Liberals doing their part to support free speech - Page 3

piercehawkeye45 · 07-28-2007, 08:29 PM

Well independent sources is such a big group you can't categorize them into one single stereotype. It is like comparing commercial to independent music. Of course some underground bands want to make the big bucks, but others do it for the music and experience. The same will apply to independent sources.

TheMercenary · 07-28-2007, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Well independent sources is such a big group you can't categorize them into one single stereotype. It is like comparing commercial to independent music. Of course some underground bands want to make the big bucks, but others do it for the music and experience. The same will apply to independent sources.

I wasn't really comparing them, I was just talking about the original sources for all news and the motivation of the guy on the ground.

Happy Monkey · 07-28-2007, 09:38 PM

Likewise, I'm sure. Can you find something O'Reilly said about DailyKos that was actually true?

piercehawkeye45 · 07-28-2007, 09:42 PM

Sorry to derail this topic but I would like to see O'Reilly go on a debate where a buzzer would go off everytime he raised his voice, lied, deceived (taking part of a quote out of context for example), or used an argument flaw (stickman, ad hominem, etc). That would be interesting.

Happy Monkey · 07-28-2007, 09:44 PM

The problem is that he can make stuff up much faster than he can be fact checked.

xoxoxoBruce · 07-29-2007, 02:16 AM

Any news source; look for maximum facts and minimum interpretation of the situation. Then corroborate the facts.

Happy Monkey · 07-29-2007, 09:43 AM

Here are some of the things O'Reilly said about DailyKos.

wolf · 07-29-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Here are some of the things O'Reilly said about DailyKos.

So, wait, this is all about some sticks and stones crap?

Puh-leeez

Grow up.

Happy Monkey · 07-29-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

So, wait, this is all about some sticks and stones crap?

Sticks and stones are all a website or a talk show can do. What else could it have been about?

yesman065 · 07-29-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Sticks and stones are all a website or a talk show can do. What else could it have been about?

The left wing extremists trying to limit free speech by their opposition? Just thinkin out loud...

Happy Monkey · 07-29-2007, 12:09 PM

How?

Clodfobble · 07-29-2007, 01:35 PM

A boycott is not limiting free speech. It is free speech.

yesman065 · 07-29-2007, 01:58 PM

HM & Clod I'm just thinkin here, not really takin a side, I haven't thought that much about it, but...

Depends on what their intent was -If they are trying to remove financial support for the station, thereby removing it, then they are limiting Fox's free speech.
On the other hand if they are just trying to make a statement - what exactly is that statement and why choose this means to make it. If they are unhappy with a particular host, ie: O'Reilly, why not just target that particular host.

Perhaps they will only be happy when all that is on the radio or TV is what THEY want it to be, or their point of view - That is NOT free speech.
Again this is to me like the guy who bitched about the music on a particular radio station - JUST CHANGE THE STATION.

Happy Monkey · 07-29-2007, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

Depends on what their intent was -If they are trying to remove financial support for the station, thereby removing it, then they are limiting Fox's free speech.

How? Was O'Reilly attempting to limit Yearly Kos' free speech when he tried to get JetBlue to stop sponsoring them?

yesman065 · 07-29-2007, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesman065

HM & Clod I'm just thinkin here, not really takin a side, I haven't thought that much about it, but...
Again this is to me like the guy who bitched about the music on a particular radio station - JUST CHANGE THE STATION.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

How? Was O'Reilly attempting to limit Yearly Kos' free speech when he tried to get JetBlue to stop sponsoring them?

Yes he was - and so are they, I don't like either. Neither one was right!

07-28-2007, 09:38 PM	#3
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Likewise, I'm sure. Can you find something O'Reilly said about DailyKos that was actually true? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-28-2007, 09:44 PM	#5
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	The problem is that he can make stuff up much faster than he can be fact checked. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-29-2007, 02:16 AM	#6
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Any news source; look for maximum facts and minimum interpretation of the situation. Then corroborate the facts. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

07-29-2007, 09:43 AM	#7
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	Here are some of the things O'Reilly said about DailyKos. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-29-2007, 12:09 PM	#11
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	How? __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

07-28-2007, 08:29 PM	#1
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Well independent sources is such a big group you can't categorize them into one single stereotype. It is like comparing commercial to independent music. Of course some underground bands want to make the big bucks, but others do it for the music and experience. The same will apply to independent sources.

07-28-2007, 09:42 PM	#4
piercehawkeye45 Franklin Pierce Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,695	Sorry to derail this topic but I would like to see O'Reilly go on a debate where a buzzer would go off everytime he raised his voice, lied, deceived (taking part of a quote out of context for example), or used an argument flaw (stickman, ad hominem, etc). That would be interesting.

07-29-2007, 01:35 PM	#12
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	A boycott is not limiting free speech. It is free speech.

07-29-2007, 01:58 PM	#13
yesman065 Banned - Self Imposed Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,847	HM & Clod I'm just thinkin here, not really takin a side, I haven't thought that much about it, but... Depends on what their intent was -If they are trying to remove financial support for the station, thereby removing it, then they are limiting Fox's free speech. On the other hand if they are just trying to make a statement - what exactly is that statement and why choose this means to make it. If they are unhappy with a particular host, ie: O'Reilly, why not just target that particular host. Perhaps they will only be happy when all that is on the radio or TV is what THEY want it to be, or their point of view - That is NOT free speech. Again this is to me like the guy who bitched about the music on a particular radio station - JUST CHANGE THE STATION.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)