Kucinich and the Dems looking to silence Talk Radio Again:

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

george soros doesn't give billions to left wing radio, and demand was not immediate for right wing radio...anything else?

he gives a shit ton of money for left wing causes. Of course demand wasn't immediate, how can people know if they want a product if they haven't heard about it yet

yea for CENSORSHIP

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Stop crying about unfairness, ask hollywood for a check, and go create this demand.....

Last time I checked the only hollywood celebrity inside politics was arnold

besides, liberals don't have a desire for a cult-like atmosphere surronding Limbaugh, where one day he rants about sending all drug offenders "up the river" to jail no matter what, and the next day admits to being a drug offender, without even the tiniest blip in ratings, and tells his viewers what to think

DailyKos is probably my most frequently viewed political site, but there are many times i think he's just flat ass wrong, and almost all the other times he talks, he's telling me something I already knew

Since I registered at Dkos I don't think I've picked up one political view, I doubt "ditto heads" can say they don't pick up almost all their political views from limbaugh

Liberals aren't like that

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he gives a shit ton of money for left wing causes. Of course demand wasn't immediate, how can people know if they want a product if they haven't heard about it yet

yea for CENSORSHIP

strangely enough a lot of people can't listen to air america, why would a company buy air time to help a start up company rant against corporate america?

That's why limbaugh took off, corporations were thrilled to throw ad money at him so he could tell people how great they were

that's never going to happen with liberal radio, and reason #9348 why it will never take off

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

strangely enough a lot of people can't listen to air america, why would a company buy air time to help a start up company rant against corporate america?

That's why limbaugh took off, corporations were thrilled to throw ad money at him so he could tell people how great they were

that's never going to happen with liberal radio, and reason #9348 why it will never take off

so we need censorship to fix that?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so we need censorship to fix that?

Equal fair time...Limbaugh can say whatever he wants

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

....... and almost all the other times he talks, he's telling me something I already knew

Since I registered at Dkos I don't think I've picked up one political view, I doubt "ditto heads" can say they don't pick up almost all their political views from limbaugh

Liberals aren't like that

I don't listen to Limbaugh or any talk radio. But I think you told me enough about yourself to my satisfaction.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I don't listen to Limbaugh or any talk radio. But I think you told me enough about yourself to my satisfaction.

Elaborate

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

......and almost all the other times he talks, he's telling me something I already knew.....



Liberals aren't like that

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Equal fair time...Limbaugh can say whatever he wants

so you want to censor one viewpoint that you don't like so your viewpoint that isn't commercially successful can be broadcast? Yes or No

Who is going to compensate the radio station owners for their losses in advertising? You are forcing them to not broadcast their most profittable product.

[kinggovernor]

the reality of this is that liberals don't really want to be successful on AM radio. It would be much easier to broadcast via the internet, youtube podcast etc. The reality is that they want to censor a viewpoint they don't agree with.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

It's true

Top blog entry is about Iran

The Iran-Iraq situation, I already knew from research of the 1980s (before it was a conservative-liberal clash) what the real game was, I don't need to be told the obvious that Iran was the greater dangers, but now we are being played switch-ball by the WH hinting that the war in Iraq in really a war against Iranian agents...hinting that we're already at war with Iran...hinting that to step up to a full military strike against Iran would just be another notch on the belt

However, its nice to skim and see what other people are saying...however no one has "opened my eyes" to the situation, Limbaugh gives long boring lectures of medicaid for days at a time...

This is going to seem hyperbolic, and I apologize if it sounds so

When liberals want to hear lectures, they go to hear an expert who has studied the one particular issue in depth for 20-40 years, its college

We don't want to hear lectures from a drop-out like Hannity who just happened to have a good radio voice and the ability to spit out GOP talking points

And a lot of the time, when I listened to AiAm, I didn't want to hear what Franken had to say, I tuned in...very rarely, to see what guests he'd have on...real experts, but often they'd say what you could read somewhere else anyway

I just don't see the point in radio unless you are stuck in traffic, in that case listen to NPR for the news or pop in a CD for music

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

It's true

Top blog entry is about Iran

The Iran-Iraq situation, I already knew from research of the 1980s (before it was a conservative-liberal clash) what the real game was, I don't need to be told the obvious that Iran was the greater dangers, but now we are being played switch-ball by the WH hinting that the war in Iraq in really a war against Iranian agents...hinting that we're already at war with Iran...hinting that to step up to a full military strike against Iran would just be another notch on the belt

However, its nice to skim and see what other people are saying...however no one has "opened my eyes" to the situation, Limbaugh gives long boring lectures of medicaid for days at a time...

This is going to seem hyperbolic, and I apologize if it sounds so

When liberals want to hear lectures, they go to hear an expert who has studied the one particular issue in depth for 20-40 years, its college

We don't want to hear lectures from a drop-out like Hannity who just happened to have a good radio voice and the ability to spit out GOP talking points

And a lot of the time, when I listened to AiAm, I didn't want to hear what Franken had to say, I tuned in...very rarely, to see what guests he'd have on...real experts, but often they'd say what you could read somewhere else anyway

I just don't see the point in radio unless you are stuck in traffic, in that case listen to NPR for the news or pop in a CD for music

so why do you need equal time on the radio

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

the reality of this is that liberals don't really want to be successful on AM radio. It would be much easier to broadcast via the internet, youtube podcast etc. The reality is that they want to censor a viewpoint they don't agree with.

We already do, its called the domination of left-wing blogs, which is amazingly successful because you can skim through and just pick out the tidbits, often you can even completely ignore the bloggers opinion...try that with talk radio

The reality is the 3 networks are supposed to be balanced, if they didn't they'd lose their license, if you really think they are liberal you really should propose legal action

Here, we are, with radio, its no balance, almost all opinion, almost all one-sided, all on American-regulated airwaves, if NPR is running music, often the roughly 70% of americans who are not conservative have no choice (if they dont feel like music) but to listen to right-wing propaganda and nothing else, thats unfair

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so why do you need equal time on the radio

To give the opposing view so that the american public is educated on both sides of the political issues, much like how USAToday would cover a story (usually)

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

We already do, its called the domination of left-wing blogs, which is amazingly successful because you can skim through and just pick out the tidbits, often you can even completely ignore the bloggers opinion...try that with talk radio

The reality is the 3 networks are supposed to be balanced, if they didn't they'd lose their license, if you really think they are liberal you really should propose legal action

Here, we are, with radio, its no balance, almost all opinion, almost all one-sided, all on American-regulated airwaves, if NPR is running music, often the roughly 70% of americans who are not conservative have no choice (if they dont feel like music) but to listen to right-wing propaganda and nothing else, thats unfair

so you guys dominate blogs, would you be for the government stepping it to make sure that there is fairness with blogs?

What requires the 3 big networks to be balanced? I know they aren't, but I don't think it is the place of the government to make sure they balanced.

There used to not be a conservative news channel, and it didn't take government interference to make the networks more balanced. Fox News, with its conservative slant balances out the other TV Network. Air America was a vehicle for liberal thought, but you said yourself that you wouldn't listen. I don't care to listen to talk radio either myself. But if a group of society doesn't listen to the radio but wants equal time, that is only to censor the other side.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

To give the opposing view so that the american public is educated on both sides of the political issues, much like how USAToday would cover a story (usually)

Since when has "balance" been a part of free speech

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

so you guys dominate blogs, would you be for the government stepping it to make sure that there is fairness with blogs?

What requires the 3 big networks to be balanced? I know they aren't, but I don't think it is the place of the government to make sure they balanced.

There used to not be a conservative news channel, and it didn't take government interference to make the networks more balanced. Fox News, with its conservative slant balances out the other TV Network. Air America was a vehicle for liberal thought, but you said yourself that you wouldn't listen. I don't care to listen to talk radio either myself. But if a group of society doesn't listen to the radio but wants equal time, that is only to censor the other side.

There is unlimited space on the internet, regulation of blogs...I don't even know what theory one could possibly come up with...

The big 3 have special licensing, I am 90% there is a clause about a general goal to give accurate portrayls to all american political situations

However, on TV media, there already was balance to many extents, CNN had crossfire where you could hear excellent conservative arguments from Pat Buchanan and others, before MSNBC and Fox News...Robert Novak has been giving strong conservative opinions on CNN for decades (not anymore), people from NR were all on CNN...they really bent over backwards to get strong intelligent conservative voices

On ABC you had George Will, NBC always had conservatives on Meet the Press, CBS I'm not familiar with, they may be the ones stretching the line with 60 minutes...but overall conservatives had WIDE attention on television

There is no such thing in radio, its the exception, not the rule, like fire in a theater (although obviously not extreme)

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Since when has "balance" been a part of free speech

With the huge power of something like NBC, comes responsibility, even if they are a private company

We are not talking about JQP at the city square