Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Oct '09 06:38
    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/50445

    This is a story back in July that broke between Helen Thomas, a vetern reporter of the White House since the JFK administration, and White House Press sercretary Robert Gibbs.

    Following a testy exchange during Wednsdays briefing with white house press secretary Robert Gibbs, vetern White House correspondant Helen Thomas told CNS News.com that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way President Obama is trying to control the press. She said, "Nixon didn't try to do that. They couldn't control the media. They didn't try. What the hell do thind we are, puppets?" Thomas said, "They are supposed to stay out of our business, they are public servants. We pay them." Thomas was especially concerned about the arrangement between the Obama administration and a writer from the liberal Huffington Post Web site. The writer was invited by the White House to President Obama's press conference last week on the understanding that he would ask Obama a question about Iran from among the quesitons that had been sent to them by the people of Iran. "When you call the reporter the night before you know damn well what they are going to ask to control you." Thomas said. "I'm not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-the-well-for the town halls, for the press conferences." she said. "It's blantant." "They don't give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame." During today's briefing, Thomas interrupted a back and forth between Gibbs and Chris Reid, the White House correspondant for CBS news. When Reid was questioning Gibbs about who was going to decide what questions would be asked of President Obama at a town hall meeting in Virginia.

    Gibbs then had an exchange involving Reid and Thomas that went as follows:

    Gibbs: "BUt again -- How about we do this? I promise we will interrupt the AP's traditiona of asking the first question. I will let you (Chip Reid) ask me a question tomorrow as to whether you thought the questions at the town hall meeting that the President conducted in Virginia --"
    Reid: "I'm perfectly happy to --"
    Thomas: "THat is not the point. The point is control --"
    Reid: "Exactly"
    Thomas: "We have never had that in the White House, and we have had some, but not -- This white house."
    Gibbs: "Yes, I was going to say, I will let you amend your question"
    Thomas: I'm amazed at you people who call for openess and transparency and --"
    Reid: "It does not matter. Its the process"
    Thomas: "You have left open --"
    Reid: Even if there is a tough question coming from somebody who was invited or was screened, or the question was screened."
    Thomas: "It's shocking. Its really shocking"
    Gibbs: Chip, lets have this discussion at the conclusion of the town hall meeting. How about that?"
    Reid: OK
    Thomas: No, no, no, we are having it now --"
    Gibbs: Well I'd be happy to have it now"
    Thomas: "Its a pattern"
    Gibbs: Which quesiton did you object to at the town hall meeting, Helen?
    Thomas: It's the pattern. It isn't the question--"
    Gibbs: "What pattern?"
    Thomas: Its a pattern of controlling the press"
    Gibbs: How so?
    Reid: Well, and controlling public --
    Thomas: How so? By calling reporters the night before to tell them they are to be called on. That is shocking.
    Gibbs: We had this discussion ad nauseam and --
    Thomas: OF course you would, because you don't have the answers.
    Gibbs: Well, because I didn't know you were going to ask a question, Helen. Go ahead.
    Thomas: Well, you should have.
    Reporter: Thank you for your support.
    Gibbs: That is good. Have you e-mailed your question today?
    Thomas: I don't have to e-mail it. I can tell you right now what I want to ask.
    Gibbs: I don't doubt that at all, Helen. I don't doubt that at all.
  2. 24 Oct '09 06:40 / 1 edit
    What is shocking is that none of the above participants were conservatives, nor was Fox News in the mix. LOL. I suspect that this is just the beginning. So much for freeom of the press and hello fascism.

    Edit: Have you sent your e-mail to Obama today?
  3. 24 Oct '09 15:31 / 1 edit
    Here is another web site about the endangered freedom of the press.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/06/25/pelosi-i-want-bring-back-fairness-doctrine

    In the article it quotes speaker of the house nancy pelosi as saying she desires to bring back the fairness doctrine, thus censoring what is said over the radio and TV. However, Congress is currently preoccupied with two massive revenue generating peices of legislation which are NHC and cap and trade leaving them very little time and energy to deal with the fariness doctrine, but I suspect it will be next. So do they have the cart before the horse? Shouldn't they silence oppositon before trying to make such drastic changes? After all, who would speak out against them with censorship? The Republicans? LOL.
  4. 24 Oct '09 16:17
    Originally posted by whodey
    Here is another web site about the endangered freedom of the press.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2008/06/25/pelosi-i-want-bring-back-fairness-doctrine

    In the article it quotes speaker of the house nancy pelosi as saying she desires to bring back the fairness doctrine, thus censoring what is said over the radio and TV. However, Congress is ...[text shortened]... changes? After all, who would speak out against them with censorship? The Republicans? LOL.
    Don't be fooled! They do have time and are working on it as we speak. That's why they have appointed a Diversity Czar at the FCC. Since they know we're onto the fairness doctrine then they will use other means. Read below about Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd:

    The Khaki Elephant
    Politics on the Tusk
    15 August 2009
    Mark Lloyd: The FCC's New Attack-Free-Speech Czar
    The administration is calling him "the new FCC Chief Diversity Officer," but it's unclear whether or not there was and old FCC Chief Diversity Officer.. What is clear is that Obama has given America yet another Czar -- one of those ill-defined and unelected Washington power brokers who provide us in political carnage what they lack in qualifications. I'm not sure because my math skills are struggling with the current economy, but I think this would be Czar number 132 for the Obama administration. Guinness has been notified (naturally, I'm referring to the beer rather than the record book because I need a few stiff ones these days).

    More frightening than the fact that America now has more Czar's than pimple-backed baseball juicers, is the latest addition's background and intentions. His name is Mark Lloyd and he is . . . well, how do I deliver this to you gently . . . a socialist rube who abhors free speech and is dedicated to the eradication of opposition voices.



    In 2006 while at the liberal Center for American Progress Lloyd wrote a book entitled, Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America. In the book he presents the idea the private broadcasters (private business) should pay a licensing fees which equals their total operating costs so that public broadcasting station can spend the same on their operations as the private companies do. By doing so he hopes to improve the Corporation for Public Broadcasting currently at $400 Million.

    In other words, the wealth should be redistributed from successful private businesses and poured into public broadcasting through taxes equal to the total operating cost of the successful stations. That's just slightly insane since no company in America could survive paying Federal fees equal to their operating costs. But Mark Lloyd isn't concerned about their survival.

    It's no coincidence that Obama has put in place a Czar to attack-tax free speech in an arena dominated by conservatives: talk radio. You can bet television will somehow escape this "search for diversity," unless the Oval Office can figure out a way to single out Fox News with more than snarky comments fed through a teleprompter.

    In Lloyd's own words:

    “The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) must be reformed along democratic lines and funded on a substantial level. Federal and regional broadcast operations and local stations should be funded at levels commensurate with or above those spending levels at which commercial operations are funded. This funding should come from license fees charged to commercial broadcasters. Funding should not come from congressional appropriations. Sponsorship should be prohibited at all public broadcasters.”

    In the view of Obama's latest Czar, the market should never determine success. Instead, the government should determine what we can listen to. (sorry for ending that sentence with a preposition, but this frustrates the grammar out of me). The "Fairness Doctrine" may be dead, but the liberal state machine has not given up the fight to suppress the voices of those who oppose their will. They've just taken off the mask of "fairness" and replaced it with false faces of "diversity" and "localization."
  5. 24 Oct '09 16:32
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is shocking is that none of the above participants were conservatives, nor was Fox News in the mix. LOL. I suspect that this is just the beginning. So much for freeom of the press and hello fascism.

    Edit: Have you sent your e-mail to Obama today?
    I guess you were right after all.
  6. 24 Oct '09 21:14
    Originally posted by whodey
    What is shocking is that none of the above participants were conservatives, nor was Fox News in the mix. LOL. I suspect that this is just the beginning. So much for freeom of the press and hello fascism.

    Edit: Have you sent your e-mail to Obama today?
    As a contributor to his campaign I get emails from the White House each day,

    I'm surprised you're not a libertarian instead of backing the freaky republicans.

    Also your use of terms such as facism is such a far reach that it really is absurd.
  7. 24 Oct '09 23:00
    Originally posted by badmoon
    As a contributor to his campaign I get emails from the White House each day,

    I'm surprised you're not a libertarian instead of backing the freaky republicans.

    Also your use of terms such as facism is such a far reach that it really is absurd.
    Who says I back the freaky Republicans? You can better believe I don't support the mind police and the Dems. As for fascism, tell me what other regimes in history had tried to control the press? Tell me this and perhaps it may begin to open your eyes.
  8. 24 Oct '09 23:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    Who says I back the freaky Republicans? You can better believe I don't support the mind police and the Dems. As for fascism, tell me what other regimes in history had tried to control the press? Tell me this and perhaps it may begin to open your eyes.
    I voted libertarian numerous times.

    I don't believe that what the Administration is doing is controlling the press such as Mussolini, Franco or Hitler did. Besides, facism is a right wing ideology it is widely believed. Certianly you don't compare Obama to those monsters?

    I generally respect your opinions but I do see you injecting much hyperbola at times...a lot.
  9. 25 Oct '09 00:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by badmoon
    I voted libertarian numerous times.

    I don't believe that what the Administration is doing is controlling the press such as Mussolini, Franco or Hitler did. Besides, facism is a right wing ideology it is widely believed. Certianly you don't compare Obama to those monsters?

    I generally respect your opinions but I do see you injecting much hyperbola at times...a lot.
    Fascism is a right wing ideaology? Try telling that to Lennon and Stalin and the administrations idol, Mao Tse Tung. Fascism is simply control, and currently it is the modern liberal who is running with that torch in hand.

    Now we can argue about the extent of such control, but clearly Obama and company is overstepping their bounds as no other administration ever dared. How far can they or will they go? I suppose that is up for conjecture, but clearly they have set a dangerous course. I pity anyone who down plays the possible implications.
  10. 25 Oct '09 01:24 / 3 edits
    Has anyone heard of the Rockefeller-Snowe bill? It would allow the government to have certain powers over the internet.

    http://news.cnet/8301-13578_3-10320096-38.html

    Here are some questions I have about the bill.

    The original version of the legislation allowed the National Cybersecurity Adivisor to disconnet "critical" networks from the Internet. Thre revised version says the president can "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "nongovernmental" networks and "direct the national response to the cyber threat". That seems rather vague. Does it mean the executive branch does or does not have the power to disconnect private netwrorks?

    The revised version gives the executive branch 180 days to "implement" a "comprehensive national security strategy" and 90 days to develop a plan to implement a "dashboard pilot project". But the mandated legal review won't be done until 1 year. Why not wait until the legal review is done before implementing a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy?"

    Also, in Silicon Valley and the tech industry in general, lots of employees do nothave formal training in computer security, but nevertheless work in that area. BIll Gates, Steve Jobs, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, don't have college degrees. Will the cybersecurity certification program be open to non-degreed people? And does the "certified service provider" extend to services like Gmail and Hotmail?