Fox News explains why solar power works in Germany, but not here.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

Shibani Joshi has no business commenting on how solar power would or would not work. Very stupid of Fox News (and I would say negligent actually) not bringing a Solor Industry person to talk about it.

According to Wikipedia electricity in Germany costs about 31 cents per Kilowatt hour. In the US its 8 to 17.

A while back I ran the numbers and seemed about right. It would take a tripling of electricity prices where I am at to make it even break even. The fact that energy prices in the US are relatively cheap makes solar non-viable. However, Obama is working hard to triple the cost of your electricity prices and will do so if he gets his way. So for those of you praying for a democratic house and senate, better get busy "prepping" for a huge increase in your electricity bills.

http://youtu.be/ydqg7ThZB04

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)

Better get those light bulbs swapped out and paint your roof white.

He's also going to shoot your dog and fuck your wife.

Or is that the other way around?

John

[CarlV]

Originally Posted by mini me

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

Originally Posted by Boreas

"Picking and choosing" stories isn't the same as broadcasting deliberate lies. That's what FOX won the right to do in court. If you can prove me wrong on that, be my guest. Otherwise, your sarcasm is pretty pointless.

John

"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast."

...


The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...-decision-2003






Carl

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

That quote is verbatim and even has the context of the actual interview to go along with it.

Verbatim? My ass. It's cap in trade, not cap and trade. Stop putting a cap in your foot every time you post something and you just might earn some respect around here.

[mini me]

Originally Posted by CarlV

[B]"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about ....


Carl

Some reasonable counterpoint...

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/...internet-myth/

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mini me

Some reasonable counterpoint...

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/...internet-myth/

The Center for Competitive Politics is a right wing 501(c)(3) whose primary focus is on unfettered action to the election process by Big Money. For instance, we have them to thank for Super Pacs. They're just partisan hacks. I would hardly consider them objective or reasonable, any more than I'd expect a left wing PAC to be.

"The organization has been particularly active in criticizing campaign finance regulations, taxpayer-financed political campaigns, and restrictions on referenda and ballot initiatives. The Center publishes various studies and reports on election related matters, and provides pro bono legal counsel to parties in suits challenging the constitutionality of election statutes. It has also has defended the right of independent groups to participate freely in the electoral process.[2]

"The Center represented the plaintiffs in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, the Court of Appeals decisions that authorized the creation of Super PACs.[3]"

"An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required 'law, rule, or regulation' under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a 'law, rule, or regulation' under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."

Wikipedia is the source for all of the above.

John

[mini me]

Originally Posted by Boreas

The Center for Competitive Politics is a right wing 501(c)(3) whose primary focus is on unfettered action to the election process by Big Money. For instance, we have them to thank for Super Pacs. They're just partisan hacks. I would hardly consider them objective or reasonable, any more than I'd expect a left wing PAC to be.

Wikipedia is the source for all of the above.

John

Wikipedia is calling institutions right wing political hacks, huh?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by mini me

Wikipedia is calling institutions right wing political hacks, huh?

Now, now...

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by mini me

Wikipedia is calling institutions right wing political hacks, huh?

Nope! That was me.

John

[wgrr]

Originally Posted by mini me

Ah, yes. The Fox news "won the right to lie" internet myth continues to propagate. If it helps you to believe that, go right ahead. However, the last time I checked, Freedom of the press applied to news network affiliates, local news anchors had general managers. and the general managers get to tell their employees what to say on the air.

I suppose if CNN fired Anderson Cooper for picking and choosing the stories that he chooses to pursue, you'd take similar exception with CNN?

It is not an Internet myth that Fox news, who's biggest investor is a Saudi prince, in other words a dirty ,stinking, Mooslim, did indeed go to court to win the right to misinform the public and fire any employee not willing to spread their false propaganda. Just ask Jane Akers.

http://www.philly2philly.com/politic...sinform_public

Just keep your head stuck in Fox fantasy land and you will do just fine.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by baconshorts

Pay no attention to him (Obama). He doesn't mean what he says.

"Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket." (January 2008)

So, that would mean that this is not true?

Regards,
Dave