Fairness Doctrine Vote Not Happening, House Majority Leader Says

[avatar4321]

I never said that

You just stated government monitoring speech is a good thing in your post right before this one. How can you say you never said it when its two posts prior?

[red states rule]

I never said that

Sure you did - here is your post

If the fairness doctrine is reinstituted, the FCC will monitor equal access for all political viewpoints. I think that's a good thing.

bad of you to never admit that you are wrong for calling me a liar all the time

[retiredman]

You just stated government monitoring speech is a good thing in your post right before this one. How can you say you never said it when its two posts prior?


I don't want to regulate "political speech that I disagree with", I want to regulate equal access for all political points of view.

To say that I want to regulate political speech that I disagree with presumes that I do NOT wish to regulate political speech that I DO agree with. That is not the case.

[retiredman]

Sure you did - here is your post

If the fairness doctrine is reinstituted, the FCC will monitor equal access for all political viewpoints. I think that's a good thing.

bad of you to never admit that you are wrong for calling me a liar all the time


you're not a liar ALL the time.

[red states rule]

you're not a liar ALL the time.

But you sure as hell are

Yous aid it, then a couple posts later you say you did not

[Shadow]

No, you want libs to control politcal speech. Libs have access, it is just most people do not want to hear it

That is the problem you, and your party have

Liberals don't even want to support their ideas/talk shows by dedicating their own time and money to the industry. They just expect everyone else to do the work for them, by forcing it on the part of the public that is not interested. They are lazy and think everything should be handed to them no questions asked. Talk about lazy and entitled.:lame2:

[red states rule]

Liberals don't even want to support their ideas/talk shows by dedicating their own time and money to the industry. They just expect everyone else to do the work for them, by forcing it on the part of the public that is not interested. They are lazy and think everything should be handed to them no questions asked. Talk about lazy and entitled.:lame2:

You will find that description fits the #1 Obamabot here, MFM, perfectly. He lives to expand the power of his party, make as many people as possible dependent on a government handout, and is willing the shread the first amendment if it benefits his party

He supports the messiah but will leave the country for as he says I believe, 'a cheaper place with better medical care'

[retiredman]

You will find that description fits the #1 Obamabot here, MFM, perfectly. He lives to expand the power of his party, make as many people as possible dependent on a government handout, and is willing the shread the first amendment if it benefits his party

He supports the messiah but will leave the country for as he says I believe, 'a cheaper place with better medical care'


LIAR.

I have zero desire to make anyone dependent upon government. I have vigorously defended the constitution my whole life. YOU are the one who is on RECORD as one who would PISS on the constitution - especially Art. VI. YOU are a domestic enemy, pure and simple.
:fu:

[Yurt]

http://blueherald.com/uploads/Batocchio/RW_Cartoons/10_21_06/McCoy_10_19_06jpg.jpg

[retiredman]

for a second there, I thought that it was nearly brain dead RSR posting another of his cartoons in lieu of actually writing some words of his own of actual consequence...then I realized it was his butt buddy yurt instead.

silly me.

[Yurt]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v665/ProfGTA/stupid_post_bear.jpg

[Immanuel]

I don't think that having a variety of ideas on the airwaves is a bad idea...if you don't want to listen, fine.

We already have a variety of ideas on the airwaves. If I want to listen to a conservative viewpoint I can tune the station to a channel that is playing Rush or another conservative. If I want to hear the liberal side of things I simply find a liberal talk show host out there like Randi Rhodes or Al Franken. The fact that no one wants to listen to Randi or Al doesn't mean that I should be prevented from listening to a conservative if I want to.


people don't have to listen if they don't want to.


So, what it appears you are saying is that since no one will tune into Air America, you want to bring Air America to the stations they listen to regularly and if they don't want to hear Air America they must turn off that station and listen to elevator music.

That is just plain wrong. I don't want to have to keep switching channels on my radio just to hear something that I enjoy listening to and avoid people who only speak of their hatred for me.

Immie

[avatar4321]

LIAR.

I have zero desire to make anyone dependent upon government. I have vigorously defended the constitution my whole life. YOU are the one who is on RECORD as one who would PISS on the constitution - especially Art. VI. YOU are a domestic enemy, pure and simple.
:fu:

Yep for the past 18 pages you've been actively arguing against the First amendment. We have numerous pages of you fighting against the Second amendment. You constantly argue against the tenth amendment. The only amendment I've actively seen you support is the 16th amendment.

If you have no desire to make anyone dependent upon government, then stop making government the solution to every problem. If you advocate a totalitarian government, then you are advocating efforts to make people dependent on government. If you argue against the second amendment you are arguing to make people dependent on government for safety. If you want government to control medicine you are arguing to make people dependent on government for their health. If you are arguing for public education, you are arguing for people to depend on government for their education. If you argue for welfare you are arguing for people to be dependent. for their sustanence.

If you can't see that you are arguing for people to be dependent on the government then you have no freaking clue what your policies will do. You don't understand basic english. So why the heck should we listen to anything you want to advocate?

[DragonStryk72]

again...you still haven't shown me how anyone will be FORCED to listen to something against their will. I'll wait.

Not the point, it's the speech that's free, not the listening. Now, I already made a good point that you still haven't addressed, and I was polite about it, so I see no reason it could have been answered by now.

[Mr. P]

Yep for the past 18 pages you've been actively arguing against the First amendment. We have numerous pages of you fighting against the Second amendment. You constantly argue against the tenth amendment. The only amendment I've actively seen you support is the 16th amendment.

If you have no desire to make anyone dependent upon government, then stop making government the solution to every problem. If you advocate a totalitarian government, then you are advocating efforts to make people dependent on government. If you argue against the second amendment you are arguing to make people dependent on government for safety. If you want government to control medicine you are arguing to make people dependent on government for their health. If you are arguing for public education, you are arguing for people to depend on government for their education. If you argue for welfare you are arguing for people to be dependent. for their sustanence.

If you can't see that you are arguing for people to be dependent on the government then you have no freaking clue what your policies will do. You don't understand basic english. So why the heck should we listen to anything you want to advocate?

Excellent points, AV!

[theHawk]

I have vigorously defended the constitution my whole life.

Tell me MFM, what is going to happen to a radio station that refuses to give air time to someone that the government tells them to put on? We all know that refusal to obey the government will result in fines, jail time, and even the shutting down of the radio station. You actually advocate the fining and even jailing of people who wish to express their own views? Because thats exactly what this law will lead to. It is a direct attack on constitutional rights, and it surprises me that even you can't see this.

[actsnoblemartin]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v665/ProfGTA/stupid_post_bear.jpg


hahahahah

:lol:

:laugh2:

:poke::coffee:

[retiredman]

Tell me MFM, what is going to happen to a radio station that refuses to give air time to someone that the government tells them to put on? We all know that refusal to obey the government will result in fines, jail time, and even the shutting down of the radio station. You actually advocate the fining and even jailing of people who wish to express their own views? Because thats exactly what this law will lead to. It is a direct attack on constitutional rights, and it surprises me that even you can't see this.

your predictions of what the law will lead to are not, in my opinion, realistic.

[retiredman]

Yep for the past 18 pages you've been actively arguing against the First amendment. We have numerous pages of you fighting against the Second amendment. You constantly argue against the tenth amendment. The only amendment I've actively seen you support is the 16th amendment.

If you have no desire to make anyone dependent upon government, then stop making government the solution to every problem. If you advocate a totalitarian government, then you are advocating efforts to make people dependent on government. If you argue against the second amendment you are arguing to make people dependent on government for safety. If you want government to control medicine you are arguing to make people dependent on government for their health. If you are arguing for public education, you are arguing for people to depend on government for their education. If you argue for welfare you are arguing for people to be dependent. for their sustanence.

If you can't see that you are arguing for people to be dependent on the government then you have no freaking clue what your policies will do. You don't understand basic english. So why the heck should we listen to anything you want to advocate?


you are firmlyu convinced that the democratic party is anti-freedom, anti-constitution. Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. When have you EVER been willing to listen to anything other than conservative ideas? give me a break.:laugh2:

[crin63]

Yep for the past 18 pages you've been actively arguing against the First amendment. We have numerous pages of you fighting against the Second amendment. You constantly argue against the tenth amendment. The only amendment I've actively seen you support is the 16th amendment.

If you have no desire to make anyone dependent upon government, then stop making government the solution to every problem. If you advocate a totalitarian government, then you are advocating efforts to make people dependent on government. If you argue against the second amendment you are arguing to make people dependent on government for safety. If you want government to control medicine you are arguing to make people dependent on government for their health. If you are arguing for public education, you are arguing for people to depend on government for their education. If you argue for welfare you are arguing for people to be dependent. for their sustanence.

If you can't see that you are arguing for people to be dependent on the government then you have no freaking clue what your policies will do. You don't understand basic english. So why the heck should we listen to anything you want to advocate?


Well Said, you hit the nail right on the head.

[theHawk]

your predictions of what the law will lead to are not, in my opinion, realistic.



Nice, refusal to answer the question because its not "realistic" in your opinion.

If thats the case, what is the use of passing a law if it can't or won't be enforced?

[Kathianne]

Nice, refusal to answer the question because its not "realistic" in your opinion.

If thats the case, what is the use of passing a law if it can't or won't be enforced?

I agree with you. I've always wondered what the Liberals really want from this. Are they claiming that they cannot get air time? I think Air America put paid to that. The have NPR, which we all contribute to, thankfully not to the degree of BBC.

It's not that they can't get 'on the air' it's just that they don't have a product anyone wishes to buy, thus they lose even their most ardent sponsors.

[retiredman]

Nice, refusal to answer the question because its not "realistic" in your opinion.

If thats the case, what is the use of passing a law if it can't or won't be enforced?

I don't doubt that the doctrine would be enforced. I doubt that any businessman running a radio station is going to go to jail over programming modifications.

[Kathianne]

I don't doubt that the doctrine would be enforced. I doubt that any businessman running a radio station is going to go to jail over programming modifications.

What is it you wish to see come of this? Force the owners to underwrite liberal radio personalities, regardless of listeners or advertising?

[retiredman]

What is it you wish to see come of this? Force the owners to underwrite liberal radio personalities, regardless of listeners or advertising?

provide equal access to all political points of view.

[Kathianne]

provide equal access to all political points of view.

What do you mean by that? Regardless of listeners or advertisers?

[retiredman]

What do you mean by that? Regardless of listeners or advertisers?

I don't know if I would say "regardless", but I feel accomodations need to be made to ensure equal access to points of view if station owners wish to utilize federally controlled airwaves.

[Kathianne]

I don't know if I would say "regardless", but I feel accomodations need to be made to ensure equal access to points of view if station owners wish to utilize federally controlled airwaves.

So what do you propose instead of 'regardless?' Air America was heavily financed. Included the media leaders of the left and failed abysmally. So what would the 'Fairness Doctrine' do, to make unacceptable, acceptable?

[retiredman]

So what do you propose instead of 'regardless?' Air America was heavily financed. Included the media leaders of the left and failed abysmally. So what would the 'Fairness Doctrine' do, to make unacceptable, acceptable?


I have not given this issue any thought as to how the doctrine might be implemented.... nor do I intend to anytime in the near future. I have more pressing concerns like sermons to write and trustee's meetings to attend. I merely agree to its general philosophy.

[Kathianne]

I have not given this issue any thought as to how the doctrine might be implemented.... nor do I intend to anytime in the near future. I have more pressing concerns like sermons to write and trustee's meetings to attend. I merely agree to its general philosophy.

Most honest post. 'I don't give a f about fairness, just want the message out there, if it takes an act of Congress, fine.'

[retiredman]

Most honest post. 'I don't give a f about fairness, just want the message out there, if it takes an act of Congress, fine.'


of course I give a fuck about fairness, that is why I said I support the basic principle of the fairness doctrine. I have no idea how it will be implemented nor am I all that interested in it. As I said, I have more pressing issues in my life.

[CockySOB]

I have not given this issue any thought as to how the doctrine might be implemented.... nor do I intend to anytime in the near future. I have more pressing concerns like sermons to write and trustee's meetings to attend. I merely agree to its general philosophy.

Naw! Really? You like the "idea" but you haven't a clue as to how to implement a solution to the alleged problem, but you would like to proceed anyways? And then of course, we have you dodging pathetically claiming you're "too busy" to even consider the issue in any depth.

"Fairness" is that a broadcast station like Air America has every chance to find financial backing, put out their message, and try to create an ongoing revenue stream in order to create a sustainable business. As far as I know, they are still trying to create that sustainable business. And guess what? Anyone else can try to do the same thing. That's FAIR! Some will succeed, others will fail - such is life.

[retiredman]

Naw! Really? You like the "idea" but you haven't a clue as to how to implement a solution to the alleged problem, but you would like to proceed anyways? And then of course, we have you dodging pathetically claiming you're "too busy" to even consider the issue in any depth.

"Fairness" is that a broadcast station like Air America has every chance to find financial backing, put out their message, and try to create an ongoing revenue stream in order to create a sustainable business. As far as I know, they are still trying to create that sustainable business. And guess what? Anyone else can try to do the same thing. That's FAIR! Some will succeed, others will fail - such is life.


that is your definition of fairness. You need to realize that other folks have different ones.

[CockySOB]

that is your definition of fairness. You need to realize that other folks have different ones.

Yeah, some people believe that "fair" means that they are entitled to have everything their neighbor has without having to work for it. We generally refer to these as "Democrats."

[retiredman]

Yeah, some people believe that "fair" means that they are entitled to have everything their neighbor has without having to work for it. We generally refer to these as "Democrats."
flatulent rhetoric. got anything else?

[stephanie]

The Democrats idea of fair...is to FORCE IT ON PEOPLE..

they are some scary people.

[retiredman]

Boo!

[CockySOB]

The Democrats idea of fair...is to FORCE IT ON PEOPLE..

they are some scary people.

Liberalism is totalitarianism with a face. Right now, that face is Obama, and the totalitarianism is coming right behind him.

[theHawk]

of course I give a fuck about fairness, that is why I said I support the basic principle of the fairness doctrine. I have no idea how it will be implemented nor am I all that interested in it. As I said, I have more pressing issues in my life.

Where is the "fairness" in all the other media? Where is it in the New York Times?

[theHawk]

Liberalism is totalitarianism with a face. Right now, that face is Obama, and the totalitarianism is coming right behind him.

Yup, hence my avatar. :laugh2:

[No1tovote4]

Will this make it so I have to listen to Country Music on my Heavy Metal station? Radio stations cater to a target audience, it is not their fault that the lefties keep putting crap on the air on their station. Instead of learning and running a good radio station they once again attempt to drag others down.

[DragonStryk72]

flatulent rhetoric. got anything else?

Well, if you would respond to the non-rhetoric posts, then you would have a more interesting debate, now wouldn't you? Mine still goes unanswered, and if you aren't willing to debate, why are you STILL posting to this topic?

[No1tovote4]

Seriously, this is what comes from people who try to regulate before understanding can even attempt to come into play. Radio stations target specific audiences, this is equal to making Heavy Metal stations play soft Jazz in an equal measure just because you don't like the success of the station.

Also, when See BS "News" comes on the air with another made up piece of crap I don't hear calls for "equal time".

[MtnBiker]

This just in;

The junior democrat senator from Illinois Barrack Obama is still not in support of "The Fairness Doctrine". This development will continue to be updated as new polling infromation is revealed about the issue that would prompt a change in the canidate.