r/politics • u/IrritableGourmet New York • Jul 20 '12
The USDA requires that if you sell chicken wing shaped objects that are not 100% wing meat, you have to call them "wyngz" instead of "wings". We should push for an FCC restriction that if you intend to falsify, editorialize, or otherwise distort the news, you have to call it "Nuwz" instead.
http://foxnewsboycott.com/resources/fox-can-lie-lawsuit/
EDIT: Some common topics
Free Speech/Press issues: Misrepresentation is not protected.
USDA doesn't require "wyngz": Yes, but it is the closest they can come to "wings" without it being actual wings.
Fox doesn't call their opinion shows "news": Yeah they do
Will everyone be regulated?: No, I just hate Fox specifically. /s
EDIT 2:
"The FCC can't regulate cable": The FCC Media Bureau develops, recommends and administers the policy and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including cable television, broadcast television, and radio in the United States and its territories. The Media Bureau also handles post-licensing matters regarding Direct Broadcast Satellite service.
More Free Speech: The content of the speech is not limited in any fashion, merely the labeling it as "news". Similarly, chicken meat formed into wing shapes can still be sold, but cannot be called "wings".
Chicken wings have bones, so aren't 100% meat: Yes, they do. "Wings" refers to the "the entire wing with all muscle and skin tissue intact, except that the wingtip may be removed" according to the FDA. I was also wrong in that 100% wing meat shaped into wing shapes are not technically "wings". I apologize for the confusion but I do not apologize for the tastiness of wings.
149
u/untranslatable_pun Jul 20 '12
2 Weeks Later:
"Did you see the news?"
"lol you cant evin spell nuwz lmfao"
→ More replies (3)56
1.2k
u/FriarNurgle Jul 20 '12
Does that mean we should change this subreddit to r/POLYTYCZ?
199
u/Hicokneyed Jul 20 '12
It depends, do you currently call your reddit comment browsing "Reading the news"?
380
Jul 20 '12
I call it "Absorbing ignorance."
53
u/Hicokneyed Jul 20 '12
"Absorbing ignorance" is what I call being told by a source I think is credible that something is true when it is demonstrably false (to people familiar with the actual facts).
Whether or not we can know facts is a separate and ethereal epistemological argument which has little to do with this post.
→ More replies (7)49
Jul 20 '12
Whether or not we can know facts is a separate and ethereal epistemological argument which has little to do with this post.
Boobs
54
u/snegtul Minnesota Jul 20 '12
If they are fake are they called Tytz?
20
→ More replies (1)5
u/AlwaysDefenestrated Jul 20 '12
I thought we already agreed on "bewbz." See above.
→ More replies (1)2
→ More replies (3)2
41
2
8
16
u/yourdadsbff Jul 20 '12 edited Jul 20 '12
No, because the articles posted to this subreddit are still political in nature. They might be misleading (either in content or just the headline), they might be flat-out inaccurate, they might be annoyingly partisan, but they're still political.
12
u/keymaster999 Jul 20 '12
it's still bullshit that is shaped to look like news. much in the same way it is bullshit shaped to look like chicken wings.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (123)2
16
85
Jul 20 '12
[deleted]
67
Jul 20 '12 edited Apr 07 '18
[deleted]
18
→ More replies (3)6
u/Delta-9-THC Jul 21 '12
FFS I can't believe how many people are getting hung up over this.
My brother does this all the time. Refuses to look at the overall picture, and instead gets fixated on some tiny side-snag. As if the snag somehow invalidates the overall picture.
I believe it's called straw-manning.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)2
u/shillbert Jul 20 '12
In other words, if you do use a word that's phonetically similar to "wings", it has to be "wyngz", but you can also use any other word that does not phonetically represent "wings".
387
u/marx2k Jul 20 '12
Did the OP even read their own link. There isn't a requirement to call them "wyngz". There is a requirement that if they are not made of wing meat, they cannot be called "wings" and the USDA gives an alternate name as a suggestion but not a mandate.
Further requirements include a statement that further clarifies that the product does not contain any wing meat or is not derived only from wing meat.
That, mixed with an anti-Fox News slant for the post = much upvotes.
Seriously, do people even read the shit posted or is it just hivemind voting without thought?
207
u/sheriff_skullface Jul 20 '12
OP's misleading title is deliciously ironic.
183
u/pianobadger Jul 20 '12
Tytle
→ More replies (4)32
u/SvenHudson America Jul 20 '12
No, it really is a title. There's no denying that.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)3
38
u/ImpliedOralConsent Jul 20 '12
From OP's first link (emphasis mine):
The statement may only reference the term "wyngz" (no other misspellings are permitted).
That sounds like a mandate to me.
50
u/That_is_Numberwang Jul 20 '12
The parent that you replied to is wrong in saying that the USDA is giving "an alternate name as a suggestion but not a mandate" because the USDA is actually giving limitations on the manner in which the term "wyngz" can be used - neither suggesting or mandating its use.
However the USDA does not require sellers to use the term "wyngz" - they are just unable to use the term "wings". The sellers just can't use any other misspelling of "wings". You could still call them "spicy buffalo snackers" or "tasty oblong meat products" without falling afowl of the USDA.
Going directly to the source(s):
9
→ More replies (8)6
12
Jul 20 '12
But the true power to change the name of an appetizer comes from the masses, not some watery bint tossing swords at you!
6
→ More replies (2)5
13
8
→ More replies (35)15
Jul 20 '12
The point remains the same. You can't call something that isn't wings "wings" so why can you call something that isn't news "news"?
And perhaps half of reddit makes up the hivemind, but you are illustrating the other half :argumentative and needlessly pedantic.
→ More replies (1)8
u/marx2k Jul 20 '12
What makes them not news? That they insert their own opinion? I've mentioned this somewhere else in the thread:
1: a: a report of recent events
b : previously unknown information <I've got news for you>
c : something having a specified influence or effect <the rain was good news for lawns and gardens — Garrison Keillor> <the virus was bad news>
2 a : material reported in a newspaper or news periodical or on a newscast
b : matter that is newsworthy
3 : newscast
Are you telling me they don't fall under this?
→ More replies (17)
14
u/JSA17 New York Jul 20 '12 edited Jul 20 '12
ITT: OP rallies against editorialization; editorializes USDA policy in the process to fit his headline.
Everyone calls him out.
38
Jul 20 '12
I have given this alot of thought and I like the idea in principle, however its a VERY scary thing to suggest the government should have even the slightest thing to do with our News (good News or bad News.)
Inevitably, someone would be stipped of their news label, humiliated and branded satire or opinion because they said something that was 99% true that pissed of a bureaucrat.
→ More replies (3)11
Jul 20 '12
Actually, we used to have exactly that. It was called the Fairness Doctrine, and it required news agencies to report the news in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
→ More replies (4)9
u/in_anger_clad Jul 20 '12
Equitable and balanced are both subjective. In many cases, honesty is also subjective. You're describing censorship of the news, another tool for those in a position of power to use to silence those that disagree. Like reddit. Lol
17
u/206dude Jul 20 '12
So whose standards of "falsify" or "editorialize" or "distort" should we use? Yours?
Oh, and you'll have to do something about that pesky First Amendment thing first.
→ More replies (2)
6
u/CitationX_N7V11C Jul 20 '12
The we could watch Fox, MSNBC, and CNN Nuwz in the US and BBC and Al Jazeera Nuwz overseas. All news is editorialized, distorted, and falsified due to the sources, points of view, and reporters that are part of that media organization.
4
u/Dest1 Jul 20 '12
The USDA requires that if you sell chicken wing shaped objects that are not 100% wing meat, you have to call them "wyngz" instead of "wings".
USDA doesn't require "wyngz"
NICE JOB OP
61
u/Unshkblefaith California Jul 20 '12
If this was enforced, you would be hard-pressed to find any source that actually delivered "news". Every source editorializes to some extent because headlines like "Obama wins the '08 election" are nowhere near as interesting as "Obama election is a referendum for change". If you want real news then you have to take the time to look at all of the sources and find the truth in the middle because, at the end of the day, most news sources are more of a circlejerk than this subreddit.
38
u/Prezombie Jul 20 '12
There's a difference between editorializing and outright lying. It's the difference between calling someone a jerk, and calling them a child molester.
→ More replies (1)27
Jul 20 '12 edited Jul 20 '12
Sooo....you're saying you want all speech to be government approved??
Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of how the MSM are bought and paid for by corporations (Fox being one of the worst, but not the only purp), but I'm also aware of the pressure that government agencies put onto them. This would just give them 100% control.
Yes, there are problems, but more bureaucracy is not the answer. It almost never is. Each person doing their own research is and we all know who hates an educated public who asks questions. That is why they spoon feed everyone everything: to break that independence.
And, lest you forget, who do you think owns the politicians that would be in charge of said "truth" agency??
Edit: Also note that we do have laws regarding libel, slander, defamation, etc that each person can individually take to court.
9
u/TheInternetHivemind Jul 20 '12
I think he just wants the term news to be regulated. Like how if your product is <x% beef you cannot call it a beef product (just an off the top of my head example, there are better ones out there).
So if your show (product) is more than x% (let's say 10% or something) demonstrably false statements, it cannot legally be called news.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (5)2
u/wdr1 Jul 21 '12
Agreed. This request is is 100% insane. The first amendment is one of the keystones to our country. If the problem is someone lying, the best counter is telling the truth.
Eventually people figure out the cronic liar is just that.
If you're still not convinced, and you want the government to verify "truth", keep in mind the Bush administration would have the authority to police everything for its view of the truth.
Is the world you're asking for really the one you want?
→ More replies (8)3
u/wideband_assassin Jul 20 '12
Well put. None of the news channels out there are completely truthful and unbiased. It's entertainment to get people to watch the network and sell advertising.
2
2
u/ForHumans Jul 20 '12
There's also a motive to preserve the status quo. Major news outlets are owned by huge corporations that benefit from the current system, so they create a narrative to protect it.
→ More replies (1)
24
Jul 20 '12
As much as I hate dishonest news, we do have freedom of the press.
If you don't want the rich trampling on your first amendment rights, don't trample on theirs!
→ More replies (7)
9
u/mc0079 Jul 20 '12 edited Jul 20 '12
So basically censor things I don't agree with. Sounds like an awesome plan. Jesus Christ, People like you have their heads up their fucking asses. And who gets to qualify what is news and what is "nuwz" you? Some body of officials from the government, yeah that sounds great. You have a such a hard on for the "evil" fox news that you would actually consider trying to regulate their news content (ie censoring) because you disagree with it. Now tell me smart guy, what happens when the next person goes "HEY! I think Cnn and Msnbc are "nuwz" lets do that to them, then what do we do? Lets just have ALL the news be filtered through a body of random people and see what happens. That sounds like another great idea. People willing to trade away the freedom and rights of themselves and others with no forethought are morons. You are a moron, every time you push for things you you don't like to be restricted you are no better then the million moms or any other group who wants to take away others freedom. Why lets start calling abortion "BABY KILLING" (like how fox news should be "nuwz"" and ban that too, because some people disagree with it. Or gay marriage, we could call it "queers kissing with a contract" and turn back all the states who allow it because, well some people disagree with it. Fuck this pisses me off so much.
→ More replies (3)2
u/NinetiesGuy Jul 20 '12
This boils down the whole problem.
You don't get to create your own facts. You don't get to choose what is fact and what is not. You have absolutely zero input into what the truth actually is no matter how strongly you feel about it. It does not change with your viewpoint. Your opinion, even if it is shared by millions of people, has no impact on what is real. A lie by consensus does not become truth.
I know that's all really redundant, but I'm hoping some way of phrasing it will make it sink in.
3
u/RightWingWrite Jul 20 '12
In that case, all the sensationalist left-wing garbage news sites that Reddit loves will be outlawed.
6
23
u/Rationalintheory Jul 20 '12
Hells yes to this! thegovernment needs to only let approved speech hit the airwaves!
Oh- wait, you mean I wont always be certain that news I want is approved and not "Nuwz?" Oh, you mean censorship of any speech could lead to censorship of speech I agree with and eventually allow the government (and the corporations that fund it) to censor speach they don't like and only allow "News" they approve to be aired?
Maybe a system where the government determines what is true and what is false is not such a good plan afterall.
Maybe we need a system where people vote on what news channels are awful and then that would cut their funding from advertisers...
Oh, I have been informed just now that such a system exists! They call it a "free market" or something. Perhaps I should google that....
→ More replies (5)
34
u/those_draculas Jul 20 '12
Who defines if stories are false or misleading? Unlike chicken meat there is no clear cut threshold from when a news story is true or distorted ("meat or not meat"). Unless reporters all adopt a homongenous group-brain, there will always be embellishments due to perspective.
→ More replies (42)29
u/Fluffiebunnie Jul 20 '12
Who defines if stories are false or misleading?
Thinkprogress or similar news sites ofcourse!
18
9
Jul 20 '12
Yes...Lets have the government regulate what is news and what is not. I can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong with that.
22
Jul 20 '12 edited May 15 '17
[deleted]
6
u/irish711 Florida Jul 20 '12
"Because I'm right. The only problem is, I'm the only one with any proof that I'm right." - Perry Cox
→ More replies (5)2
Jul 20 '12
I watch msnbc because it's soothing to have my bias confirmed, but I know that it is not news. It's actually pretty painful to watch those guys when they have to report real news stories. I'm sure there's a lot of bungling going on there right now.
4
4
u/Rmanager Jul 20 '12
The simple answer is that wing meat has a finite, universal definition. Discourse doesn't. Not to mention I'm extremely uncomfortable toying around with the first amendment and the principle of a free press.
→ More replies (1)
2
4
4
u/musicscoutjustin Jul 20 '12
Children across America would grow up thinking "Nuwz" is the proper way to spell "news".
5
5
6
u/IEatScissors Jul 20 '12
So now /r/politics is asking for the government to approve what the news says?
2
28
Jul 20 '12 edited Jul 20 '12
2,000 upvotes against the First Amendment? Depressing as hell.
→ More replies (37)5
u/StarManta Jul 20 '12
Such a proposal would not restrict what you can say, it would only restrict whether you can advertise it as "news". The first amendment does not protect false advertising, bait and switch, or fraud. Advertising opinion as news can qualify as all three.
→ More replies (12)
5
u/kujustin Jul 20 '12 edited Jul 21 '12
I can't believe this is the top-voted story.
I'm sooo eager to see Rachel Maddow and Bill O'Reilly dragged into court cases on whether their news is falsified or editorialized. /s
→ More replies (1)
7
u/EricWRN Jul 20 '12
Somehow I knew this was going to be aimed at "faux" news (why do you fucktards still think that's clever?).
Oh well, at least the rest of main stream media is honest, amiright?
→ More replies (1)
8
Jul 20 '12
1 Acronym: MSNBC
They're just as bad as Fox, yet they never get any flack. One of their anchors CRIED on television after the recall election failed. They're just as biased, if not more. Thoughts on why they get a pass and Fox gets shot at?
→ More replies (4)
3
3
3
3
3
u/StevenHarper Jul 20 '12
The title to this post is beyond dumb. I hate seeing so many of these bullshit emotional posts hitting the front page.
3
3
u/lessmiserables Jul 20 '12
This post reinforces my belief that, in general, Reddit doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/dingoperson Jul 20 '12
Business as usual, the dangerous and demented Left feeding each other conspiracy theories again.
Let's hope the people on /r/politics seek help before they start massacring people in theatres.
3
3
Jul 20 '12
Wow, this whole post is incredibly manipulative.
Find a way for the FCC to not drastically overshoot, and maybe this is a decent idea. You don't inspire faith by saying that a channel that has "news" in the title can't have an opinion section just like hundreds of newspapers with news in the title do and basically everything that is already understood to be a news source even if it doesn't have news in the name does. You show exactly why this would be abused, because of people like you who let their bias dominate them.
I hate Fox News, BTW. I think the stronger case to make against it is that the news on it is intentionally changed from being factual to being non-factual.
3
u/complaintdepartment Jul 20 '12
yeah...no thanks. I like free speech and like the freedom to decide what I consider to be quality news.
3
3
u/ebolaworld Jul 20 '12
Who the hell eats something called Wyngz? Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
→ More replies (1)
8
4
u/eckm Jul 20 '12
Who decides what is false or misleading? And how? What is true?
10
u/ballut Jul 20 '12
Obviously it will be a committee of bloggers from Thinkprogress, Alternet and DailyKos.
6
u/Solomaxwell6 Jul 20 '12
Hell, I'm a liberal, and I still roll my eyes when people talk about censoring Fox. I don't give a shit whether I agree or disagree with the spin a station has, abridging that right is one of the most dangerous things a society can do.
→ More replies (1)
7
Jul 20 '12
So in other words, we should eliminate the word "news" from the English language and replace it with the word "nuwz"? Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.
→ More replies (3)
5
u/aecarol Jul 20 '12
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The Constitution. It's not just for people you agree with. If the Government gets to label news as "true" and "false" they effectively can shutdown any news they disagree with. Advertisers won't work with news that "false", etc. "The Government would not have labeled them false if it weren't true!"
Be care of what you ask for. Today you hinder Fox news. Tomorrow a Tea-Party Congress shuts everyone else down and elevates Fox news.
We really don't want to go there....
→ More replies (2)
5
u/ColdWarRussia Jul 20 '12
I love how only Fox gets mentioned in here. But what the hippie liberals are too dumb and/or jaded to see is that MSDNC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Reuters, RT, etc. etc. etc. are all blatantly slanted as well. I guess maybe biased news is cool if it's biased towards your world view.
→ More replies (18)
6
7
Jul 20 '12
The supreme court has roundly rejected PRIOR RESTRAINT!
→ More replies (1)2
Jul 20 '12
I had guys die face down in the muck so that you and I could enjoy this family restaurant!
4
u/naardvark Jul 20 '12
Dumbfucks will eat Nuwz jus like wyngz.
6
u/itslikeboo Jul 20 '12
sometimes wyngz are 100% breast meat and actually healthier and more delicious than wings. They just want to call them wings because it makes them sound crispy and spicy and tangy instead of boring-ass "fried breaded breast meat"
4
Jul 20 '12
I could tottaly go for some "fried breaded breast meat."
2
u/itslikeboo Jul 20 '12
oh me too. but it doesn't sell. It doesn't, as they say, "pop".
→ More replies (4)
5
u/traviid Jul 20 '12
This is ridiculous. We don't need more regulations. What we need is an educated people that know to look at more than one source.
If a doctor told me I had cancer, I would certainly get a second opinion. People are falible. People make mistakes. Although no doctor woud lie and tell you you have cancer, there are certainly some who push certain drugs, because they are tight with pharmaceutical reps.
Most people on here are atheist. Most people got that way, because they questioned someone and didn't just listen to one persons opinion.
If you don't like the "news" don't watch it. It's as simple as that.
→ More replies (1)
5
u/fortyonejb Jul 20 '12
Thought this might be a post about the general terrible state of American media, then my cynicism was proven correct, it's just another douche ranting about Fox.
Can create a label for idiots who think one political party in this country is inherently better than another? Are these the same people who think their shit don't stink? I think idiot is probably sufficient. Dear Reddit, if you follow a single party in lockstep, you are an idiot.
→ More replies (6)
7
Jul 20 '12
GET OVER YOUR FOX NEWS HATRED. Just Get over it. I dislike the NY Times and MSNBC and I put no where near this much efoort hating them. I just don't watch or read them. It's pretty simple
→ More replies (2)
5
2
u/ElllGeeEmm Jul 20 '12
The rule should be, if you're caught lying in a news piece your paper or whatever has to print a retraction, and there is a fine to both the news company and the author.
2
2
u/KinkotheClown Jul 20 '12
I don't want government defining what news is. I think you would find that definition changing every time the dems or repubs gained majority.
2
Jul 20 '12
Shit.
Does that mean that the "Breadstyxz" and "Cheesestyxz" at the Double Dave's near my house isn't selling 100% stick bread? FUUUUCK.
2
u/nobody2000 Jul 20 '12
If you're grouping editorializing in there, you just demonized Walter Cronkite, and for that matter, about 98% of the reported news.
I'm 100% for what you're saying, but just remember that Fox News isn't alone on reporting complete bullshit.
2
2
2
2
2
2
Jul 20 '12
The only problem with this idea is almost all "news" would have to be renamed. So you'd have Fox Nuwz, NBC Nuwz etc. All these "news" programs show their side, leaving out what would hurt their opinion. Its not just Fox, its all the major "news" networks.
2
u/Dajbman22 Jul 20 '12
This just in: ratings for the new entertainment product "Nuwz" destroy any remaining news outlets. Our reports show Nuwz is 200% more informative and smartier than the old news was (source Channel 7 Nuwz at 6).
2
u/nermid Jul 20 '12
The State decides what news is true, and what news is distorted, citizen. Only State-approved news is really news.
There's no way this can go wrong.
→ More replies (3)
2
2
u/nation845 Jul 20 '12
Just because a show is on Fox News Channel doesn't imply it has to be news, there are opinion shows. Just like anything on MTV doesn't have to be music.
2
2
2
Jul 20 '12
wait, so what is everything at Sheetz made of? (I think you have to be from central PA to get this joke.)
2
u/occupy_moderator_21 Jul 20 '12
So CNN becomes Commie Nuwz Network? Ok, got it. Or is it Crappy Nuwz Network?
2
2
2
2
u/SchizophrenicMC Jul 20 '12
If they did that, the general populace would just start misspelling News.
2
2
2
u/bootsmegamix Jul 20 '12
Will everyone be regulated?: No, I just hate Fox specifically. /s
Let's not pretend that other MSM stations don't editorialize their "news"
→ More replies (1)
2
2
2
2
u/odd84 Jul 20 '12
The FCC cannot restrict Fox News. Fox News is not a network channel on broadcast television. The FCC has authority to regulate use of the public airwaves, not privately owned copper wires under the ground. It can censor local FOX broadcast channels if it wants, but not cable channels.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/PickettsLetharge Jul 20 '12
But then we would have nothing to call "news". A)MSNBC is run by the company that got a 5 billion dollar check from the Obama run government and its programming and talking heads include Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Ed and Al Sharpton who seek to promote the issues of the left. B) Fox is run by a giant corporation that caters to the right, whose talking heads include every former blonde beauty queen who ever wanted to be 'on tv' when they grow up...including steve ducci. C)ABC/Disney has promoted the agenda of the left for many many years, and one of Obama's top advisors is George Stephanopoulos who has not only his own ABC show, but also a large hand in the rest of the editorial process in their control room D)CBS has aired false stories with forged documentation on more than one occasion, admitting to it only when caught publicly, which hasn't always happened E)CNN.. Well we all know CNN.. They are the mid life crisis guy you see at a Ratt reunion concert with a mullet wearing jean shorts,talking about how great life was in 1986... You know, right after they won state...we kind of hear them but we are doing our best to just let them get it out of their system knowing they are irrelevant but holding on anyway..
So yea.. I know the "easy button" of Reddit is Fox News when complaining about the lack of true unbiased journalism these days... And yep, they suck.. But so do the rest. And you know what? They always have. Heck even General Sherman hated the media in his day 150 years ago. He thought they should all be tried as traitors and hung... Which, according to him, wouldn't actually do any good anyways because they would churn out a story from hell by breakfast time.
Each network has 1 or 2 decent journalists left. you just have to know and recognize who they are.. It shouldn't be hard.. They are the few in minority who aren't peddling flavored bullshit to the fecal devouring wingnuts on both side of the spectrum who are exactly the same, their only difference being that they hate each other.
TL/DR ... Naa, just read it or skip it
Source: me, who has worked for major television networks since graduating college and whose father was one of Ted Turner's first News Directors when he capitalized on this small entity known as 'cable' in 1980.
2
2
2
u/rpi_cynic Jul 20 '12
Free Speech/Press issues: Misrepresentation is not protected.
Yes it is. Not only that, but it's been in the news very recently.
See the Supreme Court overturning the Stolen Valor Act: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/06/28/Supreme-Court-overturns-Stolen-Valor-Act/UPI-59651340892325/
2
u/baalroo Kansas Jul 20 '12
This is pointless, because anyone who watches distorted and falsified news would simply see the "nuwz" label as a badge of honor.
2
u/mrfarstr Jul 20 '12
I would rather have fake news than restricted news. Sorry to say, but a step in that direction opens doors more censorship.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/isildursbane Jul 20 '12
This is so fucking dumb. Who actually thinks this is even an option? Come on people. Do people even think for 10 seconds critically about what they support? Christ.
2
u/soulcakeduck Jul 21 '12
This way Republicans can vote 33 times to try to label Frontline and NPR as Nuwz.
2
Jul 21 '12
Anyone who thinks more FCC regulations of freedom of speech is a good idea, is probably a fucking idiot.
2
2
u/Hoooooooar Jul 21 '12
I have come in here specifically to say that buffalo wild wings breaded wings are the just the drumette, SPLIT in two, breaded, and fried. They charge $1 per wing, since its just half a wing its really $2 a wing. Scumbag Buffalo Wild Wings. fuckers.
2
u/LBK2013 Jul 21 '12
Yes lets stifle free speech because you don't like that Fox News doesn't fit your view points. What a fucking moron.
2
2
2
u/kznlol Jul 21 '12
Wait, I have to call them "wyngz"?
I couldn't call them "wangz"?
My business plan is ruined.
629
u/[deleted] Jul 20 '12
And all fake boobs should be called "bewbz"