Liberals trying to silence talk radio?

[7960]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Whatever, we already had hotties..

[img]http://www.whoopi-goldberg.net/aniwhoopi.gif

[img]http://jamescampion.com/rosie.jpg
........

thread would be incomplete without these

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Scrum

And for the record, the liberal stations on satellite radio are doing just fine.

Perhaps if the white trash had to pay to have their views handed to them by Rush they would get off welfare and quit pumping out trailer-park babies so they could afford it. (generalizing is fun).

This thread is about Democrats wanting to censor talk radio because it's not FAIR. Waaaa....

This pathetic response is about the best you do because you know it's wrong and you have to say SOMETHING. amirite?

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Then by your logic, we better make sure that the socialists, fascists, rebels, Nazis, Communists, racists, Creationists, sexists, Constitutionalists, pacifists, activists, theocracists, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, neoconservatives, liberals, libertarians, neolibertarians, paleolibertarians, homophobes, homophobophobes, emos, Asians, Mormons, alarmists, cultists, scaremongers, you, me, my neighbor, your neighbor, his neighbor, his neighbor's neighbor, your mamma's baby's sister's uncle's cousin's Jewish friend's dog, Flat Earth Society, radical Christians, radical Muslims, moderately religious folks, Scientologists, biologists, chemists, biochemists, anthropologists, psychologists, reactionaries, progressivists, traditionalists, neurologists, audiophiles, pedophiles, Bush sackriders, Clinton sackriders, militants, Mexicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Albanians, Marxists, Marxians, aristocrats, bourgeoisie, proletariats, Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, artisans, and even the French get equal air time because the government has a responsibility to delegate those frequencies equally to every possible category of people that we can think of because those air waves are a limited resource!

Dayum son

But no. Democrats seem to only want to make sure THEIR message is heard. All the others are nonsense.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by 7960

Who is going to determine if a show is liberal or conservative?
How will it be determined?
Is O'Reilly liberal or conservative .... or something else?
What if he's liberal on one idea but conservative on another...how does that factor in? (huh, I said "factor")
Are you ok with forcing Al Franken to open his show to other opinions? Will he be? Oh that's right, he's off the air


This whole "the govt controls the airwaves so they have the responsibility to make sure both opinions are heard" crap is just that, crap. It's pussyhurt liberals trying to legislate listeners to their ideas. There is nothing preventing them from taking advantage of the "govt controlled airwaves" except a lack of listeners..........maybe they should realize their ideas suck and that's why nobody is listening.

Yeah, I agree. That's why the fairness doctrine is stupid- it's practically impossible to enforce. But the impracticality of the act is why I disagree with it. I'm not necessarily against the principle that the government can or should mandate fairness on public airwaves when it comes to politics.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Then by your logic, we better make sure that the socialists, fascists, rebels, Nazis, Communists, racists, Creationists, sexists, Constitutionalists, pacifists, activists, theocracists, Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, neoconservatives, liberals, libertarians, neolibertarians, paleolibertarians, homophobes, homophobophobes, emos, Asians, Mormons, alarmists, cultists, scaremongers, you, me, my neighbor, your neighbor, his neighbor, his neighbor's neighbor, your mamma's baby's sister's uncle's cousin's Jewish friend's dog, Flat Earth Society, radical Christians, radical Muslims, moderately religious folks, Scientologists, biologists, chemists, biochemists, anthropologists, psychologists, reactionaries, progressivists, traditionalists, neurologists, audiophiles, pedophiles, Bush sackriders, Clinton sackriders, militants, Mexicans, Jehovah's Witnesses, Albanians, Marxists, Marxians, aristocrats, bourgeoisie, proletariats, Jeffersonians, Hamiltonians, artisans, and even the French get equal air time because the government has a responsibility to delegate those frequencies equally to every possible category of people that we can think of because those air waves are a limited resource!

Not really. The fairness act is about ensuring democracy isn't stiffled by a monopoly on limited public airwaves. Unless the people have a realistic choice of voting for some group or person, there is no reason to give them a voice; the people couldn't vote for them anyway. In American politics, this comes down to two view points, three at most.

[7960]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Not really. The fairness act is about ensuring democracy isn't stiffled by a monopoly on limited public airwaves.

But there is on monopoly on limited public airwaves. The liberals have just as much opportunity to get their own station and make a go of it.

Oh wait, they did, and failed........ too bad so sad. The govt has done its job of keeping the airwaves public. It's up to libs to make their go of it work. You either don't understand what monopoly means or you're intentionally distorting the definition because it fits your cause. Either way a "fairness act" is ridiculous if you think it's to monitor content.

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by 7960

But there is no monopoly on limited public airwaves. The liberals have just as much opportunity to get their own station and make a go of it.

Oh wait, they did, and failed........ too bad so sad. The govt has done its job of keeping the airwaves public. It's up to libs to make their go of it work. You either don't understand what monopoly means or you're intentionally distorting the definition because it fits your cause. Either way a "fairness act" is ridiculous if you think it's to monitor content.

This was so obvious I can't believe it actually had to be typed.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

This was so obvious I can't believe it actually had to be typed.

It's the 3rd time I typed it. I'm not sure if he's ignoring it or just doesn't get it.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Not really. The fairness act is about ensuring democracy isn't stiffled by a monopoly on limited public airwaves.

The airwaves aren't public. They're owned by the government. If they were public, then they would be free to use by the public without contingencies. If they aren't free to use without contingencies (i.e., getting a license to use them), then they are owned by an entity that affords permission to groups accordingly.

That said, it seems rather inconsistent to claim it's about ensuring we aren't stifled by a monopoly when it's one entity that owns all of them anyway.

Unless the people have a realistic choice of voting for some group or person, there is no reason to give them a voice;

Silencing the minority. Yeah, that sounds about right for a group of people that prides themselves on promoting democracy (that's an attack on liberals and conservatives alike, btw).

the people couldn't vote for them anyway. In American politics, this comes down to two view points, three at most.

That sounds rather oligarchic. What about "democracy"?

[Thorgrim]

These are federally regulated airwaves...using radio is a priviledge not a right, just like driving is not a right...if someone without a license wants to go driving down the street supporting a candidate, and he is arrested...is that violating the freedom of speech?

Of course not

Fairness Doctrine will finally bring BACK balance to federal airwaves