Fairness Doctrine Vote Not Happening, House Majority Leader Says

[stephanie]

Joe and Gw would be very happy probably, "IF and WHEN" this were to be reinstated again.

Thursday, July 31, 2008
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer




House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)On the Spot (CNSNews.com) - A bill to permanently ban the “Fairness Doctrine” – a dormant FCC rule that says broadcasters, mainly talk radio, must grant equal air time to opposing viewpoints – probably will not be voted on this year in Congress, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Wednesday.

Hoyer also joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in strongly suggesting that he would support reactivating the Fairness Doctrine, telling CNSNews.com that he is interested in “ensuring the availability of fair and balanced information to the American public.”

read the rest and comments..
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33347

[red states rule]

This must be the Dems present to Rush on his 20th anniversary
:laugh2:


So with all the other issues Dems should be addressing, they waste time on this and saying they are sorry for slavery

[avatar4321]

This must be the Dems present to Rush on his 20th anniversary
:laugh2:


So with all the other issues Dems should be addressing, they waste time on this and saying they are sorry for slavery

hardly. They know they will lose the vote so they are hoping to push it off till when they think they will have enough to win.

[red states rule]

hardly. They know they will lose the vote so they are hoping to push it off till when they think they will have enough to win.

Much like the off shore drilling bill

[Little-Acorn]

At first I thought this "Fairness Doctrine" sounded okay... as long as it was enforced on ALL media: TV shows, newspapers, magazines, and all the rest, as well as talk radio. Every time Brian Williams or some other fake "journalist" asked, "Well, Congressman, why haven't you done anything to help people out with their mortgages, and what are your plans to do so in the future?", they would have to bring someone on to also ask, "Well, Congressmen, why are you planning to give benefits to people who screwed up their finances so badly they're being foreclosed on, while the people who exercised a little discipline, bought smaller homes, scrimped and saved and did it right to make sure they could afford the payments (and haven't missed one yet), get punished by having to pay the bills of the ones who didn't shoulder that responsibility? And by the way, could you point out the passage in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to intrude into this matter at all?"

EVERY time. That would be a lot of times. I can see it now.

Of course, that's not what the leftists pushing the bill, had in mind at all. They only wanted it enforced on talk radio (the only venue where conservatives dominate), while letting all the other forms of media (where their fellow leftists dominate almost exclusively) continue without any "balancing" at all.

But then I started thinking about what it would take for the government to actually implement this so-called "Fairness Doctrine", even in the genuinely "balanced" way I described above. The government would have to start monitoring ALL media outlets (TV, radio, newpapers, etc.), checking each story that ANYBODY published to determine which presented liberal viewpoints and which were conservative, and then make laws and regulations to control them accordingly.

I absolutely don't want government to have that power. Not no way, not no how. Freedom of the Press doesn't only mean that government can't stop you from printing (or broadcasting) a certain viewpoint. It also means that the govt can't force you to print or broadcast a certain viewpoint. Freedom of the press is a FREEDOM, and any government intrusion is antithetical to it.

Even though implementing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" the way I just described, would be a huge boon to conservatives, I see it as an overall net loss, and a BIG one. Such a thing should never see the light of day, and should be voted down unanimously if it ever comes up.

[Silver]

Well, get ready......the Fascists are on your doorstep, and the MSM is convincing voters hes the new messiah....

they are gonna tell you how to cook and how to eat..no transfats, etc.

they are gonna tell you what to smoke...no tobacco, only weed

they are gonna tell you to pay reparations to A. Americans, even if they came to the US yesterday...

they are gonna harrass McDonalds and KFC, Walmart and GM, and Mobil and BP, etc.---then complain when they move overseas...

they are gonna tax to top 20% in order to bribe the other 80% into an unbeatable voting block....so eventually 100% of us will have nothing....

they are gonna make the concept of US citizenship a useless claim....

You're gonna love 'em.....

[red states rule]

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/looney600.jpg

[retiredman]

after november, we'll have the votes to pass this.

all things come to those who wait.

[red states rule]

after november, we'll have the votes to pass this.

all things come to those who wait.

Another example of liberals supporting only liberal free speech. To libs like MFM. if you can't beat them in the ratings - silence them

[retiredman]

Another example of liberals supporting only liberal free speech. To libs like MFM. if you can't beat them in the ratings - silence them

I am all for equal access to the public airways for all points of view.

Why the hell aren't YOU?

[red states rule]

I am all for equal access to the public airways for all points of view.

Why the hell aren't YOU?

We have that now. Liberal talk radio is a failure because people choose NOT to listen to it

Liberal talk radio is a ratings disaster, and they lose money for the stations

So your answer is to FORCE stations to carry liberal taks shows

[retiredman]

We have that now. Liberal talk radio is a failure because people choose NOT to listen to it

Liberal talk radio is a ratings disaster, and they lose money for the stations

So your answer is to FORCE stations to carry liberal taks shows

my answer is equal access to the public airwaves for all political points of view. period.

[red states rule]

my answer is equal access to the public airwaves for all political points of view. period.

We have that right now. You got your wish

[retiredman]

We have that right now. You got your wish
and the legislation will ensure that it is maintained and enriched.

Damn..it must SUCK to be a republican these days!:lol:

[red states rule]

and the legislation will ensure that it is maintained and enriched.

Damn..it must SUCK to be a republican these days!:lol:

Why pass legislation for something that already exists?

You want this so conservatives will be silenced and no different POV's will be aired against your party

[retiredman]

Why pass legislation for something that already exists?

You want this so conservatives will be silenced and no different POV's will be aired against your party

to the victor goes the spoils, eh RSR?


like I said, it must SUCK to be a republican these days. I can only imagine how terrible it must feel to know that you have pissed in your whiskey.

[red states rule]

to the victor goes the spoils, eh RSR?


like I said, it must SUCK to be a republican these days. I can only imagine how terrible it must feel to know that you have pissed in your whiskey.

As usual all you are doing is huffing and puiffing and showing your arrogance - much like your messiah

That is why the polls are closing. Liberal arrogance is showing through and it is turning off voters

This is the #1 reason why you want Dems to regulate speech in the media

http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/14630.JPG

[retiredman]

time will tell. YOU still have time to take back your reneging on our bet:

$500 if democrats win the white house and increase their seats in both houses of congress.

you welched on it once....if I am only huffing and puffing, put your fucking money where your mouth is and make the bet with me. Loser pays the winner $500 and the winner gets to spend the winnings whatever what he choses.

game? or are you all hat and no cattle?

[red states rule]

time will tell. YOU still have time to take back your reneging on our bet:

$500 if democrats win the white house and increase their seats in both houses of congress.

you welched on it once....if I am only huffing and puffing, put your fucking money where your mouth is and make the bet with me. Loser pays the winner $500 and the winner gets to spend the winnings whatever what he choses.

game? or are you all hat and no cattle?

Changing the subject once again when the facts go against you

Same old same old

[retiredman]

Changing the subject once again when the facts go against you

Same old same old

a welcher once...a welcher forever, I guess!

[red states rule]

a welcher once...a welcher forever, I guess!

You are doing your best to derail yet another thread

Damn, those pesky facts will do to you everytime

[retiredman]

You are doing your best to derail yet another thread

Damn, those pesky facts will do to you everytime

facts:
(1) if democrats gain seats in both houses in november, they will pass the fairness doctrine.

(2) you have welched on one bet, do you wish to make another similar wager?

[red states rule]

Why can't you admit you want the Dems to silence conservative voices so all the folks will get is glowing praise of the Dems in the liberal media - with NO dissenting voices speaking out?

[retiredman]

Why can't you admit you want the Dems to silence conservative voices so all the folks will get is glowing praise of the Dems in the liberal media - with NO dissenting voices speaking out?

that is not what I want. I want all political points of view to have equal access to the airwaves...and I look forward to the day when a solid democratic majority in both chambers sends the bill to president Obama for him to sign.

[red states rule]

that is not what I want. I want all political points of view to have equal access to the airwaves...and I look forward to the day when a solid democratic majority in both chambers sends the bill to president Obama for him to sign.

We have that now. What you want to pass a law where people are FORCED to listen to liberals and FORCE stations to carry them

Dems can't compete in the fair market where people decide what they watch and listen. It pisses libs like you off that they choose not to listen to liberal programs

[retiredman]

We have that now. What you want to pass a law where people are FORCED to listen to liberals and FORCE stations to carry them

Dems can't compete in the fair market where people decide what they watch and listen. It pisses libs like you off that they choose not to listen to liberal programs

but I thought you just got done saying that I wanted NO dissenting voices speaking out? That could not be further from the truth!:lol:

[red states rule]

but I thought you just got done saying that I wanted NO dissenting voices speaking out? That could not be further from the truth!:lol:

You don't. That is why you want the bill passed

Libs have equal access to the airwaves. They have the major networks and papers in their pocket

Now you want networks like Fox News and conservative talk radio off the air

Where are libs being shut out from getting their message out?

[retiredman]

You don't. That is why you want the bill passed

Libs have equal access to the airwaves. They have the major networks and papers in their pocket

Now you want networks like Fox News and conservative talk radio off the air

Where are libs being shut out from getting their message out?

not true. I want dissenting voices to have equal time. I have never said that I want conservative talk radio off the air.

[red states rule]

not true. I want dissenting voices to have equal time. I have never said that I want conservative talk radio off the air.

Libs have it. Where are libs banned from giving their POV?

Your "Fairness Doctrine" will silence conservative talk radio by forcing stations to carry programming people do not want to listen to

[retiredman]

Libs have it. Where are libs banned from giving their POV?

Your "Fairness Doctrine" will silence conservative talk radio by forcing stations to carry programming people do not want to listen to

no one said they were banned. no one said that conservatives will be banned.

nothing in the bill will "silence conservative talk radio". period.

we'll have equal access.

suck it up.

[stephanie]

How sad is that?? When you have to force your stinking views on people..

typical...... liberals deep down are just little Hitlers.

[red states rule]

no one said they were banned. no one said that conservatives will be banned.

nothing in the bill will "silence conservative talk radio". period.

we'll have equal access.

suck it up.

Try reading s-l-o-w-l-y

Libs now have equal access. Why do we need a law for something that we already have?

You said

that is not what I want. I want all political points of view to have equal access to the airwaves

We have right now

[retiredman]

Try reading s-l-o-w-l-y

Libs now have equal access. Why do we need a law for something that we already have?

You said

that is not what I want. I want all political points of view to have equal access to the airwaves

We have right now

not really. the airwaves are clogged with conservative talk radio. Time to put some opposing points of view before the public. Nowhere have I EVER suggested "silencing conservative talk radio" That is merely flatulent rhetoric from the king of flatulence.

[red states rule]

not really. the airwaves are clogged with conservative talk radio. Time to put some opposing points of view before the public. Nowhere have I EVER suggested "silencing conservative talk radio" That is merely flatulent rhetoric from the king of flatulence.

Radio is based on ratings and revenue

Liberal talk radio is a money loser since nobody wants to listen to them. So you want people to be forced to listen to the,m and stations to be forced to carry them?

Air America is a perfect example

[retiredman]

Radio is based on ratings and revenue

Liberal talk radio is a money loser since nobody wants to listen to them. So you want people to be forced to listen to the,m and stations to be forced to carry them?

Air America is a perfect example

read this s l o w l y:

again...where have I EVER suggesting "silencing conservative talk radio"?

[red states rule]

read this s l o w l y:

again...where have I EVER suggesting "silencing conservative talk radio"?

Your bill would do just that. By forcing stations to carry programming nobody wants to here, the stations will have to ditch the conservatiove shows, change their format, to escape the regulations of the bill

[stephanie]

Your bill would do just that. By forcing stations to carry programming nobody wants to here, the stations will have to ditch the conservatiove shows, change their format, to escape the regulations of the bill

He knows that...
this way he can play all innocent, and say he isn't calling for conservative radio to be shut down..

[red states rule]

He knows that...
this way he can play all innocent, and say he isn't calling for conservative radio to be shut down..

Of courses he does. Like most libs he hates to have anyone speak out against his party and his messiah

Libs are total control freaks

[Mr. P]

not true. I want dissenting voices to have equal time. I have never said that I want conservative talk radio off the air.

They get it IF they buy it, funded by advertising of course. So far not enough on the left buy into these left shows and so they have failed. This doctrine is no more than a forced opinion on a free market. Use "public airways" argument all ya want...IMO there is no such thing.

[red states rule]

They get it IF they buy it, funded by advertising of course. So far not enough on the left buy into these left shows and so they have failed. This doctrine is no more than a forced opinion on a free market. Use "public airways" argument all ya want...IMO there is no such thing.

If a program does not get listeners, the station can't sell ad. If the station can't sell ads they do not make money

All libs want to do is to have total control over the entire media

[retiredman]

If a program does not get listeners, the station can't sell ad. If the station can't sell ads they do not make money

All libs want to do is to have total control over the entire media

total control is never mentioned. As stated, equal access is all that the law requires. why are you so afraid of that?

[stephanie]

total control is never mentioned. As stated, equal access is all that the law requires. why are you so afraid of that?

why are you afraid of the way things are now?

[red states rule]

total control is never mentioned. As stated, equal access is all that the law requires. why are you so afraid of that?

I am opposed to the bill because libs want to FORCE stations to carry liberal talk shows, and FORCE people to listen to them

Seem you support choice only when you agree with the choice people make

[retiredman]

I am opposed to the bill because libs want to FORCE stations to carry liberal talk shows, and FORCE people to listen to them

Seem you support choice only when you agree with the choice people make

how can anyone force anyone else to listen to anything? that is ridiculous. Do you not know how to change stations on your radio????

[Mr. P]

total control is never mentioned. As stated, equal access is all that the law requires. why are you so afraid of that?

They HAVE EQUAL ACCESS NOW. Problem is no one listens.

[red states rule]

how can anyone force anyone else to listen to anything? that is ridiculous. Do you not know how to change stations on your radio????

Your bill would force people and stations to carry liberal shows. By forcing stations to carry programming nobody wants to here, the stations will have to ditch the conservatiove shows, change their format, to escape the regulations of the bill

If a program does not get listeners, the station can't sell ad. If the station can't sell ads they do not make money

If you do not like the conservative talk radio - tune to NPR or another liberal show

It works both ways when it comes to turning the dial

[stephanie]

how can anyone force anyone else to listen to anything? that is ridiculous. Do you not know how to change stations on your radio????

don't you?? you little hitler..that you have to wish for the Fairness doctrine to be reinstated..

[red states rule]

don't you?? you little hitler..that you have to wish for the Fairness doctrine to be reinstated..

MFM supports only liberal free speech

[Mr. P]

how can anyone force anyone else to listen to anything? that is ridiculous. Do you not know how to change stations on your radio????

How can you force a business owner to offer a product no one wants? That is what's ridiculous.

[emmett]

The fairness Doctrine is absolutely embasilistic. MSM, I mean preacher sir, with the nasty mouth and disrespectful heart....listen for a minute. How shallow can one be to think that restricting talk radio from broadcasting what they "choose" is in any way "Fairness". That is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Even Alan Colmes, probably the biggest lefty on earth, hates the idea. While I certainly agree with very little that he has to broadcast I must say that at least even he sees through the lining of this one.

RSR, why do you waste so much time arguing with this cat. He is obviously a hatemonger who thrives off this stuff. Here I am, a Libertarian who of recent has been completely ignored here on the board for my "radical" views on politics, yet a guy like this can garner such attention with this looney behavior. Beats me!

The Fairness doctrine isn't fair at all. Besides it stands to destroy the stations that lean right because their advertisers are also geared toward their marketplace. You know, folks who earn money and can buy things. This will hurt the incomes of the stations and technically just due to this, is wrong! Never mind the fact that it is a direct restriction of Freedom of Speech to force these stations to air something they do not want to air.

Another thing. The left is so fake, and the followers so shallow. You are being manipulated into believing something that just is not true. Politically left lawmakers don't give a rats ass about you or your lives, just your votes. That's all. Yet you argue, that their platform is the magic answer to all of our problems.

Talk radio is conservative based because of this. Workers listen to it!
Television News is liberally influenced primarily because couch potatoes watch it!

MSM, if you really are a pastor, which I question, I certainly hope your followers never see your writings on here, the distasteful things you say, or your childish behavior. I shutter to think that a child of any kind, anybody's, would ever be influenced by you at any time. It sickens me to think of it. You are a disgrace sir, to yourself, your family and your country. You are a coward in every sense of the word. The kind who runs in battle.

Furthermore........SCREW YOU!

[red states rule]

How can you force a business owner to offer a product no one wants? That is what's ridiculous.

When it is for the ""common good" and "fairness"

[retiredman]

don't you?? you little hitler..that you have to wish for the Fairness doctrine to be reinstated..

I certainly do know how to change the stations. I think that too much of the airwaves are clogged with conservative opinions...it is time for equal time....that is all...no silencing of the conservatives...merely equal time. why are you all so afraid of that?:laugh2:

[Yurt]

why would anyone advocate the government controlling what is put on the airwaves...why should the market not decide? why should a station be forced to play something that is not marketable...is the government going to compensate the station for "taking" of profits?

i find the notion disturbing and it is a stake through the heart of the 1st amendment.

[red states rule]

why would anyone advocate the government controlling what is put on the airwaves...why should the market not decide? why should a station be forced to play something that is not marketable...is the government going to compensate the station for "taking" of profits?

i find the notion disturbing and it is a stake through the heart of the 1st amendment.

The market has decided, and the left does not like the decision. If libs can't win in the free market, they will have the government take over the market

[Yurt]

The fairness Doctrine is absolutely embasilistic. MSM, I mean preacher sir, with the nasty mouth and disrespectful heart....listen for a minute. How shallow can one be to think that restricting talk radio from broadcasting what they "choose" is in any way "Fairness". That is an oxymoron if ever there was one.

Even Alan Colmes, probably the biggest lefty on earth, hates the idea. While I certainly agree with very little that he has to broadcast I must say that at least even he sees through the lining of this one.

RSR, why do you waste so much time arguing with this cat. He is obviously a hatemonger who thrives off this stuff. Here I am, a Libertarian who of recent has been completely ignored here on the board for my "radical" views on politics, yet a guy like this can garner such attention with this looney behavior. Beats me!

The Fairness doctrine isn't fair at all. Besides it stands to destroy the stations that lean right because their advertisers are also geared toward their marketplace. You know, folks who earn money and can buy things. This will hurt the incomes of the stations and technically just due to this, is wrong! Never mind the fact that it is a direct restriction of Freedom of Speech to force these stations to air something they do not want to air.

Another thing. The left is so fake, and the followers so shallow. You are being manipulated into believing something that just is not true. Politically left lawmakers don't give a rats ass about you or your lives, just your votes. That's all. Yet you argue, that their platform is the magic answer to all of our problems.

Talk radio is conservative based because of this. Workers listen to it!
Television News is liberally influenced primarily because couch potatoes watch it!

MSM, if you really are a pastor, which I question, I certainly hope your followers never see your writings on here, the distasteful things you say, or your childish behavior. I shutter to think that a child of any kind, anybody's, would ever be influenced by you at any time. It sickens me to think of it. You are a disgrace sir, to yourself, your family and your country. You are a coward in every sense of the word. The kind who runs in battle.

Furthermore........SCREW YOU!

excellent post...

[retiredman]

why would anyone advocate the government controlling what is put on the airwaves...why should the market not decide? why should a station be forced to play something that is not marketable...is the government going to compensate the station for "taking" of profits?

i find the notion disturbing and it is a stake through the heart of the 1st amendment.

I must say that I find your "findings" of no value. I.E. I could give a shit. The government has regulated the airwaves since their inception. This is just another way. Don't like it? vote for republicans who will vote against the act....if you lose, be a man and suck it up.

[red states rule]

I must say that I find your "findings" of no value. I.E. I could give a shit. The government has regulated the airwaves since their inception. This is just another way. Don't like it? vote for republicans who will vote against the act....if you lose, be a man and suck it up.

So now you support the government regulating politcial speech on the radio. What is next? Government regulating speech on the internet?

[retiredman]

So now you support the government regulating politcial speech on the radio. What is next? Government regulating speech on the internet?


I have no idea what is "next". The political process will decide that like it has always done.

Either get used to it or fucking MOVE. It really is that simple.

[Yurt]

I must say that I find your "findings" of no value. I.E. I could give a shit. The government has regulated the airwaves since their inception. This is just another way. Don't like it? vote for republicans who will vote against the act....if you lose, be a man and suck it up.

? are you drunk....

this violates the first amendment, yet you support it. not surprising..and if you don't give a shit, don't respond. got it big boy.

[Yurt]

I have no idea what is "next". The political process will decide that like it has always done.

Either get used to it or fucking MOVE. It really is that simple.

you seem to hate this administration so much and seem to hate many on this board, why don''t you follow your own advice...

[retiredman]

? are you drunk....

this violates the first amendment, yet you support it. not surprising..and if you don't give a shit, don't respond. got it big boy.

I disagree that it violates the first amendment.

[red states rule]

I have no idea what is "next". The political process will decide that like it has always done.

Either get used to it or fucking MOVE. It really is that simple.

Is this the liberal tolerance and open discussion of the issues we always hear about

Thank you for showing how you really do want to silence opposing POV's

[Mr. P]

I certainly do know how to change the stations. I think that too much of the airwaves are clogged with conservative opinions...it is time for equal time....that is all...no silencing of the conservatives...merely equal time. why are you all so afraid of that?:laugh2:

I don't think anyone is "afraid" of that. It's more that it will be forced on a free market capitalist republic. Would it suite you if the reading of the Qur'an was mandatory before the 6 o'clock news every night?

[stephanie]

I have no idea what is "next". The political process will decide that like it has always done.

Either get used to it or fucking MOVE. It really is that simple.


You aren't a little Hitler..

You and your Democrat idols....are HITLER REINCARNATES..Scary.

[actsnoblemartin]

Radio stations and television stations should decide what content they air and dont air, NOT the government.

Its funny how I hear democrats talking about legislating fairness, but i dont hear about them fighting to bring the fairness doctrine into colleges, where liberalism wont tolerate any other view

Maineman, if you want the fairness doctrine, convince us, why a government beauracrat, who is gonna have his own biases should get to tell anyone what to do, im listening

[red states rule]

You aren't a little Hitler..

You and your Democrat idols....are HITLER REINCARNATES..Scary.

MFM and his beloved Dems are taking a page out the Hugo Chavez book. Shut down any radio and TV station that opposes them

[emmett]

Radio stations and television stations should decide what content they air and dont air, NOT the government.

Its funny how I hear democrats talking about legislating fairness, but i dont hear about them fighting to bring the fairness doctrine into colleges, where liberalism wont tolerate any other view

Maineman, if you want the fairness doctrine, convince us, why a government beauracrat, who is gonna have his own biases should get to tell anyone what to do, im listening

Good point Martin.

[Yurt]

I disagree that it violates the first amendment.

does it cause someone to not have the freedom to air a message they want? e.g., radio show wants a conservative show, sports show, music, whatnot, but the government says, no, you must air this instead. how is that not taking away the right to free speech and how is that not violating the 1st amendment by discriminating against the speech based on content. political speech is protected by they highest scrutiny available...if a station wants to air conservative talk shows 24/7, that is their right. not yours to trample on.

[Yurt]

Radio stations and television stations should decide what content they air and dont air, NOT the government.

Its funny how I hear democrats talking about legislating fairness, but i dont hear about them fighting to bring the fairness doctrine into colleges, where liberalism wont tolerate any other view
Maineman, if you want the fairness doctrine, convince us, why a government beauracrat, who is gonna have his own biases should get to tell anyone what to do, im listening

absolutely...in law school conservative students were actually publically demeaned in some classes. sick.

[retiredman]

does it cause someone to not have the freedom to air a message they want? e.g., radio show wants a conservative show, sports show, music, whatnot, but the government says, no, you must air this instead. how is that not taking away the right to free speech and how is that not violating the 1st amendment by discriminating against the speech based on content. political speech is protected by they highest scrutiny available...if a station wants to air conservative talk shows 24/7, that is their right. not yours to trample on.

as long as there is equal access to the airwaveS.

[Mr. P]

Say Goodyear sells most tires...I say, emmett should not repo and car/truck with Goodyear tires cuz it ain't fair! Plus the butt-head won't contact me! :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

what does that even mean?

do you realize the internet, blogs, and podcasts, allow people more then ever to aspouse any point of view

How are you going to ensure equal access to the airwaves.

Lets say, im being serious. Youre the president.

You have a democratic congress, and senate.

How would you implement equal access, and fairness.

and have you heard of the law of un-intend consequences.

im asking these in all seriousness, and would genuinly like to know your answer sir.


as long as there is equal access to the airwaveS.

[red states rule]

as long as there is equal access to the airwaveS.

We have that now

You are pissed because liberal fail in the area of talk radio, and can't compete with people like Rush and Sean

[Shadow]

not really. the airwaves are clogged with conservative talk radio. Time to put some opposing points of view before the public. Nowhere have I EVER suggested "silencing conservative talk radio" That is merely flatulent rhetoric from the king of flatulence.

There are liberal talk radio shows. Alan Colmes has one for example...point is,the liberals don't want to support them by tuning in,or they would. To claim there are no opposing points of view available in the medium is absolutely untrue. Why don't you lefties just tune into your own radio talk shows and support them via ad space,then there would be no problem...right.

Wrong. Liberals don't just want equal time, they want to shut down the industry because they can't compete in it honestly.

[stephanie]

We have that now

You are pissed because liberal fail in the area of talk radio, and can't compete with people like Rush and Sean

Of course he is.....have you ever SEEN and LISTENED to Randi Rhodes??

A total disgrace to the women gender. and then they have Al Franken and then they have???????


AND we all know........... liberalism is a mental disorder..:cheers2:

[red states rule]

There are liberal talk radio shows. Alan Colmes has one for example...point is,the liberals don't want to support them by tuning in,or they would. To claim there are no opposing points of view available in the medium is absolutely untrue. Why don't you lefties just tune into your own radio talk shows and support them via ad space,then there would be no problem...right.

Wrong. Liberals don't just want equal time, they want to shut down the industry because they can't compete in it honestly.

There is also Dead Air America (which went bankrupt) and Sgt Ed Schultz. There are liberal talks show hosts out there. They are not as successful as most conservatiove hosts, and that is what is pissing libs like MFM off

[retiredman]

There are liberal talk radio shows. Alan Colmes has one for example...point is,the liberals don't want to support them by tuning in,or they would. To claim there are no opposing points of view available in the medium is absolutely untrue. Why don't you lefties just tune into your own radio talk shows and support them via ad space,then there would be no problem...right.

Wrong. Liberals don't just want equal time, they want to shut down the industry because they can't compete in it honestly.

there is nothing about equal time that would "shut down" conservative talk radio. that is merely flatulent rhetoric. period.

[red states rule]

Of course he is.....have you ever SEEN and LISTENED to Randi Rhodes??

A total disgrace to the women gender..but then of course, she IS A LIBERAL..

AND we all know........... liberalism is a mental disorder..:cheers2:

She was fired for breaking a rule at Dead Air America

She spoke out against a fellow liberal - Hillary

[red states rule]

there is nothing about equal time that would "shut down" conservative talk radio. that is merely flatulent rhetoric. period.

So when stations are forced to carry liberal shows, and the ad revenue drops. The station will have to drop conservative shows to avoid carrying programming thei listeners do not want to here

That is the real purpose behind this bill

[actsnoblemartin]

randi rhodes is certified insane, but I think we can all agree as long as she doesnt break the law, let her say whatever she wants.

and liberals, conservatives, independents, and libertarians, can decide if they wanna listen, rather then being forced like kindergartners to hear things, they are not interested in.

Every time, a song on the radio comes on that we dont like, we change the channel

should every radio station, have to play every type of music, to be FAIR?

the world is not fair, people are raped, killed and much more every day, and somr worry about the content of a radio station?

Go feed the homeless, play board games for charity (its on meetup.com), tutor children, volunteer to care for animals or the elderly or people with disabilies, arent those more important?

Is every news story on every tv station, going to have a professional state approved government beauracrat give the news?, hey he or she can give both sides, and save money right?, and what next?, if we dont watch, we get sent to the gulags, sounds like a slippery slope to me if i ever heard of one


Of course he is.....have you ever SEEN and LISTENED to Randi Rhodes??

A total disgrace to the women gender..but then of course, she IS A LIBERAL..

AND we all know........... liberalism is a mental disorder..:cheers2:

[retiredman]

So when stations are forced to carry liberal shows, and the ad revenue drops. The station will have to drop conservative shows to avoid carrying programming thei listeners do not want to here

That is the real purpose behind this bill

are you suggesting they will drop their biggest revenue producers altogether because some of the shows they carry do not produce as much revenue as others? Clearly, you have ZERO understanding of how business works.

but again, that is no surprise.

[red states rule]

randi rhodes is certified insane, but I think we can all agree as long as she doesnt break the law, let her say whatever she wants.

and liberals, conservatives, independents, and libertarians, can decide if they wanna listen, rather then being forced like kindergartners to hear things, they are not interested in.

Every time, a song on the radio comes on that we dont like, we change the channel

should every radio station, have to play every type of music, to be FAIR?

the world is not fair, people are raped, killed and much more every day, and somr worry about the content of a radio station?

those are backwords priorities to me.


When libs like MFM change the channel he only wants to hear his side, and opinions he agrees with

[red states rule]

are you suggesting they will drop their biggest revenue producers altogether because some of the shows they carry do not produce as much revenue as others? Clearly, you have ZERO understanding of how business works.

but again, that is no surprise.

Yes they will. They will have to drop something to make room for the liberal shows, and when people turn off the station because they do not want to listen to leftie, the station will lose money and ratings

They will have no chocice but to change their format so they will not be under the rules of the fairness doctrine

YOU are the one who does not understand how business works. You want the government to decide what programming radio stations have to carry

[actsnoblemartin]

so the listener really doesnt get to decide anything.

the line up is set by the government, you essentially have state run tv, the content might not be as flagrantly pro government, but the government will run it, is that what you want?




there is nothing about equal time that would "shut down" conservative talk radio. that is merely flatulent rhetoric. period.

[red states rule]

so the listener really doesnt get to decide anything.

the line up is set by the government, you essentially have state run tv, the content might not be as flagrantly pro government, but the government will run it, is that what you want?

In MFM world, that is what he call "fairness"

[actsnoblemartin]

lets call it by its proper name, the government control doctrine

its not about fairness, you really think their gonna go over to cnn and say, hey wolfie, and a.c., you need a conservative on your show :laugh2:

my point is, you cant have a FREE market, if the government is CONTROLLING IT.

the only thing the government should regulate is: NO monopolies, and keep the market competitive, and free as well as free of fraud and corruption.

i.e. no enron bullcrap.

thats it

[red states rule]

lets call it by its proper name, the government control doctrine

its not about fairness, you really think their gonna go over to cnn and say, hey wolfie, and a.c., you need a conservative on your show :laugh2:

But Martin, it is for the "common good"; and while we are at it - it is also for the children :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Joe and Gw would be very happy probably, "IF and WHEN" this were to be reinstated again.

Thursday, July 31, 2008
By Josiah Ryan, Staff Writer




House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)On the Spot (CNSNews.com) - A bill to permanently ban the “Fairness Doctrine” – a dormant FCC rule that says broadcasters, mainly talk radio, must grant equal air time to opposing viewpoints – probably will not be voted on this year in Congress, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Wednesday.

Hoyer also joined House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in strongly suggesting that he would support reactivating the Fairness Doctrine, telling CNSNews.com that he is interested in “ensuring the availability of fair and balanced information to the American public.”

read the rest and comments..
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=33347

something i just thought as i read this...people have a plethora of media in which to get their info these days...internet, tv, newspapoer...it is ignorance to say that the airwaves must be regulated to ensure the availability of fair and balanced information to the american public.

[actsnoblemartin]

it is important to note, it is NOT because they were liberals, its because, they were anti-american, and not entertaining.

You can be a democrat, like toby keith, for example, love your country, disagree on things, within your party, and with republicans, and be entertaining

all air america was, was we hate bush, we hate bush, we hate bush

america is bad, america is bad

see talk radio, has different personalities

in san diego

I can listen to dennis praguer, michael medved, glenn beck, michael savage, rick roberts, bill o'reilly and many others, and i know that even liberals listen to their shows, because, they are entertaining, thought provoking, they let people who dont agree with them call in, and if their rational, they can have a conversation with them.

But, they are not right wing zealots, they criticize bush, they criticize republicans, they discuss interesting things, and while you may disagree, they dont demean america, and they do let liberals have a chance, especially when theyre rational.


There is also Dead Air America (which went bankrupt) and Sgt Ed Schultz. There are liberal talks show hosts out there. They are not as successful as most conservatiove hosts, and that is what is pissing libs like MFM off

[Shadow]

there is nothing about equal time that would "shut down" conservative talk radio. that is merely flatulent rhetoric. period.


Point is no one is keeping liberals from having equal time on the Air. They just don't want to support the liberal hosts that are already on the stations. Why is that? Is it because then you would have to spend your own time and money on it? I mean Liberals keep whining for equal representation and all. Why don't you and all of your buddies just get off your duff and buy ad space and support the shows? The more support they get the more demand for liberal POV's....correct. Why does it have to be pushed thru congress and forced on the people? I think you are just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

[actsnoblemartin]

But Martin, it is for the "common good"; and while we are at it - it is also for the children :laugh2:

:laugh2:

[retiredman]

Yes they will. They will have to drop something to make room for the liberal shows, and when people turn off the station because they do not want to listen to leftie, the station will lose money and ratings

They will have no chocice but to change their format so they will not be under the rules of the fairness doctrine

YOU are the one who does not understand how business works. You want the government to decide what programming radio stations have to carry
they will not cancel their money makers...that makes ZERO sense.

[actsnoblemartin]

I think your not understanding something.

the radio station, if it believed an all liberal format would bring in the most revenue , would put on all liberal talk shows.

if you put in the government control act, you twist the radio stations arm, which will cause an audience drop off, less advertisers, less money

they make money, from each shows ad revenue, not just one, its like a basketball team, you put your best players out there, not the weaker players out of fairness


are you suggesting they will drop their biggest revenue producers altogether because some of the shows they carry do not produce as much revenue as others? Clearly, you have ZERO understanding of how business works.

but again, that is no surprise.

[actsnoblemartin]

but the radio station is the coach, if the government interferes, they are like jerry jones, or al davis telling the coach what to do, and that not only creates a distraction, it dissolves team unity, and in this case, ad revenue, and worker morale

the government is not the coach, the government doesnt pay the salary, the government should back off.

now, should radio and tv, be deregulated, so rubert murdoch can buy everything, and we have tv stations owning newspapers, NO!.

that was a huge mistake.

monopolies destroy free markets

and i fully grant you it was the republican congress of i believe it happened in 98, that they said, who needs any regulation, let 5% own everything, and now we have a mess.

There is a problem, but not with content, with monopolies


they will not cancel their money makers...that makes ZERO sense.

[retiredman]

I think your not understanding something.

the radio station, if it believed an all liberal format would bring in the most revenue , would put on all liberal talk shows.

if you put in the government control act, you twist the radio stations arm, which will cause an audience drop off, less advertisers, less money

they make money, from each shows ad revenue, not just one, its like a basketball team, you put your best players out there, not the weaker players out of fairness


but alas... you forget that the government does indeed control the airwaves. sorry

[actsnoblemartin]

no need to apologize, this isnt a competition.

I dont care if im wrong or look stupid, and this isnt personal to me, if you can be wrong, ill be the first to apologize and say youre right.

I know the airwaves supposedly belong to us, the consumers

and how do they control them?

I'd like to know specifically

because last i checked, they regulate them they dont control them


but alas... you forget that the government does indeed control the airwaves. sorry

[Yurt]

but alas... you forget that the government does indeed control the airwaves. sorry

and the tv and internet...your point is irrelevant to the topic of tramplign on the first amendment...you want government to force propaganda on people, you want governmnet to force people to play liberal speech...

and the "control" is more for regulation than controlling political speech content

[Shadow]

they will not cancel their money makers...that makes ZERO sense.

So why won't you and your liberal buddies support your own shows. You know,put your money where your mouth is?

[stephanie]

and the tv and internet...your point is irrelevant to the topic of tramplign on the first amendment...you want government to force propaganda on people, you want governmnet to force people to play liberal speech...

and the "control" is more for regulation than controlling political speech content

He is part of the Democrat party..he has no problem in wanting to FORCE his and his parties lame ass views on others..

other then that, we all just sit around and laugh and make jokes about it...

[actsnoblemartin]

should we really force television stations to have conservative television programs, for example for every desperate house wives you force im sorry fairness doctrinate the tv studio to make a 7th heaven and if its not popular to bad?

youre gonna make katie couric, have an anchor that has a conservative view point, your finally gonna have a 2nd conservative on the view :laugh2:

lets legislate everything so that not just liberal and conservative, but jewish, christian, muslim, gay, nazi view point, socialist view point, american indepedent view point, green view point, reform view point

after all, we want fairness right?

:lol:

[actsnoblemartin]

He is part of the Democrat party..he has no problem in wanting to FORCE his and his parties lame ass views on others..

that's pretty much the only way, "REAL PEOPLE" will listen to it..other then that, we all just sit around and laugh and make jokes about it...

I feel almost sorry for blue dog democrats, who cant stand the stupid left wing move on idiots.

because, could you imagine, its not like airhead anti america didnt have time, to study what works in conservative talk radio

air america barely had callers

they made my ranting look pitiful, they were a 24 hour/7 day a week diatribe with 3 callers a show

how a bout a glen beck type on their station, a michael savage type, and different views within the democratic party

not just one michael savage on steroids?

[emmett]

You must spread some rep around before you can award any more good points of Stephanie's. It wouldn't be fair to only award the folks who make the most good points, so we have to spread it around. Affirmative Action at work again.

[actsnoblemartin]

I give rep to people who make good posts, regardless of political affiliation, i dont need the government or anyone else, to tell me to be fair. and i dont have to be fair, but i think its the right/moral thing to do.

being partisan is not being truthful i.m.h.o.

you agree with people you disagree with sometimes, and they should not be punished for not bowing down to your beliefs, but rewarded for being smart, with a pos rep

so ill rep them, and i think thats how it should work but i wont force others to do as i do. It's everyone INDIVIDUAL right and choice to be as nice as or as big a dick as they want to others with reps :)

:dance:


You must spread some rep around before you can award any more good points of Stephanie's. It wouldn't be fair to only award the folks who make the most good points, so we have to spread it around. Affirmative Action at work again.

[actsnoblemartin]

fairness doctrine, more white athletes in all sports, less latinos in baseball, and more blacks in baseball

everything must be fair, 50-50

tell that to my ex bosses, to be fair they should of paid me double what my salary was

and im mad at god, i should have been 6'4 not 5'8

:laugh2:

now if the government banned opinions, or restricted them like colleges did, then that would be wrong.


You must spread some rep around before you can award any more good points of Stephanie's. It wouldn't be fair to only award the folks who make the most good points, so we have to spread it around. Affirmative Action at work again.

[actsnoblemartin]

Liberals must think that every conservative agrees with every point that is made on conservative talk radio.

that is insulting, we all agree and disagree

[Shadow]

Liberals must think that every conservative agrees with every point that is made on conservative talk radio.

that is insulting, we all agree and disagree

I have listened to both Rush and Sean Hannity before. Both men get many liberal callers who discuss things rationally and at the same time don't share the same views as the hosts (Rush more so than Sean....Sean definately likes the sound of his own bloviating most times,but he does discuss things with the libs on air) The success of Rush and Hannity is due to folks from all sides participating in the show (without being forced BTW). The Liberals just don't get it apparently.

[actsnoblemartin]

Thanks you, I dont listen to sean or rush enough to really know the information you have shared.

Im more a glen beck fan :)


I have listened to both Rush and Sean Hannity before. Both men get many liberal callers who discuss things rationally and at the same time don't share the same views as the hosts (Rush more so than Sean....Sean definately likes the sound of his own bloviating most times,but he does discuss things with the libs on air) The sucess of Rush and Hannity is due to folks from all sides participating in the show (without being forced BTW). The Liberals just don't get it apparently.

[Shadow]

Thanks you, I dont listen to sean or rush enough to really know the information you have shared.

Im more a glen beck fan :)

I really like Glenn Beck,more so his radio show than TV show. I think the funniest thing EVER was when he was impersonating Kieth Olberman regarding one of his many on air meltdown's from MSNBC's Countdown. Fun Times!

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with you on that, He seems less inhibited on the radio and more funny.

but i still like the tv show too


I really like Glenn Beck,more so his radio show than TV show. I think the funniest thing EVER was when he was impersonating Kieth Olberman regarding one of his many on air meltdown's from MSNBC's Countdown. Fun Times!

[DragonStryk72]

I disagree that it violates the first amendment.

Have you ever tuned into Rush Limbaugh expecting to here anything other than rhetoric? I'm confused, because that's why I skip the show myself.

And how does this violate free speech? A law that would limit free exercise of of what is said on the media in such a way that it would entirely negate the aim of the show does not, in you view, effect Free Speech? Exactly what would it take for you to notice a problem with the first amendment?

[red states rule]

Have you ever tuned into Rush Limbaugh expecting to here anything other than rhetoric? I'm confused, because that's why I skip the show myself.

And how does this violate free speech? A law that would limit free exercise of of what is said on the media in such a way that it would entirely negate the aim of the show does not, in you view, effect Free Speech? Exactly what would it take for you to notice a problem with the first amendment?

Like most libs. MFM ONLY supports liberal free speech. Since liberal sppech is a bomb in the free market of radio, he has no problem with the Dems regulating that speech

[Yurt]

don't they realize by crying about this that people see how desperate the dems are...i mean they have to force their message on people in order for them to listen

i think someone in this thread said - well you don't have to listen or you can change the channel....then who cares, if no one is going to listen, why force it...you had your chance with air america, bye bye

[red states rule]

don't they realize by crying about this that people see how desperate the dems are...i mean they have to force their message on people in order for them to listen

i think someone in this thread said - well you don't have to listen or you can change the channel....then who cares, if no one is going to listen, why force it...you had your chance with air america, bye bye

Libs have this obsession over talk radio and Fox News. It does not matter libs have about 98% of the media in their hip pocket - it is that remaining 2% that they want to control

Since the liberal cable news networks trail way behind Fox News in the ratings, and ditto in radio - the only option libs have is to shut them down and silence them

[theHawk]

my answer is equal access to the public airwaves for all political points of view. period.

And just who in the government determines what constitutes an "opposing viewpoint"? How would it be enforced? If the government forces a conservative radio station to put liberals on what time slots do they get? Are they forced to take up the prime spots? Then when the ratings drop off the business loses revenue, and may even go out of business. But thats the real point isn't it? To put the conservatives out of business, to shut them up. Liberals have absolutely no success in radio, so now we are going to institute a welfare program to put liberals on successful conservative stations and time slots?

[stephanie]

working middle class Americans, which happens to be the majority of people, don't want to hear the (Liberal Democrat Socialist) views..because they don't agree with them.

that's why the Democrat losers want to force it on them..

Pretty pathetic..

[red states rule]

working middle class Americans, which happens to be the majority of people, don't want to hear the (Liberal Democrat Socialist) views..because they don't agree with them.

that's why the Democrat losers want to force it on them..

Pretty pathetic..

No wonder libs love people like Casto and Chavez. They learn so much from them

[MtnBiker]

Will the Fairness Doctrine be reinacted? I doubt it. It is an antiquated law, written at a time when most people gathered their information through local print and radio. Since then numerous technologies have emerged and people are able to gather infromation from a multiple of sources. The notion that conservative perpectives have a dominate presence in the arena of information sources is absurd.

Alright so the Fairness Doctrine would apply to public airwaves. Ok, radio station perform on a profit motive (well except for NPR). Program directors will put programs on air that are profitable. If liberal talk shows are profitable they will be on air. There are certianly liberal talk shows in many markets that do quite well, the point being, liberal talk shows already have equal access to the airwaves. Right now freedom of choice and free market forces decide what is on radio. The Fairness Doctrine would put the government in control of what programming is acceptable. Of course this would be accomplished through mountains of regulator oversight with potential costly fines and compliance. Such complaince would go both ways, not just to radio stations that currently have conservative show but for radio stations that have liberal shows as well. In essence it would put a strangle hold on radio stations. Radio stations would soon abandon any talk shows and change the format, rendering radio to the dismal exsistance it had before talk radio.

So I guess Congress could go ahead and kill a profitable and sucessfull segment of the US economy and watch a.m. radio die. But not to worry all that would need to be done is any talkshow that is not currently on satellite radio could go ahead and jump over to satellite radio and tell the Congress to go fuck themselves.

[avatar4321]

after november, we'll have the votes to pass this.

all things come to those who wait.

You know I'm not very surprised that you oppose free speech.

[avatar4321]

I am all for equal access to the public airways for all points of view.

Why the hell aren't YOU?

People have equal access to the public airways. The listeners just dont like your point of view.

[red states rule]

You know I'm not very surprised that you oppose free speech.

He only opposes conservative speech

Liberal speech can go on unchecked with no regulation

[avatar4321]

facts:
(1) if democrats gain seats in both houses in november, they will pass the fairness doctrine.

(2) you have welched on one bet, do you wish to make another similar wager?

And the Fairness doctrine is designed to end free speech by forcing radio stations to play programming that people dont want to listen to. And you know that.

Congress shall enact no law restricting freedom of speech or the press. And it disgusts me that you would support Congress doing exactly that.

[avatar4321]

that is not what I want. I want all political points of view to have equal access to the airwaves...and I look forward to the day when a solid democratic majority in both chambers sends the bill to president Obama for him to sign.

They have equal access to the airwaves now. People dont want to listen to them. They have control of every media outlet outside AM radio. Where are your viewpoints not being shown?

[avatar4321]

not true. I want dissenting voices to have equal time. I have never said that I want conservative talk radio off the air.

Which is exactly why you are going to fine the shows for putting on conservative talk radio because liberals can't succeed in the market.

[avatar4321]

read this s l o w l y:

again...where have I EVER suggesting "silencing conservative talk radio"?

Every time you support the "Fairness Doctrine" because that's exactly what it's designed to do.

It's amazing that so many people will just look at the name of the legislation and stupidly believe that Congress has a noble goal in making anything fair instead of actually looking at the consequences of the legislation.

If Congress passed a statute called The Fairness and Justice act, you'd blindly support it even if it called for the systematic round up and murder of minorities. It's disgusting. I am so tired of you people glossing shallowly over every legislation while completely ignoring what it actually does.

[avatar4321]

total control is never mentioned. As stated, equal access is all that the law requires. why are you so afraid of that?

Everyone has equal access now. Why are you trying to fix a problem that doesnt exist with a tactic that is designed to shut down a point of view you don't like?

[avatar4321]

I certainly do know how to change the stations. I think that too much of the airwaves are clogged with conservative opinions...it is time for equal time....that is all...no silencing of the conservatives...merely equal time. why are you all so afraid of that?:laugh2:

Turn on the TV you'll find liberal viewpoints. Turn on NPR you'll find liberal viewpoints. Open a damn newspaper and youll find liberal viewpoints.

Conservative radio is equal time. And you hate the fact that your viewpoint doesnt have a monopoly anymore. And you hate the fact that when faced with a choice, people dont like your viewpoints.

[avatar4321]

I disagree that it violates the first amendment.

What's difficult to understand about it?

Congress is passing a law.

The law regulates both speech and the media.

It's not that difficult to understand.

[retiredman]

Turn on the TV you'll find liberal viewpoints. Turn on NPR you'll find liberal viewpoints. Open a damn newspaper and youll find liberal viewpoints.

Conservative radio is equal time. And you hate the fact that your viewpoint doesnt have a monopoly anymore. And you hate the fact that when faced with a choice, people dont like your viewpoints.

if the people don't like the democratic viewpoints, why are democrats trusted over republicans on nearly all the key issues facing our country?

[retiredman]

What's difficult to understand about it?

Congress is passing a law.

The law regulates both speech and the media.

It's not that difficult to understand.


the FCC has regulated broadcast media for decades and there has not been a constitutional issue. I don't see how anyone is regulating speech or preventing anyone from speaking in this fairness doctrine. It merely requires equal access to all viewpoints. It silences no one.

[avatar4321]

there is nothing about equal time that would "shut down" conservative talk radio. that is merely flatulent rhetoric. period.

I know you live in a fantasy world where actions don't create consequences and everything the government says its going to fix is fixed by what they do. But we live in the real world. And in the real world, when you force distributers to carry programming nobody wants to listen, they are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The Fairness doctrine is designed specifically to make conservative talk so expensive that the carriers won't carry them. We know this as a fact because this is exactly what happened when the Fairness doctrine was enacted prior to the 1980s. This is why Radio was going bankrupt.

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you are just completely ignorant of all this. But knowing you, i think you are just being dishonest.

[avatar4321]

if the people don't like the democratic viewpoints, why are democrats trusted over republicans on nearly all the key issues facing our country?

If the American people support your point of view on all issues, then how the hell is your message not getting out?

[avatar4321]

the FCC has regulated broadcast media for decades and there has not been a constitutional issue. I don't see how anyone is regulating speech or preventing anyone from speaking in this fairness doctrine. It merely requires equal access to all viewpoints. It silences no one.

Funny. Then why did I have to read all those cases in Constitutional Law on the subject?

[Kathianne]

Quite agree with Avatar. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt by the left to get talk radio off the air. With the abject failure of the well funded Air America, they realize they cannot compete, so they want to shut it down.

To a large degree, the failure of liberal talk radio is reflected in the Obama campaign, humorless.

MFM mentions the FCC, there is a world of difference between making rules for common decency, (7 words, Janet Jackson), requiring all public broadcasters to be outlets during emergencies, and what the Fairness Doctrine would do.

[retiredman]

Quite agree with Avatar. The Fairness Doctrine is an attempt by the left to get talk radio off the air. With the abject failure of the well funded Air America, they realize they cannot compete, so they want to shut it down.

To a large degree, the failure of liberal talk radio is reflected in the Obama campaign, humorless.

MFM mentions the FCC, there is a world of difference between making rules for common decency, (7 words, Janet Jackson), requiring all public broadcasters to be outlets during emergencies, and what the Fairness Doctrine would do.
a world of difference" or shades of difference?

Why is regulating what people can say on public airwaves NOT a violation of the first amendment, but requiring radio stations who make money on publicly owned and regulated airwaves to present equal access to dissenting views somehow a violation?

[retiredman]

Funny. Then why did I have to read all those cases in Constitutional Law on the subject?

Has the FCC's regulation of the public airwaves been determined to be in violation of the First Amendment already?

[red states rule]

a world of difference" or shades of difference?

Why is regulating what people can say on public airwaves NOT a violation of the first amendment, but requiring radio stations who make money on publicly owned and regulated airwaves to present equal access to dissenting views somehow a violation?

Once again, libs DO HAVE EQUAL ACCESS

What you are pissed over, people CHOOSE NOT TO LISTEN TO THEM

So you want to FORCE them to listen to them

[Kathianne]

a world of difference" or shades of difference?

Why is regulating what people can say on public airwaves NOT a violation of the first amendment, but requiring radio stations who make money on publicly owned and regulated airwaves to present equal access to dissenting views somehow a violation?

One could argue, which is what the FCC does, that they are enforcing minimum community standards, the threshold called for my SCOTUS regarding pornography. I tend to agree, it probably is a violation of the first amendment. However, the Fairness Doctrine exceeds even this.

[retiredman]

One could argue, which is what the FCC does, that they are enforcing minimum community standards, the threshold called for my SCOTUS regarding pornography. I tend to agree, it probably is a violation of the first amendment. However, the Fairness Doctrine exceeds even this.

in degree only, and those sorts of issues are best solved by the political process. If the political process moves too far, the courts will bring them back.

[red states rule]

in degree only, and those sorts of issues are best solved by the political process. If the political process moves too far, the courts will bring them back.

not with the liberal Judges the Dems will pack the court with

Bottom line, you support conservative sppech being snuffed out by the government

[MtnBiker]

Barry doesn't even support the Fairness Doctrine, however he is the canidate of change so he is likely to change his mind on this issue as well.


Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine
There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable,

There may be some Democrats talking about reimposing the Fairness Doctrine, but one very important one does not: presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama.


The Illinois senator’s top aide said the issue continues to be used as a distraction from more pressing media business.

"Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters," press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.



http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html

[red states rule]

Barry doesn't even support the Fairness Doctrine, however he is the canidate of change so he is likely to change his mind on this issue as well.



http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6573406.html

I am sure the messiah will refine his position on this issue as well

[retiredman]

not with the liberal Judges the Dems will pack the court with

Bottom line, you support conservative sppech being snuffed out by the government


I have never even suggested that I support conservative speech being snuffed out by the government.

[Kathianne]

I have never even suggested that I support conservative speech being snuffed out by the government.

Sure you do, with your support of the Fairness Doctrine. Don't be coy, you don't do it well.

[retiredman]

Sure you do, with your support of the Fairness Doctrine. Don't be coy, you don't do it well.

I think that the right's cries about the fairness doctrine SNUFFING OUT conservative speech are melodramatic rhetoric. sorry. I am not being coy, I am just being honest.

[Kathianne]

I think that the right's cries about the fairness doctrine SNUFFING OUT conservative speech are melodramatic rhetoric. sorry. I am not being coy, I am just being honest.

Can't be more melodramatic than the claim that somehow the fairness doctrine is to right the silencing of the left. I do coy better.

[retiredman]

Can't be more melodramatic than the claim that somehow the fairness doctrine is to right the silencing of the left. I do coy better.


I have never said that the left was "silenced" by radio.

[red states rule]

I have never said that the left was "silenced" by radio.

No, you want people to be forced to listen to the left, even if they do not want to

[retiredman]

No, you want people to be forced to listen to the left, even if they do not want to

not at all. that's why radios have tuning dials and on/off buttons. people should never be forced to listen to anything and I have never avocated otherwise.

[MtnBiker]

Perhaps the government should apply the fairness doctrine to public roadways and regulate commercial trucking companies to spend an equal amount of time on public roads.

[retiredman]

Perhaps the government should apply the fairness doctrine to public roadways and regulate commercial trucking companies to spend an equal amount of time on public roads.

I was unaware that commercial trucking companies spent a lot of time on private roads.
do tell.

[MtnBiker]

I was unaware that commercial trucking companies spent a lot of time on private roads.
do tell.

Tell what, where did I mention anything about private roads?

[red states rule]

not at all. that's why radios have tuning dials and on/off buttons. people should never be forced to listen to anything and I have never avocated otherwise.

Then why the hell are Dems and you whining about talk radio? Listeners decide who makes it in radio - nobody else

[retiredman]

Then why the hell are Dems and you whining about talk radio? Listeners decide who makes it in radio - nobody else


I have never whined about talk radio. I understand the concept of providing equal access to all viewpoints. Now... tell me again how anyone is FORCED to listen to something that they do not want to listen to? How exactly does that work, or are you admitting that such a statement was yet another in your endless stream of Rush oneliners regurgitated without any independent thought put into it?

[actsnoblemartin]

they will have to do the same for the internet, blogs, message boards, etc, radio talk shows even npr, and all tv stations, including television shows, and news shows


I have never whined about talk radio. I understand the concept of providing equal access to all viewpoints. Now... tell me again how anyone is FORCED to listen to something that they do not want to listen to? How exactly does that work, or are you admitting that such a statement was yet another in your endless stream of Rush oneliners regurgitated without any independent thought put into it?

[retiredman]

they will have to do the same for the internet, blogs, message boards, etc, radio talk shows even npr, and all tv stations, including television shows, and news shows

I think the issue is the publicly owned airwaves.

[Immanuel]

Now... tell me again how anyone is FORCED to listen to something that they do not want to listen to? How exactly does that work, or are you admitting that such a statement was yet another in your endless stream of Rush oneliners regurgitated without any independent thought put into it?

If I want to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show... and believe me, I don't... but if I did, and his show is constantly being interrupted (because of the Fairness Doctrine) by the likes of Randi Rhodes who I dislike even more than Michael Savage, then I am being forced to listen to Randi's diatribe of hate because it is ridiculous to expect me to change the channel every five minutes in order to give Randi her 5 minutes of hate speach.

Immie

[retiredman]

If I want to listen to the Rush Limbaugh show... and believe me, I don't... but if I did, and his show is constantly being interrupted (because of the Fairness Doctrine) by the likes of Randi Rhodes who I dislike even more than Michael Savage, then I am being forced to listen to Randi's diatribe of hate because it is ridiculous to expect me to change the channel every five minutes in order to give Randi her 5 minutes of hate speach.

Immie

I am not certain, but I am almost positive that that is not how the fairness doctrine would be implemented. Randi would have her show on at some time and Rush would have his show on at some other time or on some other station.

[red states rule]

I think the issue is the publicly owned airwaves.

The issue is libs imposing their will on the masses, and deciding what can and can't be said when it comes to political speech

[retiredman]

The issue is libs imposing their will on the masses, and deciding what can and can't be said when it comes to political speech

yawn

[actsnoblemartin]

I think the issue is the publicly owned airwaves.

correct me if im wrong but doesnt the public own the air waves that the television and internets use, or only radio

im curious

[Immanuel]

I am not certain, but I am almost positive that that is not how the fairness doctrine would be implemented. Randi would have her show on at some time and Rush would have his show on at some other time or on some other station.

Well... my dear and precious Rush's time would be cut in half so that Randi could preach her hatred!

When I used to listen to the hate that came out of the likes of Rush and Sean, I also tried to listen to people like Randi. Rush has his station. Randi has hers and it should remain that way.

The choice should belong to the broadcast company, not Nancy Pelosi.

Immie

[Kathianne]

I am not certain, but I am almost positive that that is not how the fairness doctrine would be implemented. Randi would have her show on at some time and Rush would have his show on at some other time or on some other station.

Even if no one is listening to Randi? There's the problem. We have a capitalistic economic system.

[MtnBiker]

correct me if im wrong but doesnt the public own the air waves that the television and internets use, or only radio

im curious

Oh, what air wave frequencies are used to soley transmit internet signals?

There are so many signals available for radio transmittion, in order to broadcast a radio signal a station must have a lisence from the government to do so, because there is a limited amount of signals they are regulated by the FCC. The same would be true of broadcast television show, but not for cable tv or satellite radio.

[Little-Acorn]

At first I thought this "Fairness Doctrine" sounded okay... as long as it was enforced on ALL media: TV shows, newspapers, magazines, and all the rest, as well as talk radio. Every time Brian Williams or some other fake "journalist" asked, "Well, Congressman, why haven't you done anything to help people out with their mortgages, and what are your plans to do so in the future?", they would have to bring someone on to also ask, "Well, Congressmen, why are you planning to give benefits to people who screwed up their finances so badly they're being foreclosed on, while the people who exercised a little discipline, bought smaller homes, scrimped and saved and did it right to make sure they could afford the payments (and haven't missed one yet), get punished by having to pay the bills of the ones who didn't shoulder that responsibility? And by the way, could you point out the passage in the Constitution that authorizes Congress to intrude into this matter at all?"

EVERY time. That would be a lot of times. I can see it now.

Of course, that's not what the leftists pushing the bill, had in mind at all. They only wanted it enforced on talk radio (the only venue where conservatives dominate), while letting all the other forms of media (where their fellow leftists dominate almost exclusively) continue without any "balancing" at all.

But then I started thinking about what it would take for the government to actually implement this so-called "Fairness Doctrine", even in the genuinely "balanced" way I described above. The government would have to start monitoring ALL media outlets (TV, radio, newpapers, etc.), checking each story that ANYBODY published to determine which presented liberal viewpoints and which were conservative, and then make laws and regulations to control them accordingly.

I absolutely don't want government to have that power. Not no way, not no how. Freedom of the Press doesn't only mean that government can't stop you from printing (or broadcasting) a certain viewpoint. It also means that the govt can't force you to print or broadcast a certain viewpoint. Freedom of the press is a FREEDOM, and any government intrusion is antithetical to it.

Even though implementing the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" the way I just described, would be a huge boon to conservatives, I see it as an overall net loss, and a BIG one. Such a thing should never see the light of day, and should be voted down unanimously if it ever comes up.

[actsnoblemartin]

thank you for clarifying that for me, i like to learn something new every day


Oh, what air wave frequencies are used to soley transmit internet signals?

There are so many signals available for radio transmittion, in order to broadcast a radio signal a station must have a lisence from the government to do so, because there is a limited amount of signals they are regulated by the FCC. The same would be true of broadcast television show, but not for cable tv or satellite radio.

[red states rule]

More on how Dems want to trash political speech


Wexler Begs for Help in Fight Against 'Ultra-Conservative Radio and Television Hosts'
By Jeff Poor (Bio | Archive)
August 1, 2008 - 15:44 ET

Rep. Robert Wexler is getting desperate.

After several media outlets discovered the Democratic congressman from Florida uses his in-laws' house in a Florida retirement community to meet residency requirements, he has sent out an e-mail (entire text here) asking for campaign donations - alleging it's his "strong and vocal stands in favor of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Cheney" that has made him a target of "ultra-conservative" media.

"In the eyes of the right wing, I am seen, along with Rep. Kucinich, as one of the symbols of the impeachment fight. They believe that if they defeat me - they defeat our cause," Wexler wrote. "For the last week, I've been relentlessly targeted by ultra-conservative radio and television hosts, as well as my local media. It has taken a toll. Now more than ever, I need your support to help me stay in Congress to represent your voice in Washington."

What does Wexler want? He is asking for donations to his re-election campaign.

Wexler has been actively promoting his book, "Fire-Breathing Liberal: How I Learned to Survive (and Thrive) in the Contact Sport of Congress," but has been less than willing to address the residency concerns raised by a political opponent he is facing in the upcoming fall election, Republican Ed Lynch.

The coverage of Wexler's residency issues has been absent from three major networks, even though he was featured on CBS's "The Early Show" on June 2 to tout Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama.

Wexler has also been a regular guest on various MSNBC and CNN shows, including a July 24 appearance on MSNBC's "Hardball," where he was "waxed" by Rep. Heather Wilson, R-N.M., as my Newsbusters colleague Mark Finkelstein pointed out in a recent post.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-flbwexler0726sbjul26,0,4215307.story

[retiredman]

correct me if im wrong but doesnt the public own the air waves that the television and internets use, or only radio

im curious

theUS government does not own the internet

[red states rule]

theUS government does not own the internet

Give the Dems time and the government will

[retiredman]

Perhaps the government should apply the fairness doctrine to public roadways and regulate commercial trucking companies to spend an equal amount of time on public roads.


an equal amount of time on public roads.... what would that time be equated with, if not time spent on some sort of road other than public?

[MtnBiker]

For the sake of fairness, no trucking company could spend no more hours with their fleet on public roads as any other trucking company, despite one trucking company having a much higher market demand.

[Shadow]

I am not certain, but I am almost positive that that is not how the fairness doctrine would be implemented. Randi would have her show on at some time and Rush would have his show on at some other time or on some other station.


You do realize that this is how it works right now....don't you.

[Yurt]

but it must be fair that obama gets far more media coverage than mccain...the dems are silent on that...

its only fair if you are forced to listen to liberal propaganda...big brother is watching

http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/Chris%20Weston%20Big%20Brother%20Hey%20Oscar.jpg

YOU WILL LISTEN TO LIBERAL RADIO

[Yurt]

btw, the fairness doctrine is not about equal time...it is merely about presenting opposing viewpoints...

in reading about its history and judicial history, it is quite clear the supreme court is leery about this act. because it chills speech and dampens the rights of the first amendment.

[retiredman]

but it must be fair that obama gets far more media coverage than mccain...the dems are silent on that...

its only fair if you are forced to listen to liberal propaganda...big brother is watching



please explain how anyone will be FORCED to listen to liberal propaganda. Will the fairness doctrine mandate that you turn your radio ON to a specific station and set the volume at some prescribed level?

[stephanie]

Nobody wants to listen to the screeching of a Randi Rhodes, or the lunatic rantings of a Al Franken, so the Democrats thinks it's only fair, that they force the radio stations to carry them..

Just how pathetic is that..

[emmett]

Rush on Air America. That would be a disaster because they would probably start to turn a profit.

[Silver]

please explain how anyone will be FORCED to listen to liberal propaganda. Will the fairness doctrine mandate that you turn your radio ON to a specific station and set the volume at some prescribed level?

Thats about the way it will work....
Equal access ... ala Joseph Goebbels....

Ve don't care vhat you vant.....
You vill listen to left wing propaganda half the time, or you vill listen to nothing....it vill be the law.....ve know vatts best for you.....danka...

[Immanuel]

Rush on Air America. That would be a disaster because they would probably start to turn a profit.

I suppose what would happen would be that Air America would hire a "conservative" like John McCain to present his... er, their "conservative" point of view.

Of course, I'm sure the conservative stations could try the same thing.

Question: Who gets to decide who's opposing views gets to be presented? The broadcast company or anyone and everyone who disagrees with the talk radio host? Does anyone realize what kind of frigging nightmare that is going to bring about? Just think, if Rush speaks about liberal corruption by Barney Frank and mentions his homosexuality then there would be at least two additional sides to the story and for every hour Rush speaks we would have to listen to an hour of liberal Democrats and an hour of homosexuals presenting their sides of the issue. Rush speaks on Nancy Pelosi's favoritism to the lesbians and abortion clinics... we get one hour of Rush, one hour of Democrats defending Nancy Pelosi, one hour of gay/lesbian activist telling us that they are discriminated against by people like Rush Limbaugh and one hour of NOW telling us that the conservatives are trying to get into private bedrooms again.

THIS IS GOING TO BE A FRIGGING NIGHTMARE!!!! Especially for the guy who has to schedule this BS.

Immie

[Yurt]

please explain how anyone will be FORCED to listen to liberal propaganda. Will the fairness doctrine mandate that you turn your radio ON to a specific station and set the volume at some prescribed level?

it is a message FORCED on the airwaves, period. if you don't care if people listen, they why do you care if its on? you think no one at the radio station has to monitor what is on the air? someone will be FORCED to listen to it against their will. since your liberal talk show failed, you want o FORCE people to listen to your liberal views...MSM not enough, universities not enough, you want it all

it is not about equal time as you have suggested...you should read up on the propaganda act and how the supreme court is against it...because it chills speech and puts a damper on the first amendment

[retiredman]

it is a message FORCED on the airwaves, period. if you don't care if people listen, they why do you care if its on? you think no one at the radio station has to monitor what is on the air? someone will be FORCED to listen to it against their will. since your liberal talk show failed, you want o FORCE people to listen to your liberal views...MSM not enough, universities not enough, you want it all

it is not about equal time as you have suggested...you should read up on the propaganda act and how the supreme court is against it...because it chills speech and puts a damper on the first amendment
again...you still haven't shown me how anyone will be FORCED to listen to something against their will. I'll wait.

[Yurt]

do try and read....


radio station has to monitor what is on the air? someone will be FORCED to listen to it against their will

further, if something else would have been on the air, that freedom has been taken away...you are forcing people to change the channel, to listen to something they would not have ordinarily listened to. you want to force your opinion down people's throat, period. if the show is on the air and the person makes a statement, odds are the news wires will pick up on it and we will be forced to listen to what they said. goebbels would be proud of you.

do you support forcing CNN to have o'reilly on their channel? you still refuse to address the unconstitutionality of the act...i bet you didn't even read up how the supreme court views it....i wonder why.

[retiredman]

do try and read....



further, if something else would have been on the air, that freedom has been taken away...you are forcing people to change the channel, to listen to something they would not have ordinarily listened to. you want to force your opinion down people's throat, period. if the show is on the air and the person makes a statement, odds are the news wires will pick up on it and we will be forced to listen to what they said. goebbels would be proud of you.

do you support forcing CNN to have o'reilly on their channel? you still refuse to address the unconstitutionality of the act...i bet you didn't even read up how the supreme court views it....i wonder why.


not forced in the least. If your employer told you you had to represent a convicted child molester and he wanted you to do so wearing a clown suit in court, would you do so? Of course not.

No one is forced to listen to anything against their will.

and I did read up on the supreme court rulings on the issue...I know that they upheld in in '69 and then, in '84 suggested that they might revisit it if it turned out that the doctrine did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech." I don't think that the doctrine does that. I think it enhances speech by letting all sides be heard.

and... O'Leilly already HAS a channel.

[Yurt]

not forced in the least. If your employer told you you had to represent a convicted child molester and he wanted you to do so wearing a clown suit in court, would you do so? Of course not.

No one is forced to listen to anything against their will.

and I did read up on the supreme court rulings on the issue...I know that they upheld in in '69 and then, in '84 suggested that they might revisit it if it turned out that the doctrine did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech." I don't think that the doctrine does that. I think it enhances speech by letting all sides be heard.

and... O'Leilly already HAS a channel.

bad analogy...i choose to work for someone, the radio station did not choose to play liberal talk...and did not choose to have their employee listen to liberal talk, they were FORCED to listen to liberal talk...

no, if you read the court's rulings, they do not like the act, they are clear that it dampens free speech and the conveyance of ideas and that i chill's the speech.

oh, so because o'reilly has a channel....GREAT...air america has a channel, so you argument is null and void :clap: bravo for coming to this realization mfm...we don't need the act, liberal talk has/had a station and can still have a station, no one is stopping them....oh wait, except the people don't want to listen it.

now really sit back and think about what you just said about o'reilly...

[retiredman]

bad analogy...i choose to work for someone, the radio station did not choose to play liberal talk...and did not choose to have their employee listen to liberal talk, they were FORCED to listen to liberal talk...

no, if you read the court's rulings, they do not like the act, they are clear that it dampens free speech and the conveyance of ideas and that i chill's the speech.

oh, so because o'reilly has a channel....GREAT...air america has a channel, so you argument is null and void :clap: bravo for coming to this realization mfm...we don't need the act, liberal talk has/had a station and can still have a station, no one is stopping them....oh wait, except the people don't want to listen it.

now really sit back and think about what you just said about o'reilly...


again....no one in America, not in captivity, can ever be FORCED t listen to anything against their will.

I read the court's rulings...in '69 and in '84. They were clear that they might reconsider if the rule did in fact have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

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.

[emmett]

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

Why do we need the fairness doctrine? Answer that question and you will answer your own question. It's elementary.

People who listen to propaganda radio, which it ALL is, don't want to hear opposing points of view. It's that simple. How you guys need a thousand posts on a thread to work it out is beyond me.

If Rush "the pillpopper" Limbaugh had to live in an enviornment truely affected by poverty and be an active part of solving the problem instead of bloviating about it, he would see things differently. If Randi Rhodes was pulled over on the interstate and searched for no reason, she would change her opinion. We are all products of the culture we have the most exposure to. Everything else is a guess, at best.

Frankly I like talk radio but I don't try to read more into it than it already reads. We don't need a fairness doctrine, it's stupid. All it will accomplish is forcing folks to tune channels around to find the propaganda they want to listen to. Besides, anyone whose opinion could possibly be changed by listening to a bunch of bloviating fat guys and loud mouth bitches are just too shallow to matter anyway. There is not one single point that Rush, Sean, Bob or Randi can make that will influence a single thing I think. I'm a Libertarian and cannot be that easily fooled such as elephants and asses.

What a redundant arguement!

[Yurt]

bad analogy...i choose to work for someone, the radio station did not choose to play liberal talk...and did not choose to have their employee listen to liberal talk, they were FORCED to listen to liberal talk...

no, if you read the court's rulings, they do not like the act, they are clear that it dampens free speech and the conveyance of ideas and that i chill's the speech.

oh, so because o'reilly has a channel....GREAT...air america has a channel, so you argument is null and void :clap: bravo for coming to this realization mfm...we don't need the act, liberal talk has/had a station and can still have a station, no one is stopping them....oh wait, except the people don't want to listen it.

now really sit back and think about what you just said about o'reilly...

you didn't listen or address a word i said except for your wrongly held belief regarding the SCOTUS....why do you ignore their concerns regarding the chillilhng of speech? why do you ignore the fact that court said that technology has gone beyond radio and the act is no longer necessary?

liberal radio can HAVE a channel/show and DID HAVE a channel/show which they voluntarily shut down. why do you ignore this? no one is stopping liberal radio, no one. why do you ignore this? why is it that becuase o'reilly has a show that you don't feel cnn should be forced to give equal time to conservative voice? why is that the truth is that liberal radio has equal access and time but the fact is that no one cared and no one listened so they voluntarily shut down despite enormous funding. :laugh2:

someone monitoring the station is FORCED to listen to liberal radio...do you actually dispute this or are you going to continuing playing stupid and ignoring the facts

[red states rule]

Why do we need the fairness doctrine? Answer that question and you will answer your own question. It's elementary.

People who listen to propaganda radio, which it ALL is, don't want to hear opposing points of view. It's that simple. How you guys need a thousand posts on a thread to work it out is beyond me.

If Rush "the pillpopper" Limbaugh had to live in an enviornment truely affected by poverty and be an active part of solving the problem instead of bloviating about it, he would see things differently. If Randi Rhodes was pulled over on the interstate and searched for no reason, she would change her opinion. We are all products of the culture we have the most exposure to. Everything else is a guess, at best.

Frankly I like talk radio but I don't try to read more into it than it already reads. We don't need a fairness doctrine, it's stupid. All it will accomplish is forcing folks to tune channels around to find the propaganda they want to listen to. Besides, anyone whose opinion could possibly be changed by listening to a bunch of bloviating fat guys and loud mouth bitches are just too shallow to matter anyway. There is not one single point that Rush, Sean, Bob or Randi can make that will influence a single thing I think. I'm a Libertarian and cannot be that easily fooled such as elephants and asses.

What a redundant arguement!


Eh, Rush and Sean did not come from rich families. Rush was fired about 7 times from different radio jobs, and Sean held different jobs and talks often how he was flat broke many times

Unlike Air America, both worked hard to get sponsors and din not expect people to line up to buy ad time.Nor do they preach wall to wall hate; that is why they are both successful

[retiredman]

you didn't listen or address a word i said except for your wrongly held belief regarding the SCOTUS....why do you ignore their concerns regarding the chillilhng of speech? why do you ignore the fact that court said that technology has gone beyond radio and the act is no longer necessary?

liberal radio can HAVE a channel/show and DID HAVE a channel/show which they voluntarily shut down. why do you ignore this? no one is stopping liberal radio, no one. why do you ignore this? why is it that becuase o'reilly has a show that you don't feel cnn should be forced to give equal time to conservative voice? why is that the truth is that liberal radio has equal access and time but the fact is that no one cared and no one listened so they voluntarily shut down despite enormous funding. :laugh2:

someone monitoring the station is FORCED to listen to liberal radio...do you actually dispute this or are you going to continuing playing stupid and ignoring the facts


no one is forced to listen to libera talk radio against their will. period.

I do not ignore the supreme court's worries about the doctrine.... and if it IS passed and if it IS challenged, and if it DOES make it to the sup[reme court, then we all will see if the court still feels that the effects of the act are chilling to free speech or whether they have opened up the public airwaves to different viewpoints and thus enlivened free speech.

[red states rule]

no one is forced to listen to libera talk radio against their will. period.

I do not ignore the supreme court's worries about the doctrine.... and if it IS passed and if it IS challenged, and if it DOES make it to the sup[reme court, then we all will see if the court still feels that the effects of the act are chilling to free speech or whether they have opened up the public airwaves to different viewpoints and thus enlivened free speech.

Are you missing (or ignoring) you want to FORCE stations to carry liberal programming that people do not want to hear?

[retiredman]

Are you missing (or ignoring) you want to FORCE stations to carry liberal programming that people do not want to hear?


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

if the stations want to utilize the publicly controlled airwaves, they willingly chose to be regulated. nothing new about that.

If the people wanted to listen to folks having sex on the radio, a station owner might want to run such a program, but because he use of the frequency is federally regulated, he can't. regulations are a part of the radio business.

[red states rule]

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

if the stations want to utilize the publicly controlled airwaves, they willingly chose to be regulated. nothing new about that.

People are doing that right now - but you do not like it so you want to force the stations into carrying the programs

Why am I not surprised you would want the government to regulate political speech you disagree with?

[retiredman]

People are doing that right now - but you do not like it so you want to force the stations into carrying the programs

Why am I not surprised you would want the government to regulate political speech you disagree with?

I want the government to regulate access to the airwaves for all political speech.

[red states rule]

I want the government to regulate access to the airwaves for all political speech.

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

[Yurt]

no one is forced to listen to libera talk radio against their will. period.

I do not ignore the supreme court's worries about the doctrine.... and if it IS passed and if it IS challenged, and if it DOES make it to the sup[reme court, then we all will see if the court still feels that the effects of the act are chilling to free speech or whether they have opened up the public airwaves to different viewpoints and thus enlivened free speech.

i chose to work at a conservative station, my job is to monitor conservative radio, my boss only wants to hear conservative radio on the station....we are now forced to play liberal talk <--- how is that not forcing someone against their will to not listen? you think they must quit their jobs or sell the station? what freedom....

and you keep ignoring the o'reilly comment you made....you made a mistake and you know it severely damaged your argument, that is why you ignore it....enjoy the taste of the sand


liberal radio can HAVE a channel/show and DID HAVE a channel/show which they voluntarily shut down. why do you ignore this? no one is stopping liberal radio, no one. why do you ignore this? why is it that becuase o'reilly has a show that you don't feel cnn should be forced to give equal time to conservative voice? why is that the truth is that liberal radio has equal access and time but the fact is that no one cared and no one listened so they voluntarily shut down despite enormous funding.

why do you ignore this....

[Yurt]

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

he will never admit this, the reality hurts his nazi propaganda views...he won't allow o'reilly on cnn because o'reilly has a station...yet liberal talk had a show and channel that they voluntarily shut down....

[retiredman]

i chose to work at a conservative station, my job is to monitor conservative radio, my boss only wants to hear conservative radio on the station....we are now forced to play liberal talk <--- how is that not forcing someone against their will to not listen? you think they must quit their jobs or sell the station? what freedom....

and you keep ignoring the o'reilly comment you made....you made a mistake and you know it severely damaged your argument, that is why you ignore it....enjoy the taste of the sand



why do you ignore this....


and here I thought you chose to work in a law office.

Like I said, regulation of the airwaves has been around for a long time. No one is FORCED to listen to anything against their will. period.

and I disagree that liberal talk radio had sufficient funding. YOu asked me if CNN should be forced to carry O'Liely. My answer was a pragmatic one...O'Liely hasn't asked to be carried by CNN...he has a network with loyal followers who probably wouldn't like him as much on CNN as they do on Faux.

[red states rule]

he will never admit this, the reality hurts his nazi propaganda views...he won't allow o'reilly on cnn because o'reilly has a station...yet liberal talk had a show and channel that they voluntarily shut down....

He is a liberal hack who is willing to see the first amendment trashed so his party can control politcal speech

[Yurt]

and here I thought you chose to work in a law office.

Like I said, regulation of the airwaves has been around for a long time. No one is FORCED to listen to anything against their will. period.

and I disagree that liberal talk radio had sufficient funding. YOu asked me if CNN should be forced to carry O'Liely. My answer was a pragmatic one...O'Liely hasn't asked to be carried by CNN...he has a network with loyal followers who probably wouldn't like him as much on CNN as they do on Faux.

why do you ignore the person who must listen to liberal radio when he wants to play conservative radio?

your answer is not pragmatic at all....you don't support giving conservatives a voice...and it is entirely wrong because liberals CAN have their own channel or show on the radio, no one is stopping them, no one. save you liberals.

air america did not have sufficient funding?? millions were pored in to that show...it is their fault for losing sponsors, no one elses....why do you ignore that they CAN have liberal radio....and in fact, many local towns have liberal radio...Santa Cruz, CA has a local radio station that is uber liberal....thus liberal talk has a show.

you can't get away from the o'reilly comment, deal with it.

[retiredman]

why do you ignore the person who must listen to liberal radio when he wants to play conservative radio?

your answer is not pragmatic at all....you don't support giving conservatives a voice...and it is entirely wrong because liberals CAN have their own channel or show on the radio, no one is stopping them, no one. save you liberals.

air america did not have sufficient funding?? millions were pored in to that show...it is their fault for losing sponsors, no one elses....why do you ignore that they CAN have liberal radio....and in fact, many local towns have liberal radio...Santa Cruz, CA has a local radio station that is uber liberal....thus liberal talk has a show.

you can't get away from the o'reilly comment, deal with it.

no one MUST listen to liberal radio if they do not want to.

I would fully support CNN bringing O'Reilly over to their network. If he wanted to make that switch, I am sure they would welcome him and the viewers he would bring to their network. I know that I would not chose to watch CNN during his timeslot.

Air America did not have enough money to keep operating. I don't know the details of their financial situation and I strongly doubt that you do either.

I fully support the FCC regulating the public airwaves to give equal access to all political points of view.

[MtnBiker]

Which political point of view does not have equal access to public airwaves?

[Yurt]

no one MUST listen to liberal radio if they do not want to.

I would fully support CNN bringing O'Reilly over to their network. If he wanted to make that switch, I am sure they would welcome him and the viewers he would bring to their network. I know that I would not chose to watch CNN during his timeslot.

Air America did not have enough money to keep operating. I don't know the details of their financial situation and I strongly doubt that you do either.

I fully support the FCC regulating the public airwaves to give equal access to all political points of view.

yes, they MUST listen to liberal radio if they are FORCED to play it. period.

air america could not get sponsors....because their liberal talk did not garner listeners. they started with millions in funding. read up on it.

conservative radio and liberal radio both have the same access to radio airwaves. the same. just because more people CHOOSE to listen to conservative radio does not mean there is not equal access.

mfm, why did air america fail? and NPR still exists, so you have liberal talk radio.

[red states rule]

Yurt, I do believe when stations tried to drop Air America due to poor ratings, they sued to force the station to keep them on the air

Sounds like what libs want to do to all talk radio stations

[retiredman]

yes, they MUST listen to liberal radio if they are FORCED to play it. period.

air america could not get sponsors....because their liberal talk did not garner listeners. they started with millions in funding. read up on it.

conservative radio and liberal radio both have the same access to radio airwaves. the same. just because more people CHOOSE to listen to conservative radio does not mean there is not equal access.

mfm, why did air america fail?

no one is forced to play liberal radio on their radios. If owners/employees of radio stations don't chose to abide by the federal regulations, they can find work in other industries.

yurt.... as I said, I do not know the details of the financial situation behind Air America or what the reasons were it did not succeed.

and I doubt that you do either, other than what you have "heard".

[red states rule]

no one is forced to play liberal radio on their radios. If owners/employees of radio stations don't chose to abide by the federal regulations, they can find work in other industries.

Thanks for admitting you do want to shut down conservative POV on the radio

[retiredman]

Thanks for admitting you do want to shut down conservative POV on the radio


I have never said that I wanted to do any such thing.

Can you fucking read????

[red states rule]

I have never said that I wanted to do any such thing.

Can you fucking read????

they can find work in other industries - sounds to me like you want the conservatives to leave the radio business and leave it all to the libs

[retiredman]

they can find work in other industries - sounds to me like you want the conservatives to leave the radio business and leave it all to the libs


it "sounds that way to you" because you are a moron who cannot read.

If a station wants to air the audio portions of adult movies and let listeners hear the sounds of people fucking, I have no problem with the federal government regulating what goes out over the public airwaves and stopping that show and that station. if the owners/employees don't like that regulation, they can find work in other industries.

I have NEVER said that conservatives should leave the radio business. I have never even said anything that remotely resembles such a position.

but the, as I said, you are a moron, so there is no accounting for your lack of intelligence.

[red states rule]

it "sounds that way to you" because you are a moron who cannot read.

If a station wants to air the audio portions of adult movies and let listeners hear the sounds of people fucking, I have no problem with the federal government regulating what goes out over the public airwaves and stopping that show and that station. if the owners/employees don't like that regulation, they can find work in other industries.

I have NEVER said that conservatives should leave the radio business. I have never even said anything that remotely resembles such a position.

but the, as I said, you are a moron, so there is no accounting for your lack of intelligence.

You may not come right out and say it (you will not screw up like you did when you called the troops infidels) but you do support the Dems thrashing the first amendment so your party what politcal speech is spoken on the radio

Power, and now control, is all that matters to you

[emmett]

no one MUST listen to liberal radio if they do not want to.

I would fully support CNN bringing O'Reilly over to their network. If he wanted to make that switch, I am sure they would welcome him and the viewers he would bring to their network. I know that I would not chose to watch CNN during his timeslot.

Air America did not have enough money to keep operating. I don't know the details of their financial situation and I strongly doubt that you do either.

I fully support the FCC regulating the public airwaves to give equal access to all political points of view.

Air America just was not making money. Companies don't go out of business for no reason. Not enough advertising. Ah..................let's see, how do I make this simple enough for this cat to understand?

Ah.......................they weren't making money, companies don't go out of business for no reason.

Ah.......................they weren't making money, companies don't go out of business for no reason.

Ah........................they weren't making money, companies don't go out of business for no reason.

Ah.......................they w................................................. ......

[retiredman]

You may not come right out and say it (you will not screw up like you did when you called the troops infidels) but you do support the Dems thrashing the first amendment so your party what politcal speech is spoken on the radio

Power, and now control, is all that matters to you


I do not supprt anyone thrashing any part of the constitution.... like you thrash Art.VI, for example.

and I did not screw up when I referred to our troops in Iraq as infidels. They ARE infidels to the inhabitants of that nation.

You keep trying to make that out as a slur against our troops and it was not a slur and certainly was not meant as a slur.

[emmett]

I did a funny!

[MtnBiker]

For proponets of the Fairness Doctrine, have they ever stopped to think why am radio was almost extinct in the 1980's? After the Fairness Doctrine was removed am radio flurrished, why is that? hmmmm

Now there are successful conservative and liberal talkshows on am radio, it just so happens that conservative radio is more success the liberal. Shouldn't be a problem there are a multitude of other media sources of liberal view points. But still there are some that believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinacted. Will history be repeated and am radio be on the brink of non exsistance? There is a chance of that.

Still, no worries any conservative talk show that is not currently on satellite radio can go to that format and continue to dominate. Right now on my satellite radio it is about a 75% to 25% ratio of conservative to liberal talkshows. With the fairness doctrine am radio can wither on the vine and satellite radio can increase its audience and revenue by offering more of what listeners want and that is conservative talks shows.

[red states rule]

I do not supprt anyone thrashing any part of the constitution.... like you thrash Art.VI, for example.

and I did not screw up when I referred to our troops in Iraq as infidels. They ARE infidels to the inhabitants of that nation.

You keep trying to make that out as a slur against our troops and it was not a slur and certainly was not meant as a slur.

To you facts are an enemy and the truth is an enemy. No wonder you want the government to regualte political speech

BTW, you did slur the troops. You had a mental lapse and told the truth

[retiredman]

Air America just was not making money. Companies don't go out of business for no reason. Not enough advertising. Ah..................let's see, how do I make this simple enough for this cat to understand?

Ah.......................they weren't making money, companies don't go out of business for no reason.

Ah.......................they weren't making money, companies don't go out of business for no reason.

Ah........................they weren't making money, companies don't go out of business for no reason.

Ah.......................they w................................................. ......

I would not pretend to claim to understand the details behind the failure of any corporation if I were not privy to them. I was unaware of your status as one privy to the details of the demise of Air America. Please explain.

[retiredman]

To you facts are an enemy and the truth is an enemy. No wonder you want the government to regualte political speech

BTW, you did slur the troops. You had a mental lapse and told the truth

blah blah blah.

I did not slur the troops and I did not mean to slur the troops. I am a proud veteran and retiree and I love my country and my country's military. YOU slur veterans all the time who do not share your party's view.

[red states rule]

I would not pretend to claim to understand the details behind the failure of any corporation if I were not privy to them. I was unaware of your status as one privy to the details of the demise of Air America. Please explain.

Dead Air America had everything. They hosts. They had a nice studio. They had staff. They got about 12 front page stories in the NY Times befroe they went on the air

All they were missing were listeners

[red states rule]

blah blah blah.

I did not slur the troops and I did not mean to slur the troops. I am a proud veteran and retiree and I love my country and my country's military. YOU slur veterans all the time who do not share your party's view.

Now you pull out your shield and crutch :laugh2:

[retiredman]

For proponets of the Fairness Doctrine, have they ever stopped to think why am radio was almost extinct in the 1980's? After the Fairness Doctrine was removed am radio flurrish, why is that? hmmmm

Now there are successful conservative and liberal talkshows on am radio, it just so happens that conservative radio is more success the liberal. Shouldn't be a problem there are a multitude of other media sources of liberal view points. But still there are some that believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinacted. Will history be repeated and am radio be on the brink of non exsistance? There is a chance of that.

Still, no worries any conservative talk show that is not currently on satellite radio can go to that format and continue to dominate. Right now on my satellite radio it is about a 75% to 25% ratio of conservative to liberal talkshows. With the fairness doctrine am radio can wither on the vine and satellite radio can increase its audience and revenue by offering more of what listeners want and that is conservative talks shows.

so....you would agree, would you not, that no American will be FORCED to listen to liberal talk radio against their will?

[retiredman]

Now you pull out your shield and crutch

no. I just take umbrage when you continually accuse me of slurring our troops when I did not do so and certainly did not intend for my words to be taken as a slur.

[red states rule]

so....you would agree, would you not, that no American will be FORCED to listen to liberal talk radio against their will?

Only stations would be FORCED to carry liberal programming that nobody wants to listen to

[Yurt]

so....you would agree, would you not, that no American will be FORCED to listen to liberal talk radio against their will?

the station owner and the person who has to monitor/in charge WILL BE FORCED to listen against their will....but for being FORCED to play liberal mumbo jumbo, they would not listen to that. if i tune in thinking it is my conservative channel, i WILL BE FORCED to hear it.

real simple.

[retiredman]

Dead Air America had everything. They hosts. They had a nice studio. They had staff. They got about 12 front page stories in the NY Times befroe they went on the air

All they were missing were listeners

I said:

"I would not pretend to claim to understand the details behind the failure of any corporation if I were not privy to them."

obviously, you would.:laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

so....you would agree, would you not, that no American will be FORCED to listen to liberal talk radio against their will?

it is not a matter of someone being forced to listen to programming, it is a matter of over regulation and forced programming

[retiredman]

the station owner and the person who has to monitor/in charge WILL BE FORCED to listen against their will....but for being FORCED to play liberal mumbo jumbo, they would not listen to that. if i tune in thinking it is my conservative channel, i WILL BE FORCED to hear it.

real simple.


no force used. if you don't know how to change stations on a radio, you probably ought not to turn it on in the first place.


real simple.

[red states rule]

I said:

"I would not pretend to claim to understand the details behind the failure of any corporation if I were not privy to them."

obviously, you would.:laugh2:

and you asked to explain

The failure of Dead Air America is clear. Nobody wanted to listen to their programming

Your answer would be to FORCE stations to carry the programming

[retiredman]

Only stations would be FORCED to carry liberal programming that nobody wants to listen to
I don't think any station would be forced to carry liberal talk programming.

[Yurt]

no one is forced to play liberal radio on their radios. If owners/employees of radio stations don't chose to abide by the federal regulations, they can find work in other industries.

yurt.... as I said, I do not know the details of the financial situation behind Air America or what the reasons were it did not succeed.

and I doubt that you do either, other than what you have "heard".

so if the nazis don't get their propaganda played on the radio, those stations must go elsewhere if they refuse to play nazi propaganda? yeah, that isn't forcing anything....the station owner that refuses to play nazi propaganda will be forced to go elsewhere under mfm's "free" speech reign.

[red states rule]

I don't think any station would be forced to carry liberal talk programming.

BS

The reason libs are for this crap is to force stations to carry their shows. You know it, but won't admit it

[Yurt]

I don't think any station would be forced to carry liberal talk programming.

that is what the act is about....giving the opposing view point, not equal time as you wrongly suggested earlier.

[retiredman]

BS

The reason libs are for this crap is to force stations to carry their shows. You know it, but won't admit it

I stand by my statement.

[retiredman]

so if the nazis don't get their propaganda played on the radio, those stations must go elsewhere if they refuse to play nazi propaganda? yeah, that isn't forcing anything....the station owner that refuses to play nazi propaganda will be forced to go elsewhere under mfm's "free" speech reign.

no one will be forced to listen to liberal talk radio.

radio stations operate under the regulations of the FCC already. this is not new.

[red states rule]

I stand by my statement.

While wearing a blindfold and your fingers in your ears

[MtnBiker]

I would still like to know which political point of view does not have equal access to public airwaves?

[retiredman]

that is what the act is about....giving the opposing view point, not equal time as you wrongly suggested earlier.

I don't believe I used the words "equal time" and if I did, I did so in error. (Which post # was it were I said "equal time", by the way)

Equal access is all the doctrine seeks to establish.

[red states rule]

I would still like to know which political point of view does not have equal access to public airwaves?

Both sides have access. What pisses off libs is the liberal side does have listeners

[retiredman]

I would still like to know which political point of view does not have equal access to public airwaves?

I am not sure that any do not. the fairness doctrine wants to make sure that equal access is established if it's not there, and maintained if it is.

[red states rule]

I am not sure that any do not. the fairness doctrine wants to make sure that equal access is established if it's not there, and maintained if it is.

What a load of bullshit. Libs have access they so not attract listeners, so that is why conservatives have more shows on the radio

You want liberal talk radio, find one of the few stations that still carry Dead Air America or listen to NPR

[Yurt]

I certainly do know how to change the stations. I think that too much of the airwaves are clogged with conservative opinions...it is time for equal time....that is all...no silencing of the conservatives...merely equal time. why are you all so afraid of that?:laugh2:

there is one

and kindly show where any viewpoint does not have equal "access."

[retiredman]

there is one

and kindly show where any viewpoint does not have equal "access."

as I said earlier, I am not entirely convinced that any viewpoint does NOT have equal access.. the fairness doctrine merely seeks to ensure that if any don't that they get it and that the equal access is maintained.

[red states rule]

as I said earlier, I am not entirely convinced that any viewpoint does NOT have equal access.. the fairness doctrine merely seeks to ensure that if any don't that they get it and that the equal access is maintained.

Damn you are so much like your boy Obama

You both are good at saying nothing

[MtnBiker]

I am not sure that any do not. the fairness doctrine wants to make sure that equal access is established if it's not there, and maintained if it is.

So there is no supporting evidence of unequal access to public airwaves?

There are court cases that involve the Fairness Doctrine and its affect on the First Admendment.

Without any supporting evidence of unequal access to public airwaves how will the Fairness Doctrine stand in court?

[retiredman]

So there is no supporting evidence of unequal access to public airwaves?

There are court cases that involve the Fairness Doctrine and its affect on the First Admendment.

Without any supporting evidence of unequal access to public airwaves how will the Fairness Doctrine stand in court?


I didn't say that there was no supporting evidence. I just said that I was not privy to it. I don't know either way. And we'll both just have to wait and see how it fares in court, won't we?

[red states rule]

So there is no supporting evidence of unequal access to public airwaves?

There are court cases that involve the Fairness Doctrine and its affect on the First Admendment.

Without any supporting evidence of unequal access to public airwaves how will the Fairness Doctrine stand in court?

If the libs can pack the court with more Ginsburg's

[MtnBiker]

The liberal proponets of the Fairness Doctrine had better have some evidence of unequal access. Before there is even a vote on the Congressional floor, Clear Channel will have a lawsuit waiting in the wings.

It is my guess that broadcast radio has a very good lobbing group. They will let congress know what a headache this will be for them if they try to act on it.

In all honesty I'm not at all worried about the Fairness Doctrine.

Heck, even the 143 change canidate doesn't support the Fairness Doctrine, well for now anyway.

[Yurt]

no one will be forced to listen to liberal talk radio.

radio stations operate under the regulations of the FCC already. this is not new.

the FCC does not FORCE political viewpoints, that is not their role and you know it

good of you to admit you were wrong about equal time :clap:

[retiredman]

the FCC does not FORCE political viewpoints, that is not their role and you know it

good of you to admit you were wrong about equal time :clap:


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 :pee:

[red states rule]

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

Why am I not surprised you want to regulate polictical speech you diagree with?

[retiredman]

Why am I not surprised you want to regulate polictical speech you diagree with?

I never said that

[Yurt]

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 :pee:

i don't call you a liar all the time, only when you lie, thus there is nothing for me to admit, i have told the truth, every time....stop derailing threads and bringing up your personal hatred for me in nearly every thread....this TWICE in two separate threads on one day... your obsession is disgusting

[avatar4321]

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 :pee:

I understand you think its a good thing. But the rest of us who love and respect the traditions of our great nation don't want the government regulating speech, regardless of whether you think its a good idea or not.