• Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.

Chicago Eliminated from 2016 Olympics

wow, Ben, that's a whole different area...
insider and illegal stock selling, buying, and promoing are regulated by a million rules, laws, and departments of the government that are completely different from we are talking about.

So I wouldn't compare to the stock scenario...it's more like when a newspaper columnist says he likes the Ford Taarus and people ought to go buy it...the govt. wants that guy to reveal if he is a paid spokesman for Ford...or if he's on their payroll...
but..I think most American buyers are smart enough and don't need more levels of government beaurocracy to tell them how to think.

but when it comes to blogs....you have to realize there are more than 30 million blogs on the internet now...
and each and every one can express an opinion, but if it appears to promote something or some product or service, then now those 30 million bloggers face fines and jail if they don't add disclaimers??
....nope, you will never convince me this isn't just the begining of the government's desire and effort to control, regulate, and remove what they don't want from the internet.

Hey-- it's not like thousands of government people haven't stated ALREADY that's exactly what they'd like to do and plan to do...
They have "fairness doctrines" and "conflict of interest doctrines" and the like...
and many have even specifically named the very people on talk radio that they'd love to find a legal way to reign in...
Nancy Pelosi has made it clear she wants federal legislation so she can get people like Rush Limbaugh off the air.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185#

one interesting thing I saw on MSNBC yesterday, was a segment about Rush Limbaugh possibly becoming an owner of an NFL team.
The host of the news/commentary show immediately launched into an attack on Limbaugh and he said he was certain that if Limbaugh was owner, the Rams would be an "all white team".

How can any legitimate broadcaster get away with such insanity, if not downright hateful and racist talk?
First...if Limbaugh owned the team, he'd want to win - he's surely a very competitive guy, so he'd be insane if he used race to qualify his players...plus the owners rarely have say if they hire player personnel, GM's, and coaches...none would work for an owner who claims the right to say what players they acquire.
But lastly, Limbaugh for DECADES has hired plenty of Minority employees, even some of the very top ones that work for him.
http://www.zimbio.com/Bo+Snerdly/articles/G1cjNP_lE7x/Bo+Snerdly+Limbaugh+producer+certified+black
 
Beninator said:
DC and T, have you ever watched CNBC when they interview a stock broker about stock picks etc? After the interview, CNBC asks and displays a checklist of stocks or funds that the broker or their family may or may not own as to be upfront about everything to try to eliminate that person from "pumping and dumping" a certain stock. If this is done on television, why not an internet blog to protect the consumer?
Click to expand...

First Ben- maybe CNBC does do this, but there is no law or requirement that they must do it, and the great majority of talking heads on TV who discuss stocks and products do not reveal their person interests or material connections.

Maybe there should be laws requiring such disclosures, but the biggest difference between the TV shows you cite and blogs, is that nobody would mistake 99% of the personal blogs on the internet as the word of an expert. Those TV shows claim to have some level of expertise and claim to be legitimate and unbiased by personal interests in what they endorse. Bloggers aren't usually experts, and rarely claim they have no personal interest in what they endorse.

The biggest problem I see is that there is simply no way the government can police or enforce such rules on the tens of thousands of personal blogs and message boards on the internet. So ultimately, such laws will only be enforced highly selectively, and in a severely biased way, whenever the party in power wants to go after someone they feel is a threat to them. We all know who the current party in power feels threatened by, as demonstrated by some references in this thread.

Disclaimer- Anything I said about the Bradley team and the Itoo Hall event last night must be considered in the context that I received a couple free schedules from Bradley.;-)
 
if we are going to talk mandating disclaimers...how about this kind of fraud...surely it should include a disclaimer about how phony it was!!

The White House orchestrates an event and claims doctors from all walks of life agree with the administration's health care plans...
but they fail to mention that the doctors involved were a select, hand picked group who's views were known in advance and who were even given the clothing they wore by the White House to "dress them up" so as to look more doctorly...

How about a disclaimer from the White House that this was NOT an honest event...it was all staged to create a completely Hollywood- like effect...

Most media reported this staged event as if it happened spontaneously and was real..but it was all a scripted, fake event for the full purpose of buffaloing people...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574457173300814790.html
 
Da Coach said:
First Ben- maybe CNBC does do this, but there is no law or requirement that they must do it, and the great majority of talking heads on TV who discuss stocks and products do not reveal their person interests or material connections.

Maybe there should be laws requiring such disclosures, but the biggest difference between the TV shows you cite and blogs, is that nobody would mistake 99% of the personal blogs on the internet as the word of an expert. Those TV shows claim to have some level of expertise and claim to be legitimate and unbiased by personal interests in what they endorse. Bloggers aren't usually experts, and rarely claim they have no personal interest in what they endorse.

The biggest problem I see is that there is simply no way the government can police or enforce such rules on the tens of thousands of personal blogs and message boards on the internet. So ultimately, such laws will only be enforced highly selectively, and in a severely biased way, whenever the party in power wants to go after someone they feel is a threat to them. We all know who the current party in power feels threatened by, as demonstrated by some references in this thread.

Disclaimer- Anything I said about the Bradley team and the Itoo Hall event last night must be considered in the context that I received a couple free schedules from Bradley.;-)
Click to expand...

DC, while there may be no specific law with the disclosure for CNBC on this, I believe that CNBC is being conservative with an interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which was signed into law by George W Bush. Specifically section 501 which requires analysts to disclose confilcts of interest on research reports to increase investor confidence to make recommendations free of external influence or allow investors to review the report in light of the disclosed interests.
 
Murph said:
I can't even imagine the hysteria from to right if the Obama administration tried to do something like that.
Click to expand...

You know Murph, I'm sure you are well intentioned, but you just cannot underestimate the lengths these terrorists will go in trying to kill people and blow things up in this country! There is a reason agencies watch people by doing what they do. It is to protect people like YOU and me. And I for one do not mind some slight infringements of freedom if it will keep us safe for us and our children.

I am not an Obama fan, but I hope he continues to keep in place what Bush established to keep us safe. Only time will tell though.
 
Da Coach said:
These new provisions require bloggers to reveal all material connections they have with the maker or producer of the product or service they are promoting.
This is a quote form the goverment release about these new provisions of the FTC act-

"bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service."

so that means that if I make any positive statement about Bradley basketball on this site, or on a blog, I am now required by these government laws to reveal clearly what material connections I have with Bradley.

So from now on, I will avoid saying anything positive about Bradley :lol:
or maybe I will add a signature to all my posts that detail every penny I have donated, and every free ticket, free drink, or other perk I have gotten from Bradley at their booster events. It's my duty under President Obama's law, and many of the other posters here should do the same to avoid legal penalties.:?
Click to expand...

I could not agree with you more Coach! I do NOT want the government watching what I say and what I do within the confines of my own home. That would set a frightening precedent on what the government can and cannot do, and that sends chills up my spine just thinking about that!

And this rubbish that our government is even considering kind of defeats the intent of what a blog is all about anyway. Just writing posts of what you think about a subject, which the last time I checked don't have to be factually accurate! That's what an opinion is in the first place.

Now to the point about government spying on emails and phone calls to keep us safe. I say have at it, though I would hope they do excercise a certain amount of restraint and not just haphazardly watch everything someone says. However, as long as they watch and not regulate what is said, I would have no problem with that. Those are two completely different things, and I think the regulation point that has been discussed goes back to this ridiculous idea that bloggers have to "disclose" what material connections they have with a product. Regulation means infringing on our rights to say what we want, much more than just monitoring a suspicious person that may be planning on blowing up a building!
 
tornado said:
The government already intrudes enough into everyone's daily life...they take half our productivity in taxes and give a lot of it to those who who choose not to be productive.
There are only a few who actually want and welcome the government getting EVEN more intrusive in our daily lives, and they are called liberals and socialists...
In time, we will be communist while the rest of the ex-communist nations have already learned their lessons.
Click to expand...

Great point tornado! The U.S. is going more extreme liberal while eastern Europe is probably more conservative than we are. Who would've thought we would have seen this day coming?!
 
Beninator said:
DC, while there may be no specific law with the disclosure for CNBC on this, I believe that CNBC is being conservative with an interpretation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 which was signed into law by George W Bush. Specifically section 501 which requires analysts to disclose confilcts of interest on research reports to increase investor confidence to make recommendations free of external influence or allow investors to review the report in light of the disclosed interests.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! CNBC is being conservative?!! I thought I would never see the day where I EVER saw the words CNBC and conservative in the same sentence! :D
 
Illinois will sure be a lot more peaceful in 2016 thanks to the 2009 Nobel Peace prize winner...
 
Bravesfan said:
Ha ha! CNBC is being conservative?!! I thought I would never see the day where I EVER saw the words CNBC and conservative in the same sentence! :D
Click to expand...

NBC = liberal
CNBC = conservative

If you watch CNBC regularly you will notice that the majority of reporters are fiscal conervatives.
 
Please come on anyone willing to give in to our personal freedom for the terrorist! This is just a perfect way for the men in power to keep the majority of the public off balance so they can have their way. Let's scare the public and ask for more bombs! I for one do not have to much faith in our current political system with special interest ruling the way for the benefits of a few. Until we wake up as a country and put a stop to all this fear mongering and feeding the leftest agenda for PR opportunities such as the failed health care non-reform (look at how much richer the insurance company is walking away with from the proposed bill) the middle class will continue to pay for entitlements that both sides of the aisle seem to love. Big business just walked away with a ton of tax payers money for failing and giving us false promises i.e. big banks, auto industry!
 
ph said:
Illinois will sure be a lot more peaceful in 2016 thanks to the 2009 Nobel Peace prize winner...
Click to expand...

If our President can perform that miracle, don't forget Chicago will still be in Illinois, he will deserve a permanent Nobel Peace prize. I wish him luck.
 
SFP said:
Please come on anyone willing to give in to our personal freedom for the terrorist! This is just a perfect way for the men in power to keep the majority of the public off balance so they can have their way. Let's scare the public and ask for more bombs! I for one do not have to much faith in our current political system with special interest ruling the way for the benefits of a few. Until we wake up as a country and put a stop to all this fear mongering and feeding the leftest agenda for PR opportunities such as the failed health care non-reform (look at how much richer the insurance company is walking away with from the proposed bill) the middle class will continue to pay for entitlements that both sides of the aisle seem to love. Big business just walked away with a ton of tax payers money for failing and giving us false promises i.e. big banks, auto industry!
Click to expand...

Keep in mind despite my previous posts, I'm not happy with the way things have gone on the "right" side of the aisle lately either. But I would much rather have the Republicans in charge when it comes to national security issues than the dems.
 
Braves4Life said:
NBC = liberal
CNBC = conservative

If you watch CNBC regularly you will notice that the majority of reporters are fiscal conervatives.
Click to expand...

Maybe CNBC is fiscally conservative, but I still think the majority of their reporters were for Obama. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got back last fall during the presidential campaign.
 
Bravesfan said:
Keep in mind despite my previous posts, I'm not happy with the way things have gone on the "right" side of the aisle lately either. But I would much rather have the Republicans in charge when it comes to national security issues than the dems.
Click to expand...

My frustration is that we are increasingly becoming a country where the PR hype is becoming the meat behind every issue. Illusionists at their finest.

"The tail wagging the dog." Iraq, health care, Obama receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace!
 
Bravesfan said:
Maybe CNBC is fiscally conservative, but I still think the majority of their reporters were for Obama. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I got back last fall during the presidential campaign.
Click to expand...

As for only CNBC, I have quite the opposite impression as I believe that most of their reporters are fiscal conservatives and and were openly questioning the policies of the Democrats during the campaign last year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top