AT&T Stock Loses $10 Billion in Value After Dropping Newsmax: https://www.newsmax.com/us/directv-at-t-stock/2023/02/11/id/1108254/ And people like me haven't even dropped AT&T yet like...

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

https://www.newsmax.com/us/directv-at-t-stock/2023/02/11/id/1108254/

And people like me haven't even dropped AT&T yet like we would have if there were more competition in our area.

When Liberals block free speech, take it to the marketplace. Hit them in the bottom line. One of the benefits of being in a capitalistic society is, having the power of a free marketplace that can speak for you when the majority politically tries to cut it off.

Greg Kelly, a former Marine pilot turned anchor was great, BTW.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Fotoartist wrote:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/directv-at-t-stock/2023... (show quote)

Excellent news.
Sadly I bet Soros is propping them up.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Architect1776 wrote:

Excellent news.
Sadly I bet Soros is propping them up.

I miss my Newsmax. They were not afraid to call a liar a liar.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Fotoartist wrote:

I miss my Newsmax. They were not afraid to call a liar a liar.

We have cable thus Newsmax.

kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy

Fotoartist wrote:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/directv-at-t-stock/2023... (show quote)

Sometimes taking the moral high ground is worth a financial hit :)

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

kymarto wrote:

Sometimes taking the moral high ground is worth a financial hit :)

Censorship is moral high ground?
Nazis, and Soviets thought so as well.
And currently North Korea and other paragons of liberty believe so.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Architect1776 wrote:

Censorship is moral high ground?
Nazis, and Soviets thought so as well.
And currently North Korea and other paragons of liberty believe so.

Without referring to anything specific or any side of the political divide, are you saying that publications/media that push outright provable lies should be allowed to speak out? Are you saying that hate speech is a right/freedom?

If not, then please define the lines where acceptable/unacceptable diverge.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

JohnFrim wrote:

Without referring to anything specific or any side of the political divide, are you saying that publications/media that push outright provable lies should be allowed to speak out? Are you saying that hate speech is a right/freedom?

If not, then please define the lines where acceptable/unacceptable diverge.

You mean outright provable lies like the big lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? What do you want to do with the 51 Intelligence officials who lied along with the FBI, and the fact checkers and Tech platforms who went along with it and changed the 2020 election result because of it? You tell me.

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

JohnFrim wrote:

Without referring to anything specific or any side of the political divide, are you saying that publications/media that push outright provable lies should be allowed to speak out? Are you saying that hate speech is a right/freedom?

If not, then please define the lines where acceptable/unacceptable diverge.

Not arguing in favor of any news service but “all” media display biases and by definition prejudices and distortions are part of bias. If you are honest, you could not list one news service that is free of bias, distortion and prejudice. Most viewers have trouble identifying those biases and distortions when they align with their beliefs. To censor degrees of bias could be a very tricky endeavor and would surely raise constitutional challenges.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

Effate wrote:

Not arguing in favor of any news service but “all” media display biases and by definition prejudices and distortions are part of bias. If you are honest, you could not list one news service that is free of bias, distortion and prejudice. Most viewers have trouble identifying those biases and distortions when they align with their beliefs. To censor degrees of bias could be a very tricky endeavor and would surely raise constitutional challenges.

What sentient individuals would have trouble identifying the biases and distortions of the main stream media who were 90% negative in their coverage of Donald Trump who ran a very positively accomplished administration? Yet this same media covers Biden and the Democrats 90% favorably even though the public polls rate him as the worst president in memory?

Effate Loc: El Dorado Hills, Ca.

Fotoartist wrote:

What sentient individuals would have trouble identifying the biases and distortions of the main stream media who were 90% negative in their coverage of Donald Trump who ran a very positively accomplished administration? Yet this same media covers Biden and the Democrats 90% favorably even though the public polls rate him as the worst president in memory?

I think you answered you own question with you choice of adjective. You really narrowed your population of consumers.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Fotoartist wrote:

What sentient individuals would have trouble identifying the biases and distortions of the main stream media who were 90% negative in their coverage of Donald Trump who ran a very positively accomplished administration? Yet this same media covers Biden and the Democrats 90% favorably even though the public polls rate him as the worst president in memory?

Well, conservatively speaking, your entire post is BS... and provable!!!

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Fotoartist wrote:

You mean outright provable lies like the big lie that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation? What do you want to do with the 51 Intelligence officials who lied along with the FBI, and the fact checkers and Tech platforms who went along with it and changed the 2020 election result because of it? You tell me.

Check out https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-765281-1.html#13734037 and then get back to me. But you have to read the link, not just the post.

Oops, just noticed that you in fact posted in that thread... still pushing the 2000 asses story.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

JohnFrim wrote:

Without referring to anything specific or any side of the political divide, are you saying that publications/media that push outright provable lies should be allowed to speak out? Are you saying that hate speech is a right/freedom?

If not, then please define the lines where acceptable/unacceptable diverge.

So you are saying that all the lies and hate speech on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC,CBS the View etc. should be banned?

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Architect1776 wrote:

So you are saying that all the lies and hate speech on CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC,CBS the View etc. should be banned?

No, what I am saying is that lying should be avoided.

Was the 2020 election stolen? Did Trump actually win, as he himself said (“And frankly, we DID win.”)? All indications are the the election was fair.

Now, if proof ever comes to light that Trump was in fact the winner then I would expect all media who denied that in the past would retract their stories and apologize.

In the meantime, pro-Trump media could say they are still investigating; but they should not be claiming — without proof — that the election was rigged or stolen.