Welcome Guest
Log In | Register )
You last visited December 8, 2016, 6:57 am
All times shown are
Eastern Time (GMT-5:00)

Lottery hoax causes riot at Ohio coat store

Topic closed. 95 replies. Last post 7 years ago by naijaman.

Page 7 of 7
42
PrintE-mailLink
computerhead723's avatar - lightbulb
Buffalo
United States
Member #54397
August 17, 2007
245 Posts
Offline
Posted: October 26, 2009, 12:45 pm - IP Logged

I read your clarification:

 

"SINCE  YOU  MISSED  MY  POINT  ALL  THE  WAY   LET  ME  CLAIRIFY  IT  BETTER  :

THE   REPUBLICANS  HAVE  GIVEN  AWAY   TRILLIONS  OF  US   DOLLARS   OVERSEAS , :

US  CONTRACTS  FUND  ALMOST  EVERYNATION  ON  EARTH :

US  BUSINESS   DIDN'T  GET  THE  FEDERAL  DOLLARS   THANKS  TO  THE  REPUBLICANS   WHO  HAVE  DOMINATED  THE   GOVERNMENT  FOR  OVER  20  YEARS ;   Rupert murdoch  owns most  of  the   media  in  this nation   Fox  is  just  one :"

 

You may need to further clarify because I still don't get your point. 

1) I am not a Republican. I don't defend their actions. I consider them the lesser of two evils and have felt forced to vote for them in the past only in an effort to keep the

   the nutjob Dems out. Repubs talk a good game at times but they don't keep their word once they're in office.

2) You stated in a previous post that we have given trillions to nearly every nation on earth. That's simply not true.

3) You stated that US contracts fund almost every nation on earth. That's simply not true.

4) You said US businesses didn't get the federal dollars thanks to Republicans. What federal dollars were they supposed to get and for what purpose?

5) What in the world does Rupert Murdoch have to do with anything we're talking about?

6) What in the world is your list of drug companies and news media companies all about? Is there a point there somewhere?

well  if  ownning  the   top  ten  drug  companies  to  the  media  is  not  clear  as  to  the  abuses  that  have  drained   our  ecomony  is  not  clear  to  a  blind  man   then  your  lost  in  the  hype :

sad  but  true......  the  USA   government  and   the  majior  us  busn.  have  given  trillions  overseas  corporations  .  the  new  fighter  jets  and   the  recent  Poland-  AIR  DEFENCE  SYSTEMS  are  just  one  example ....you  need  to  look  into  the  matter  of  who  built  what  in re.   military  contracts ;

    rdgrnr's avatar - walt
    Way back up in them dadgum hills, son!
    United States
    Member #73904
    April 28, 2009
    14903 Posts
    Offline
    Posted: October 26, 2009, 3:38 pm - IP Logged

    well  if  ownning  the   top  ten  drug  companies  to  the  media  is  not  clear  as  to  the  abuses  that  have  drained   our  ecomony  is  not  clear  to  a  blind  man   then  your  lost  in  the  hype :

    sad  but  true......  the  USA   government  and   the  majior  us  busn.  have  given  trillions  overseas  corporations  .  the  new  fighter  jets  and   the  recent  Poland-  AIR  DEFENCE  SYSTEMS  are  just  one  example ....you  need  to  look  into  the  matter  of  who  built  what  in re.   military  contracts ;

    computerhead,

    How about we just agree to disagree on that topic and go back to discussing the lottery and be friends?

      Thumbs Up 

    rdgrnr


                                                 
                         
                                             

     

     

     

     

                                                                                                       

    "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

                                                                                                --Edmund Burke

     

     

      computerhead723's avatar - lightbulb
      Buffalo
      United States
      Member #54397
      August 17, 2007
      245 Posts
      Offline
      Posted: October 27, 2009, 7:05 pm - IP Logged

      computerhead,

      How about we just agree to disagree on that topic and go back to discussing the lottery and be friends?

        Thumbs Up 

      rdgrnr

      1
      STATEMENT
      OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS,
      DISSENTING
      Re: General Motors Corporation and Hughes Electronics, Corporation, Transferors
      and The News Corporation Limited, Transferee, For Authority to Transfer
      Control
      Here we go again. Today the Commission demonstrates how serious -- and
      seriously misguided -- it was when it voted on June 2 to eviscerate media concentration
      protections. Presented with the opportunity to signal whether it intends to protect the
      important goals of diversity, competition, and localism, or to allow instead ever greater
      and more threatening levels of media consolidation, the majority flashes the green light
      for the next great wave of media consolidation.
      News Corp was already a media giant:
      • In the U.S., News Corp. owns television stations reaching over 44 percent of
      the country. (WNYW-5, New York; WWOR-TV-9, New York; KTTV-11,
      Los Angeles; KCOP-13, Los Angeles; WFLD-32, Chicago; WPWR-TV-50,
      Chicago; WTXF-TV-29, Philadelphia; WFXT-25, Boston; KDFW-4, Dallas;
      KDFI-27, Dallas; WTTG-5, Washington, DC; WDCA-20, Washington, DC;
      KMSP-TV-9, Minneapolis; WFTC-29, Minneapolis; WJBK-2, Detroit;
      WAGA-5, Atlanta; WUTB-24, Baltimore; KRIV-26, Houston; KTXH-20,
      Houston; WTVT-13, Tampa Bay; WRBW-65, Orlando; WOFL-35, Orlando;
      WJW-8, Cleveland; KSAZ-TV-10, Phoenix; KUTP-45, Phoenix; KDVR-31,
      Denver; KTVI-2, St. Louis; WITI-6, Milwaukee; WDAF-TV-4, Kansas City;
      KSTU-13, Salt Lake City; WBRC-6, Birmingham; WHBQ-TV-13, Memphis;
      WGHP-8, Greensboro; KTBC-7, Austin; WOGX-51, Ocala).
      • In nine markets, it owns more than one television station (New York, Los
      Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Washington, DC, Minneapolis, Houston, Orlando
      and Phoenix).
      • It owns a major national broadcast network (Fox).
      • It owns numerous cable and DBS channels, including regional sports
      networks across the country (among them FX, Fox News Channel, Fox Movie
      Channel, Fox Sports, Fox Sports en Espagnol, National Geographic Channel,
      Speed Channel).
      • It owns the most widely used electronic program guide for navigating
      television content (Gemstar-TV Guide).
      • It owns newspapers, magazines, and publishing (including New York Post,
      The Weekly Standard and HarperCollins Publishers).
      2
      • It owns studios (including Twentieth Century Fox, Searchlight, Fox
      Television Studios, Twentieth Century Fox Television).
      • It will now own a nationwide multi-channel direct broadcast satellite system
      (DirecTV).
      • And it will now also own a major fixed satellite service provider that carries
      video broadcast and cable programming for delivery to distribution systems
      (PanAmSat).
      • This list constitutes News Corp’s major holdings in the United States. This
      conglomerate also has massive media holdings in other nations spanning the
      globe.
      When is “Big Media” big enough? With spectrum always scarce and diversity
      hanging by a thread, where is the logic -- where is the public interest benefit -- of giving
      more and more media power to fewer and fewer players? In the end, it all comes back to
      this: to putting too much power in one conglomerate’s hands and creating opportunities
      for abuse that accompany such concentrated power. Any public interest benefits that may
      potentially come about from this huge consolidation of commercial power are vastly
      outweighed by the potential for significant harm to consumers, the industry and the
      country. I therefore dissent from allowing this merger to go forward.
      The majority seems to recognize that the agreement that the parties presented to
      the Commission for approval was seriously flawed. But the majority’s strategy to apply
      band-aids in several places to stem what is in fact a public interest hemorrhage did not –
      because they could not -- work. This agreement was probably beyond repair. Certainly
      the band-aids applied by the majority don’t fix it.
      The Applicants point to several claimed public interest benefits of the proposed
      merger. Yet, even the majority discounts all but two of these benefits as not supported by
      the record. The majority relies on the potential public interest benefits of innovative
      services that will be offered under News Corp.’s management and on additional markets
      in which DirecTV will provide carriage for local television stations. As to the former, the
      majority admits it is difficult to quantify, but points to the innovative service offerings
      available on News Corp.’s satellite systems in other parts of the world which include
      interactive sports betting and casinos. As to the claimed second benefit, the major DBS
      providers have already been increasing their local station carriage for competitive reasons
      and, as several commenters point out, DirecTV is altogether able to expand those
      offerings without this merger.
      The Order is even more telling in its handling of potential harms emanating from
      this transaction. The majority finds that News Corp. has market power in its
      programming services, that this transaction increases its ability and incentive to use its
      market power to raise programming costs, and that these increases would ultimately be
      3
      passed on to consumers. All of the Commissioners appear to agree that, as proposed by
      the Applicants, the harms of this transaction outweigh the benefits. In addition to my
      belief that the conditions imposed in this Order are not adequate to address the harms
      acknowledged by the majority, I am further concerned that the majority fails to
      acknowledge other real and potential harms associated with the merger. These include:
      • Media Concentration: Although the majority at least attempts to address the
      harms of vertical integration, it dismisses outright horizontal integration harms
      that can arise from allowing one company to own broadcast outlets across the
      country and a nationwide multi-channel distribution system – an
      unprecedented level of consolidation. Instead, the majority concludes that
      broadcast outlets do not serve the same market as cable and DBS. The
      majority further discounts any harms to localism or diversity, finding instead
      that market forces will ensure adequate sources of information. To trust that
      in the unforgiving environment of the market, the public interest will
      somehow magically trump the urge to build power and profit is a leap of faith
      that this Commissioner, for one, is unprepared to take. The majority ought to
      know better. This is the same flawed logic we saw in the Commission’s June
      2 decision. In addition, the majority fails to analyze the impact of this merger
      on ensuring independent and diverse programming. Alleged economies of
      scale do precious little to nurture program or viewpoint diversity.
      Given the majority’s analysis, I am concerned that this merger is merely the
      beginning of another wave of consolidation. News Corp. has indicated it may
      continue growing by acquiring additional television duopolies and other
      properties. Indeed, the majority apparently presumes that additional News
      Corp. acquisitions of television stations, radio stations, and newspapers is in
      the public interest under the Commission’s new bright-line media ownership
      rules. And other Big Media conglomerates, encouraged by today’s decision,
      will now feel emboldened or compelled to consolidate further. My service as
      a Commissioner has taught me that the response to one company’s acquisition
      is almost invariably another company’s request to grow bigger so that it can
      “compete” and “survive.”
      The majority’s conclusion that broadcast stations do not compete in the same
      market as cable and DBS, along with its unwillingness closely to examine
      harms to diversity and localism, make clear that this Commission has no
      intention to slow, or even critically to examine, cross-platform mergers
      between broadcast stations and cable or DBS systems.
      • Community Standards and Indecency: Some have suggested that there may
      be a link between increasing consolidation and increasing indecency on our
      airwaves. As I traveled across this country holding hearings and attending
      forums earlier this year, I heard time and again that ownership matters when it
      comes to what is offered up to viewers and listeners, particularly to our
      children. I am troubled that today’s decision comes on the heels of complaints
      4
      that News Corp. aired indecent material on the 2003 Billboard Music Awards
      just last week. This is not the first instance of such viewer complaints against
      News Corp. Many of the indecency complaints I have seen come into the
      Commission involve stations owned by large media companies. I raise the
      issue here not because of any specific broadcast program, but because the
      Commission has refused to study the possible relationship between indecency
      and media concentration. I believe such a study is relevant to decisions such
      as the one we make today and that, indeed, we should not be making these
      decisions until we have credibly considered the matter. As we allow media
      conglomerates to grow ever larger, many Americans are concerned that the
      race to the bottom will accelerate and that broadcaster consideration for local
      community standards will continue to erode.
      Yet, today, before we even consider these complaints or address the impact of
      increasing consolidation on increasing indecency, we reward News Corp. with
      a nationwide programming distribution system. And what will be the effect?
      Will we see even more attempts to air progressively coarser content? As we
      move towards more interactive programming, will we see gambling intrude
      itself into our homes on DirecTV as News Corp. provides on its overseas
      satellite system? Will we see wider distribution of shows that continue to
      push the envelope of outrageousness even further?
      • Increasing Consumer Rates: Applicants cite economic efficiencies that will
      result from their agreement and claim that the merger will give them the scale
      and scope to compete more effectively. There may well be some such
      efficiencies, although the baleful tale of many recent high visibility corporate
      mega-mergers does not provide much proof of commercial success. Be that
      as it may, Applicants did not demonstrate that any of these alleged savings
      would be passed on to consumers nor did they evince great enthusiasm for so
      doing. It is telling that Applicants produced so little data as to how this
      transaction could possibly discipline rising cable rates. The likelihood of its
      doing so is so remote as to be invisible. Interestingly, just today news reports
      tell us that our cable bills will be going up again on January 1, rising on
      average 6.5 percent – this when the nation’s inflation rate is 1.8 percent!
      Lower prices seldom ensue from industry combinations. When we approve a
      transaction that further increases concentration in programming production
      and distribution, it is reasonable to assume that we are setting the stage for
      upward pressure on cable rates. An entirely plausible outcome of this
      decision is escalating consumer rates for multi-channel services from both
      cable systems and DirecTV. When faced with a similar scenario, the Federal
      Trade Commission in the Time Warner/Turner merger adopted a benchmark
      price index mechanism. Here, the majority dismisses such an approach,
      adopting instead so-called baseball arbitration. I am not convinced that
      arbitration has succeeded in bringing down costs in baseball. More to the
      point, this is not baseball and it is surely not a game. Although the majority
      allows the Commission to review the arbitration decisions, it then ties the
      5
      Commission’s hands by requiring us to choose between each party’s final
      offer. This reduces the Commission’s obligation to protect the public interest
      to a multiple choice test. Let’s be clear here: what the arbitrators will most
      often be arbitrating are two companies’ proposals to raise rates. The only
      question to be decided is how much rates will increase. Payment for higher
      programming license fees will be borne, of course, by consumers.
      Moreover, although the majority seems to recognize the possibility of
      increased consumer rates from this level of consolidation, it inexplicably
      provides a sunset for these conditions of six years. This sunset is adopted
      without any explanation of why the majority expects these harms to be
      resolved within that timeframe.
      I am troubled by other aspects of this decision.
      I am troubled by the lack of analysis on the foreign ownership implications of the
      transaction. In section 310(b) of the Act, Congress adopted a broad provision that limits
      the ability of foreign entities to own or operate parts of our communications system. This
      foreign ownership restriction applies across a broad range of communications services.
      For decades, the Commission applied these restrictions to DBS. Last year, with
      inadequate justification, the Commission determined that the foreign ownership
      restrictions in 310(b) should not apply to DBS. As a result, the majority, in approving
      this deal under which News Corp., an Australian company, purchases control of a U.S.
      DBS licensee, concludes that it need not consider the foreign ownership implications.
      I am troubled by the majority’s failure to consider the impact of this merger on
      minority communities. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus in a recent letter raised
      numerous serious issues related to the negative impact of this merger on the Latino
      community, on minority-owned independent programmers and on local and Latinofocused
      programming. The majority fails to do justice to these concerns.
      I am troubled that the Commission is approving this merger without resolving
      issues specific to the Applicants that have been raised regarding service in Alaska and
      Hawaii. Parties have filed complaints that DirecTV fails to provide reasonably
      comparable packages of services to Alaska and Hawaii, as required by our rules. If these
      companies are violating Commission rules, we should address these issues as part of our
      public interest analysis.
      Finally, I am troubled by the failure to clarify that DirecTV, or any other DBS
      provider, may not discriminate against some local broadcasters by requiring consumers to
      obtain a second dish to receive those broadcasters. In 1999, Congress passed the Satellite
      Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA). That Act required that, if a provider carries
      any local broadcast signals, it must carry all local broadcast signals, and must do so at a
      nondiscriminatory price and in a nondiscriminatory manner. In 2002, Commissioner
      Martin and I issued a joint statement making clear our view that a plan to require
      6
      consumers to obtain a second dish to receive only some of the local broadcast stations in
      a market did not comply with the statute or Commission rules.
      In sum, I simply cannot support the level of concentration by a single owner that
      will result from this merger absent compelling public interest circumstances.
      Unfortunately, I do not find that the potential public interest benefits of this transaction
      outweigh the real and potential harms. This decision is the wrong decision – wrong for
      the media industry, wrong for consumers, wrong for democracy in America.

        TheGameGrl's avatar - character catafly.jpg
        A long and winding road
        United States
        Member #17084
        June 10, 2005
        4528 Posts
        Offline
        Posted: October 27, 2009, 11:26 pm - IP Logged

        I am just merely AMAZED how the original topic got so far off topic! 

        Forget about trying to get a free coat, I need Hip waiters for this stuff!

        ~~Is it true, Is it kind,Is it necessary. ~~~

         Thanks be to the giving numbers: 1621,912,119 02014

          computerhead723's avatar - lightbulb
          Buffalo
          United States
          Member #54397
          August 17, 2007
          245 Posts
          Offline
          Posted: November 2, 2009, 2:05 pm - IP Logged

          I am just merely AMAZED how the original topic got so far off topic! 

          Forget about trying to get a free coat, I need Hip waiters for this stuff!

          dude ...someone  was  blaming  president  Obama  for  her   problems  in  that  store  and  this  administration  for  her  telling  people  she  hit  the  lottery:

          I  just  responded :Rant

            Avatar
            PA
            United States
            Member #53427
            July 7, 2007
            30 Posts
            Offline
            Posted: November 27, 2009, 11:42 pm - IP Logged

            The topic has gone so far off-base it's ridiculous, and this started when some moron somehow decided President Obama was partially to blame for what happened at the Burlington Coat Factory. How stupid are you anyway?