Liberal media reward

timesjoke

timesjoke

Active Members
I remember having a lot of debates with people about the liberal leaning of the vast majority of newspapers and television stations and one of the things that I have always pointed out is how stupid their stands are because it is driving people away from them.........but now I can see why.

New moves by the Federal Trade Commission ordered by Obama has them pushing an idea to create a new tax of 5% on all electronics and to use that new income to "prop up" the failing liberal meidia sources. Some other ides they are pushing is postal discounts for certain groups of written media, grants to certain advanced education centers to promote the established media sources and not the newer sources. A new segment of the AmeriCorps for just journalists, some tax credits for employing journalists, and a big boost for public radio and television.

Here we see a blantant move by Obama and company to have the Government pick the winners and the losers in the media markets by pouring money into certain groups and not other groups all on a discretionary possition.

This seems to me as a direct reward from the Liberals to reward the die hard support they have given exclusively to them in helping them get elected and push their agenda like the healthcare bill where all these same media outlets gave blind support and attacked anyone who did not support Obama's agenda.

 
ImWithStupid

ImWithStupid

New member
This would be a good start to a good trend in media...

Newsmax Media bidding to buy Newsweek
Wed Jun 2, 4:37 pm ET It's been almost a month since the Washington Post Co. put Newsweek on the market, and by 5 p.m. today the initial bids are due. Despite skepticism over whether there will be bidders, Yahoo! News can confirm there's at least one: Newsmax Media.

"Newsmax Media Inc. has made a bid for Newsweek," said a company statement provided to Yahoo! News.

The company also stated that its "bid for Newsweek's print and online assets is congruent with its objective to diversify and expand into numerous distinct media brand offerings, like any major multi-title publisher."

"Newsweek's staff, advertisers and readers can be assured that if Newsmax Media Inc.'s bid is successful, Newsweek's stellar brand and editorial representation would remain distinct from our other brands," the statement continued. "Newsweek would continue in its mission to objectively report the news and provide analysis from a wide spectrum of perspectives."

It's not surprising that the company would try to make clear that Newsweek — if purchased — would not be merged with Newsmax, the conservative magazine founded by journalist Christopher Ruddy in 1998.

Before launching Newsmax, Ruddy worked at the New York Post and the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned by conservative billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. At the Tribune-Review, Ruddy investigated the suicide of Clinton Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster and wrote a book alleging a government cover-up called “The Strange Death of Vincent Foster.�

Ruddy started Newsmax with Scaife’s support, and aggressively covered the Clinton administration. While Ruddy may have been one of the figures lumped in Hillary Clinton’s “vast right wing conspiracy� back in the 1990’s, he’s actually become a friend of Bill Clinton (and donor to his foundation).

Despite lean years for magazines, Newsmax has bucked industry trends and posted revenue last year of around $35 million, according to the Financial Times. (By comparison, Newsweek lost just over $28 million last year.)

Tom Kuhn, the banker with Allen & Co. handling the sale, declined to comment on today's deadline for bids.
Click to expand...
http://news.yahoo.co...ws/ynews_bs2368

 
W

wez

New member
How about you dedicate your next post to defining exactly, specifically, precisely what a "liberal" is? Every last square inch of it..

So TJ.. what exactly, specifically, precisely constitutes a person as a "liberal"?

 
  • Like
Reactions: wez
timesjoke

timesjoke

Active Members
How about you dedicate your next post to defining exactly, specifically, precisely what a "liberal" is? Every last square inch of it..

So TJ.. what exactly, specifically, precisely constitutes a person as a "liberal"?
Click to expand...
The answer would be to much for you Wez, and your not really interested in the answer anyway, your just out trying to pick another fight, as ususal, but I don't mind a short answer to give a general concept of what I believe is one of the many defining principles of being Liberal:

Someone who believe that some people are not responsible for their own existence to the degree that they believe it is fair to steal from those who are responsible, and give to those who are not. The concept that the majority of those who are poor are only poor because they are taken advantage of by someone else. To believe that "social justice" is the job of the Government.

As a Conservative I believe the American promise is equal opportunity, not equal results. Trying to make life "fair" means you at the same time have to be unfair to someone else and you actually make it worse, not better.

Look at your own life Wez, you have worked hard to educate yourself and to meet goals you have set for yourself. You have been made stronger as a result. The struggle and the accomplishment is giving you more than the Government ever could.

 
W

wez

New member
The answer would be to much for you Wez
Click to expand...
Too much for me? Please explain..
Click to expand...
That would be too much for you too, lol.
Click to expand...
Why do you dodge a simple question?
Click to expand...
If a question was asked I would answer it, but your just trying to pick a fight, so why waste my time on a meanignful and thought out reply that will just be ignored and used as an excuse to flame me?
Click to expand...
hahahaha.. got it all figured out already? Why do you even get of bed? If I wanted to flam you I'd just do it..

It was a simple question.. you like to use the liberal label.. a lot.. so.. define it with a meaningful and thought out reply.. try me.

 
timesjoke

timesjoke

Active Members
The answer would be to much for you Wez
Click to expand...
Too much for me? Please explain..
Click to expand...
That would be too much for you too, lol.
Click to expand...
Why do you dodge a simple question?
Click to expand...
If a question was asked I would answer it, but your just trying to pick a fight, so why waste my time on a meanignful and thought out reply that will just be ignored and used as an excuse to flame me?
Click to expand...
hahahaha.. got it all figured out already? Why do you even get of bed? If I wanted to flam you I'd just do it..

It was a simple question.. you like to use the liberal label.. a lot.. so.. define it with a meaningful and thought out reply.. try me.
Click to expand...
Already gave you a big part and you did not understand that so why waste more time on someone who does not really want to discuss anything and is only trying to be ugly to me Wez?

I have tried you over, and over, and over, and over for a couple years and not one time have you ever met me half way on a honest debate, not once.

 
W

wez

New member
Already gave you a big part and you did not understand that so why waste more time on someone who does not really want to discuss anything and is only trying to be ugly to me Wez?
Click to expand...
I understood what you said.. and why do you keep making excuses to avoid a simple question? Where did I try to be ugly to you?

Looks like the opposite to me.. you dodge, insinuate, accuse and assume things about me.. and I'm trying to be ugly to you?

I'm not you..

I have tried you over, and over, and over, and over for a couple years and not one time have you ever met me half way on a honest debate, not once.
Click to expand...
TJ, you spent the better part of a year trying to ekill me because you didn't agree with something I said 2 weeks after I met you..

My question does not even propose a debate.. it was for you to define exactly, specifically, precisely what a "liberal" is..

Someone who believe that some people are not responsible for their own existence to the degree that they believe it is fair to steal from those who are responsible, and give to those who are not. The concept that the majority of those who are poor are only poor because they are taken advantage of by someone else. To believe that "social justice" is the job of the Government.
Click to expand...
This definition is lame.. we just had a massive bailout of people who I would venture to guess run around calling themselves conservatives, capitalists, and republicans because they weren't responsible for their own existence and "too big to fail".. Which started with our former "conservative" president stealing from poor to give to the rich.. We had a "conservative" president for 20 of the previous 28 years before Obama.. and watched government control swell exponentially.. sounds like you're defining conservatism.. please explain..

 
  • Like
Reactions: wez
timesjoke

timesjoke

Active Members
^^^^^and that is my point about you made clear.

I would not give you more so you took what I offered, made several crazy claims like all the previous presidents for 20 years were all conservatives (Clinton was a very left leaning liberal, he was the guy who signed the law that forced banks to lend money to the people who could not pay for them and caused the domino effect that turned into the current housing/bank crisis). I never supported the bailouts on any level, not the smaller version Bush started and certainly not the more increased version Obama started but there is a bigger difference between the two, Obama attached strings to his actions to let him take over things Bush never tried to do.

I don't support handouts for private or public entities but we can say one thing for the public entitity, they do employ people, the welfare family does not, "IF" we have to choose one, I would choose the one who is employing people and keeping them off welfare because that is exactly where all those workers would end up and the Government spends the same money anyway with no chance of ever getting repaid, at least the banks are mostly going to pay the loaned money back.

Anyway, I did not dodge your question, I gave you a very simplified answer to see what you would do with it and see if you were serious about wanting an honest debate or if you were just out to try and start a fight, when I would not give you more you did exactly what you always do, you used what was there to try and start a fight and lie about things like the last 20 years have only had conservative Presidents. The truth is not in you Wez, only lies and a desire to fight with people.

No point in me wasting my time on that mess.

 
W

wez

New member

We had a "conservative" president for 20 of the previous 28 years before Obama.. ~ wez

 


When I would not give you more you did exactly what you always do, you used what was there to try and start a fight and lie about things like the last 20 years have only had conservative Presidents. TJ


Reagan 1980 - 1988 "Conservative" = 8 years


Bush 1988 - 1992 "Conservative" = 4 years


Clinton 1992 - 2000 "Liberal" = 8 years


Bush 2000 - 2008 "conservative" = 8 years

 


Conservative = 20 years


Liberal = 8 years

What the f ck did I lie about? You used what was there and twisted it and lied at the very moment you're accusing me of it? .. Who's trying to start a fight? .. every post you've made since I asked you a simple question has been condescending, judgmental, and hypocritical..

f cking hypocrite.. wake up

 




 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom