah the power of an unbiased liberal media. It's only free speech if they say it.
Oh what a load of crap! Rush Limbaugh is a syndicated political opinion segment run nationwide to most 'car on the lawn' states. He is by many political leaders opinion the voice of the conservative movement, his show is solely political.
Bill Maher is a comedian, and even his HBO show is mostly comedy with political discussions and satire as well as doing 50 plus live stand up shows a year.
-
I rest my case.
-
All of these people, whether they care to admit it or not, are entertainers. That's their disclaimer when put to the test. Their content is just used to keep the commercials from colliding or overlapping. Or, it's like the mortar in a brick wall. Is it there to keep the bricks apart, or to keep them together?
-
@mitcorb said:
All of these people, whether they care to admit it or not, are entertainers. That's their disclaimer when put to the test. Their content is just used to keep the commercials from colliding or overlapping. Or, it's like the mortar in a brick wall. Is it there to keep the bricks apart, or to keep them together?
Yes I would agree with you as far as AM radio right wing rhetoric, Fox noise and MSNBC leftist garble goes, however to bundle Bill Maher into that is wrong as firstly he does not define himself or his show as a political opinion but rather satire and comedy and secondly he is on HBO which is a pay channel and thus no advertising.
-
Well I have made my point.
The art in a magician show is his distraction, the less noticeable the more mysterious and fascinating his performance.
There has been a law passed that allows a government agency to determine what is and what is not acceptable speech. People can be arrested for this speech and even arrested if you happen to be in the wrong area.
This I find unacceptable. However, the discussion is not about the loss of free speech, but about pigs practicing their free speech.
So the magician/TV Talking Heads are winning, and this I find very disturbing, that this country is so divided that both side can't stop for one minute and say, "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING".
-
Ken, you and I normally disagree on just about anything, however I will agree that political opinion on BOTH sides is reaching an all time low. I consider AM right wing talk and Fox news as the biggest load of negative fear mongering crap out there, and now also lump MSNBC into the same group as they have gone from being biased to just out right bullshit and just as divisive as Fox and AM radio.
I only hope that the independents are a little wiser and get their opinions from more neutral and or multiple sources.
Jon Stewart still rocks.
-
@unknownuser said:
"Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.
...
Up until now I have been more concerned with corporate manipulation of law in order to stifle criticism and free speech. This turn of events is surprising to me, it seems the US is following suit with many of the more tightly controlled countries seeking to "kettle" protests and keep them out of the public's(and the media's) eyes. What's next? make it near impossible to obtain a permit to protests at all? Oh wait, we're already doing that too...
I'm sure that this was done in the name of "Safety". In the last decade I've seen more freedoms, perceived and real, go swirling down the drain in the name of safety, and of all ironies, freedom too.
I am disgusted, especially seeing as this is coming from a liberal office, and they're the ones that are generally considered favorable to public protest and free speech.
Guess it's good I'm an independent. Apparently a man without a country, too.
-
No, Solo, we don't disagree about everything. I am usually in the "let people live their life" and don't think it is necessary to trumpet around my opinion. However, sometimes I slip, not perfect.
However, I know I share one opinion that others here share. You have some of the best damn rendering on this site.
-
I'd buy Solo a beer or two for his renderings alone.
-
@unknownuser said:
I know I share one opinion that others here share. You have some of the best damn rendering on this site.
@unknownuser said:
I'd buy Solo a beer or two for his renderings alone.
What!! learned a new trick? is this what y'all righties do now, compliment your opponent into submission? It's bloody effective.
Thanks guys (whimpers away)
-
Is there a specific connection here, or just stuff you don't like about this admin's policies?
@unknownuser said:
And we are lead to believe that some twit going to one of the most expensive schools in the USA, vacationing in Italy, can't afford $9.00/month for birth control is the crises of the day.
"Last week, President Obama signed into law the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. This law permits Secret Service agents to designate any place they wish as a place where free speech, association and petition of the government are prohibited. And it permits the Secret Service to make these determinations based on the content of speech.
Certainly on the face of it, Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 sounds like a step too far, and bad law, and one hard to justify (even if to quell funeral protesters telling us any given randomly targeted soldier died because god was offended by gays being allowed in the military or some such nonsense).
I think I read that erectile dysfunction meds were allowed to be funded through federal progs administered by the suits hoping to deny any manner of reproductive assistance to the female sex.
New thread: 'gas' crisis of the day.
-
brookefox
If you have to ask that question, I guess I was to obtuse. I intentionally picked these two items because they did not have any connection to each other.
I was trying to illustrate that while the TV talking heads were discussing Sandra Fluke problem, making it appears as the crises of the year, that a law was signed that was trying to control speech. Giving a Federal agency, or personnel of the agency the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech, and what is and is not an acceptable place to make these speeches. I had hoped that we had a legislative body, an judges to make or define speech. Not some agent that may of had a bad night. This does not appear to me this is the original intent of free speech. I know one can't yell fire in a crowed theater, but one should be able to call out the Senator and congressman who made a bundle on insider trading or what ever the crime of the day happens to be, on the steps of the congress.
Just trying to illustrate the miss-direction our "journalist" make and how we seem to fall for this miss-direction every time.
Other than that there is no connection.
-
I see. I wouldn't personally characterize them as heads, though they certainly keep a jabber going. Perhaps talking gas bags. Certainly agreed that their focus is skewed to their bias, whatever that may be.
Advertisement