Breaking: Debbie Wasserman-Schulz' IT staffer arrested while trying to flee US

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Fairness Doctrine would be at the whim of those who decide what "fair" is.

For example, who is fair? Fox or MSNBC and CNN? Depends on your meaning of "fair".

Was it just an oversight that NYT left out Menendez party? That NBC reported him as a Republican?

Take WAPO from last summer/fall: get a marker and underline the adjectives in the political articles. Decide which articles are fair.

Fairness depends on point of view.

I think CNN is unfair--you may think Fox is unfair.

Newspapers used to report facts with little bias except on editorial pages.
No longer.

But, of course, the biggest bias is reflected in what they choose to report. Who would determine "fairness" there?

Good post. And, I would add... part of that biggest bias is not only what they choose to report... it is also what they choose NOT to report.

That's the "bias of ommission" and it is pervasive throughout the liberal media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Fairness Doctrine would be at the whim of those who decide what "fair" is.

For example, who is fair? Fox or MSNBC and CNN? Depends on your meaning of "fair".

Was it just an oversight that NYT left out Menendez party? That NBC reported him as a Republican?

Take WAPO from last summer/fall: get a marker and underline the adjectives in the political articles. Decide which articles are fair.

Fairness depends on point of view.

I think CNN is unfair--you may think Fox is unfair.

Newspapers used to report facts with little bias except on editorial pages.
No longer.

But, of course, the biggest bias is reflected in what they choose to report. Who would determine "fairness" there?

Ha. I was unaware of this. So, I checked it out and indeed, they had to print a correction. Of course, it was more than 2 hours after the article was published.

"CORRECTION (Sept. 6, 2017, 5:35 p.m.): An earlier version of this article misstated the party affiliation of Menendez. He is a Democrat, not a Republican.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/menendez-says-not-once-have-i-dishonored-senate-office-bribery-n799136

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting that she has decided to return. Must be a hell of a deal.

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire Pakistani clan gets off scot-free, in exchange for testimony that leads to locking up Debbie and several others.

What are the chances of that?

Any thoughts on this?

I cannot imagine that they will get off scot-free. But, I may be wrong.
Maybe something like... they are fined a pretty hefty fine (to repay the govt and loan co) and are able to return permanently to Pakistan in exchange for testimony?
I have to think there is a deal for no jail time in order to get her to return. If that is what you mean by scot-free, I would agree.

First, did I read they had children? The children, born here, are American citizens. I'd rather they be here than over there where they could be in danger of being a kidnapping target. Something to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if CNN covers this. Luckily for the president my guess is no. CNN will continue to push fake news and people will recognize that liberal cable is all BS and lies.
MAGA!!

I can bet my paycheck that you will not see any part of this story on CNN this week.

CNN's unusually left-leaning bias is increasingly apparent. They bury any story which might cast democrats/the DNC in a bad light.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. (Wikipedia)

Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine

We keep what we sow America. No reason this could not be reversed given such incredible MSM bias, as evidenced by CNN.

I forgot about the actual year of implementation but, remember being told to be observant by teachers. Very interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if CNN covers this. Luckily for the president my guess is no. CNN will continue to push fake news and people will recognize that liberal cable is all BS and lies.
MAGA!!

I can bet my paycheck that you will not see any part of this story on CNN this week.

CNN's unusually left-leaning bias is increasingly apparent. They bury any story which might cast democrats/the DNC in a bad light.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. (Wikipedia)

Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine

We keep what we sow America. No reason this could not be reversed given such incredible MSM bias, as evidenced by CNN.

Good on Reagan!

As much as I dislike CNN, they *MUST* have the freedom to cover news however they like, with whatever editorial judgement they choose, subject to the limitations of existing libel/slander laws. Fairness doctrine amounts to the government telling the news what they must or must not do. This is *NOT* what you want in a free society. Again, I may not like CNN but we must defend their freedom to operate as they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting that she has decided to return. Must be a hell of a deal.

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire Pakistani clan gets off scot-free, in exchange for testimony that leads to locking up Debbie and several others.

What are the chances of that?

Any thoughts on this?

I cannot imagine that they will get off scot-free. But, I may be wrong.
Maybe something like... they are fined a pretty hefty fine (to repay the govt and loan co) and are able to return permanently to Pakistan in exchange for testimony?
I have to think there is a deal for no jail time in order to get her to return. If that is what you mean by scot-free, I would agree.

First, did I read they had children? The children, born here, are American citizens. I'd rather they be here than over there where they could be in danger of being a kidnapping target. Something to consider.

Are you certain the children were born here? And, why would they be a kidnapping target?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very interesting that she has decided to return. Must be a hell of a deal.

Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised if the entire Pakistani clan gets off scot-free, in exchange for testimony that leads to locking up Debbie and several others.

What are the chances of that?

Any thoughts on this?

I cannot imagine that they will get off scot-free. But, I may be wrong.
Maybe something like... they are fined a pretty hefty fine (to repay the govt and loan co) and are able to return permanently to Pakistan in exchange for testimony?
I have to think there is a deal for no jail time in order to get her to return. If that is what you mean by scot-free, I would agree.

First, did I read they had children? The children, born here, are American citizens. I'd rather they be here than over there where they could be in danger of being a kidnapping target. Something to consider.

Are you certain the children were born here? And, why would they be a kidnapping target?

Sorry my comments distracted the conversation: I am not sure they were born here. I'm speculating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if CNN covers this. Luckily for the president my guess is no. CNN will continue to push fake news and people will recognize that liberal cable is all BS and lies.
MAGA!!

I can bet my paycheck that you will not see any part of this story on CNN this week.

CNN's unusually left-leaning bias is increasingly apparent. They bury any story which might cast democrats/the DNC in a bad light.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. (Wikipedia)

Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine

We keep what we sow America. No reason this could not be reversed given such incredible MSM bias, as evidenced by CNN.

Good on Reagan!

As much as I dislike CNN, they *MUST* have the freedom to cover news however they like, with whatever editorial judgement they choose, subject to the limitations of existing libel/slander laws. Fairness doctrine amounts to the government telling the news what they must or must not do. This is *NOT* what you want in a free society. Again, I may not like CNN but we must defend their freedom to operate as they do.

I strongly disagree; I do not believe it serves the nation's interest when any FCC-licensed entity spreads information that is dishonest, inequitable, or imbalanced. The Fairness Doctrine did not tell the news networks what they had to report on, there was still plenty of editorial latitude.

Why do you think the Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949? Here's a hint - post-WW2 everyone realized that information IS power. Bad or false information can whip a citizenry into a frenzy, can lead nations to unnecessary wars, and can lead to the persecution of individuals. This is why "honest, equitable, and balanced" is necessary regulation in the age of mass information.

[Anonymous]

Planted Laptop?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/exclusive-did-imran-want-capitol-police-to-find-wasserman-schultzs-laptop/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if CNN covers this. Luckily for the president my guess is no. CNN will continue to push fake news and people will recognize that liberal cable is all BS and lies.
MAGA!!

I can bet my paycheck that you will not see any part of this story on CNN this week.

CNN's unusually left-leaning bias is increasingly apparent. They bury any story which might cast democrats/the DNC in a bad light.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. (Wikipedia)

Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine

We keep what we sow America. No reason this could not be reversed given such incredible MSM bias, as evidenced by CNN.

Good on Reagan!

As much as I dislike CNN, they *MUST* have the freedom to cover news however they like, with whatever editorial judgement they choose, subject to the limitations of existing libel/slander laws. Fairness doctrine amounts to the government telling the news what they must or must not do. This is *NOT* what you want in a free society. Again, I may not like CNN but we must defend their freedom to operate as they do.

I strongly disagree; I do not believe it serves the nation's interest when any FCC-licensed entity spreads information that is dishonest, inequitable, or imbalanced. The Fairness Doctrine did not tell the news networks what they had to report on, there was still plenty of editorial latitude.

Why do you think the Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949? Here's a hint - post-WW2 everyone realized that information IS power. Bad or false information can whip a citizenry into a frenzy, can lead nations to unnecessary wars, and can lead to the persecution of individuals. This is why "honest, equitable, and balanced" is necessary regulation in the age of mass information.

+1 sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Planted Laptop?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/exclusive-did-imran-want-capitol-police-to-find-wasserman-schultzs-laptop/

Now that is a scoop! Nice work, Luke Rosiak!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We'll see if CNN covers this. Luckily for the president my guess is no. CNN will continue to push fake news and people will recognize that liberal cable is all BS and lies.
MAGA!!

I can bet my paycheck that you will not see any part of this story on CNN this week.

CNN's unusually left-leaning bias is increasingly apparent. They bury any story which might cast democrats/the DNC in a bad light.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission's view — honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC, which was believed to have been under pressure from then President Ronald Reagan, eliminated the Doctrine in 1987. (Wikipedia)

Reagan's Veto Kills Fairness Doctrine Bill
June 21, 1987|PENNY PAGANO | Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — President Reagan, intensifying the debate over whether the nation's broadcasters must present opposing views of controversial issues, has vetoed legislation to turn into law the 38-year-old "fairness doctrine," the White House announced Saturday.
http://articles.latimes.com/1987-06-21/news/mn-8908_1_fairness-doctrine

We keep what we sow America. No reason this could not be reversed given such incredible MSM bias, as evidenced by CNN.

Good on Reagan!

As much as I dislike CNN, they *MUST* have the freedom to cover news however they like, with whatever editorial judgement they choose, subject to the limitations of existing libel/slander laws. Fairness doctrine amounts to the government telling the news what they must or must not do. This is *NOT* what you want in a free society. Again, I may not like CNN but we must defend their freedom to operate as they do.

I strongly disagree; I do not believe it serves the nation's interest when any FCC-licensed entity spreads information that is dishonest, inequitable, or imbalanced. The Fairness Doctrine did not tell the news networks what they had to report on, there was still plenty of editorial latitude.

Why do you think the Fairness Doctrine was enacted in 1949? Here's a hint - post-WW2 everyone realized that information IS power. Bad or false information can whip a citizenry into a frenzy, can lead nations to unnecessary wars, and can lead to the persecution of individuals. This is why "honest, equitable, and balanced" is necessary regulation in the age of mass information.

Freedom of speech absolutely serves the nation's interest. There is no rational reason to abridge it except in clearly defined cases such as libel and slander.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Planted Laptop?

http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/06/exclusive-did-imran-want-capitol-police-to-find-wasserman-schultzs-laptop/

This is an interesting story. Why would he want this laptop to be found by law enforcement?
And, what were the loose letters addressed to US Attorney of DC?

[Anonymous]

TThe popcorn is tasting good lately!

[Anonymous]

He probably figured he could make it out of the country, and figured he'd do damage on the way out the door to help hide his own crimes.