Forum Post: Fuck "occupying" Fox News, you idiots should go disrupt MSNBC!!!!!
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 10:01 a.m. EST by KahnII
(170)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
MSNBC outwardly supported those who arranged the bail outs. MSNBC is owned by GE. GE's CEO not only has his head up Obummer's ass so far that he can share his lunch, but GE got "stimulis" funds AND paid ZERO on their 15 billion in profits.
So which news outlet is really the bigger enemy? Fox because you don't like their reporting, or MSNBC who is owned by GE, uses money for lobbying, got bail out funds, pays ZERO in taxes and had their CEO Jeffery Immelt buy himself a seat on the "Economic recovery advisory cmte?"
Really people stop being hypocrites, you claim you support the first Amendment, Fox is using their first Amendment right, even if you don't like what they have to say you should support their right to say it b/c if they lose their right you'll lose yours as well. Now you should be flodding and disrupting the NBC studio b/c that is where your enemy in media is located.
Wake the fuck up to the facts already!
I refuse to get news from any "mainstream" American news network (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc.). Too much political bias and not enough intelligence behind the reporting.
How about they both suck? Ever think of that? Ever think that not EVERY FREAKING ISSUE is a left or right, here or there, with us or against us issue?
Seems to be that you are the one that needs to wake up.
Why are you replying to posts that are from November 2011?
Those were good times.
Right.
Attacking JUST FOX news further politicizes this event and polarizes possible supporters. Same old grumpy "Grrrrr darn evil rethuglicans watching that FAUX news" bs. Both sides are corrupt and need to change. Dump your party towing and realize that.
all msm is garbage GE owns defense contractor used for killing?
Current TV - Keith Olbermann - Great Occupation Coverage
They're all whores--I just hate the Fox people's faces more....
Watch your language AND see this: http://www.dylanratigan.com/2011/11/18/getting-money-out-with-united-republic/
I'll fucking cuss when I fucking feel like it., fucking got it?
Free speech, dude/ dudette! Betcherass!
[Removed]
Ratigan to his credit has done a complete 180 in the last year. He used to be a Democrat shill, and now he has opened his eyes. Glad to see it, but he is not representative of MSNBC by any means. Lou Dobbs is another independent guy who is popular who has had it with both parties and whats whats best for America.
Corporations don't have first amendment rights and fox entertainment media group is own partly by a Saudi prince. Seems you are the hypocrite.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you regarding free speech and corporations.
Another idiot shit or troll. Post the proof or be painted a lying idiot shit and troll.
Oh, brother. Are you not familiar with their recent ruling? No?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
And waaaaaay back in 1819: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
Go read the fucking ruling you freakin idiot.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html
(b) The disclaimer and disclosure requirements are valid as applied to Citizens United’s ads. They fall within BCRA’s “electioneering communication” definition: They referred to then-Senator Clinton by name shortly before a primary and contained pejorative references to her candidacy. Section 311 disclaimers provide information to the electorate, McConnell, supra, at 196, and “insure that the voters are fully informed” about who is speaking, Buckley , supra , at 76. At the very least, they avoid confusion by making clear that the ads are not funded by a candidate or political party. Citizens United’s arguments that §311 is underinclusive because it requires disclaimers for broadcast advertisements but not for print or Internet advertising and that §311 decreases the quantity and effectiveness of the group’s speech were rejected in McConnell. This Court also rejects their contention that §201’s disclosure requirements must be confined to speech that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy under WRTL’ s test for restrictions on independent expenditures, 551 U. S., at 469–476 (opinion of R oberts , C.J.). Disclosure is the less-restrictive alternative to more comprehensive speech regulations. Such requirements have been upheld in Buckley and McConnell. Citizens United’s argument that no informational interest justifies applying §201 to its ads is similar to the argument this Court rejected with regard to disclaimers. Citizens United finally claims that disclosure requirements can chill donations by exposing donors to retaliation, but offers no evidence that its members face the type of threats, harassment, or reprisals that might make §201 unconstitutional as applied. Pp. 52–55.
Ho, ho, ho... Did you take the time to read the two links? It appears not.
No, i tend to read the actual decision instead of how a rag reporter interprets the decision, that pesky thing called facts, that I posted for you. If you are dumber than a spoonful of dirt and unable to actually read the decision and come to your own conclusion and need to rely on others to explain the decision to you then you truly are dumb as a post.
I think you're trying to communicate, but it's difficult to tell over the volley of slurs, insults and profanities.
How many times does an individual have to argue the same argument because those he speaks with didn't do their homework and fact finding?
How many times do I have to say, read the ruling, post the ruling before I am allowed to get a little pissed off?
I do my homework why can't others if they want to speak about a topic/subject?
There have been somewhere around 200 cases involving Corporate rights since 1886. Most were found in favor of the Corporations, not on Constitutional grounds, but on the merits of other salient points in the case. Some cases were framed poorly and so the Court had no choice how they ruled.
Yes, I have read some of the important cases and none give person-hood to Corporations.
Perhaps this will shed additional light on your understanding:
"The blogosphere has been abuzz on the heels of the Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United opinion. Hysteric criticisms of the speculative changes to our political landscape aside — including the President’s misstatements in the State of the Union — one of the most common and oft-repeated criticisms is that the Constitution does not protect corporations. Several “reform” groups have even drafted and circulated constitutional amendments to address this concern.
This line of attack demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of corporations and the freedoms protected by the Constitution, which is exemplified by the facile charge that “corporations aren’t human beings.”
Well of course they aren’t — but that’s constitutionally irrelevant: Corporations aren’t “real people” in the sense that the Constitution’s protection of sexual privacy or prohibition on slavery make no sense in this context, but that doesn’t mean that corporate entities also lack, say, Fourth Amendment rights. Or would the “no rights for corporations” crowd be okay with the police storming their employers’ offices and carting off their (employer-owned) computers for no particular reason? — or to chill criticism of some government policy.
Or how about Fifth Amendment rights? Can the mayor of New York exercise eminent domain over Rockefeller Center by fiat and without compensation if he decides he’d like to move his office there?"
Continued: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/when-individuals-form-corporations-they-dont-lose-their-rights/
You are talking about property rights and I am talking about buying elections and legislation. If I have to choose whether a corporation can buy legislation and/or elections or have any rights, the corporations would have no rights. If a balance cannot be struck then the protection of the Citizen is paramount and take precedence over the rights of any group of individuals.
I went ahead and drafted a bill to amend the Constitution to fix this once and for all.
Resolved by the CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and presented to the House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within twelve [12] months after the date of its submission for ratification:
"ARTICLE—
"SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish the rights protected by the Constitution of the United States to be the rights of natural persons.
"SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies and other private entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state.
"SECTION 3. Such entities not identified as a "natural persons" in SECTION 2. of this Amendment, shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures to, for or against, any candidate for public office or to, for or against, publicly elected official or to, for or against, any legislation before the Congress, the Senate or the people.
"SECTION 4. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.".
Unless you are a Congressman, you are wasting your time, or possibly just seeking approval from your peers.
I have no peers and no I am not a Congressman. Multiple Congressmen have drafted similar legislation for a Constitutional Amendment hat comes up short on a couple of key points. They all wanted a copy of this draft and one even found the the following very helpful. Guess he didn't do his homework either. He will hopefully use my draft and if he doesn't he will most likely use the quotes below.
The FOUNDING FATHERS made their meaning clear when they drafted the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES and the AMENDMENTS.
Thomas Jefferson - “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
Thomas Jefferson - “If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson - “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.”
John Adams - “Banks have done more injury to the religion, morality, tranquility, prosperity, and even wealth of the nation than they can have done or will ever do good.”
James Madison - “History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance.”
You're a typical uninformed protesting drone.
Who gives a rats ass who ownes it, matter a fact if you have a 401k or other retirement plan then I'd bet you own some of News corp as well.
Oh yea, the SCOTUS gave corporations Constitutional rights under "Dartmouth College vs. Woodward" and "Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific Railroad." So legally and whether you like it or not, they have a first Amendment right.
You're typical idiot shit. Prove me wrong, er, you tried but you are stupid. People like you are the fucking problem with this country. You hear something and instead of actually getting off your collective asses and investigating what you heard you parrot what you heard.
Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific Railroad was about taxation and not any Constitutional Rights. The clerk inserted a head note about the 14th amendment.
Dartmouth College vs. Woodward
Legal provision: US Const. Art 1, Section 10 In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the College's corporate charter qualified as a contract between private parties, with which the legislature could not interfere. The fact that the government had commissioned the charter did not transform the school into a civil institution. Chief Justice Marshall's opinion emphasized that the term "contract" referred to transactions involving individual property rights, not to "the political relations between the government and its citizens."
Let's look at Citizens United v The FEC, it was about your right to hear political speech and not the corporation's right to free speech.
Hey dumb shit, whether the clerk inserted the header or not, it's still used as precedent so therefore it's case law until it get's changed. Facts suck don't they?
Hey idiot shit, because an idiot attorney cites the case for precedent doesn't make the citation proper. Because the Judge is lazy and does not check the citation doesn't mean the case cited says what they claim it says.
Get off your lazy punk ass and go look up the case and read the decision instead of making stupid claims.
Want another spoonful of dirt because one spoonful of dirt is as dumb as two spoonfuls of dirt.
Yawn.....one can't argue with a idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience......
ISBN 9780415943420, go read it, then come back later.
Typical. When confronted with the facts the idiot shits refuse to prove their points. Typical Republican.
You have two brain cells and one is wearing a band-aid. If corporations didn't have rights then why would people be fighting corporations being giving the same right as people? Duh!!
You have to ask??? They are like you, ill-informed.
Wow, too stupid to even note a rhetorical question,.....
It was not meant as a rhetorical question from you. It was, however, a "duh" moment for you when you realized you were wrong when you stated;
"Oh yea, the SCOTUS gave corporations Constitutional rights under "Dartmouth College vs. Woodward" and "Santa Clara county vs. Southern Pacific Railroad." So legally and whether you like it or not, they have a first Amendment right."
The important thing KahnII is not to give into irrationalations. Many are here to discredit and draw from the movement. Giving in to such barbaric speech when you have better targets, more worthy of your freedoms... The target is Corporate America and the lobbyist that have corrupted out country and politicians. The other issue is the apathy and disinterest of our citizens. Educate them and the giant will awaken. Fox is a flea in our fur...
So then wouldn't you agree that GE/MSNBC is the bigger enemy here since they engage in everything most people stand against?
Then again there seem to be a pile of people who just seem to want to protest anything for any reason and have no real goal other than to carry signs and chant....
THEY are the disruptions sent to divide us. Focus on the official statements on the official OWS website. All else is meant to divide us.
Who is Fox owned by?
News Corp. Yes. THAT News Corp.
Just a quick reminder:
The News Corporation scandal developed in mid-2011 out of a series of investigations following up the News of the World royal phone hacking scandal of 2005–2007. Where initially the scandal appeared contained to a single journalist at News Corporation subsidiary News of the World, with the 2007 jailing of Clive Goodman and the resignation of then editor Andy Coulson, investigations eventually revealed a much wider pattern of wrongdoing. This led to the closure of the News of the World on 10 July 2011, an apology by Rupert Murdoch in an advertisement in most British national newspapers, and the withdrawing of News Corporation's bid to take over the majority of BSkyB shares it did not own. However, investigations continued into what the company and individuals at the company knew of the phone hacking and when, as well as into other issues, including questions around police bribery.
The rest is well documented.
But seriously. All major media outlets suck. I can't name one that I trust. You have to constantly scrutinize just to get a general sense of truth.
Thanks for the information? Do you know anything about PBS news?
oops, meant, thanks for the information!
News corp.
Troll somewhere else. This is like the people who go on sites dedicated to communism and go there to complain about it and talk about how capitalism is so much better, or people who watch justin bieber videos to bash justin bieber in the comments. Honestly, I'm sure there's an anti-OWS site out there by now, for people with nothing better to do. I see your point, but Fox news is the one channel that making the biggest impact and thus, is the enemy on the forefront. Who cares about Fo5 News? Its a first amendment right o complain about that too. This post cancels itself out as well as wastes space on this site.
Actually I watch everything from RT to BBC, to Al-Jazeera, to Fox, to MSNBC and many other small foreign news outlets. Guess what? RT and Geraldo Rivera on Fox have been giving this movement the most positive coverage.
Agree!