From the same people who started the Homeless Charlie Fiasco: Clinton & Boxer ....

[S0S]

SENATOR CLAIMS: Clinton, Boxer Conspiring to Rein In Talk Radio (http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html)


BREITBART.TV EXCLUSIVE: Appearing on John Ziegler's evening show on KFI 640 AM in LA, U.S. Senator James Inhofe says he overheard Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) saying they want a "legislative fix" for talk radio.Right's Reign on Talk Radio Called 'Structural Imbalance' (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200706/NAT20070622a.html)



Hollywood....

[HBox]

I'm going to wait and hold my vitriol until they say something or try to do something rather than take the word of one of the Senate's chief fucking crazies.

[Tenbatsuzen]

When did Clinton ever get involved in the Homeless Charlie fiasco? She was involved in the Imus mess, and was roundly criticized for it.

[S0S]

breitbart.tv started the homeless charlie fiasco and now is rumor mongering about Clinton and Boxer in relation to talk radio.

:unsure:

[Tenbatsuzen]

breitbart.tv started the homeless charlie fiasco and now is rumor mongering about Clinton and Boxer in relation to talk radio.

:unsure:

As I recall, it was the Post and Drudge who started that. Plus your thread title indicates Clinton and Boxer started the mess.

[S0S]

As I recall, it was the Post and Drudge who started that. Plus your thread title indicates Clinton and Boxer started the mess.

Drudge linked to breitbart.tv about homeless charlie.

Sorry for the misunderstanding with the title.

[moochcassidy]

Drudge linked to breitbart.tv about homeless charlie.

Sorry for the misunderstanding with the title.

youre right about breitbart.

the title isnt confusing.

[epo]

Actually I agree with Ten that the title is completely misleading.

The article itself has nothing to do with Imus, Charlie or any of that shit.....but rather the idea of balance in discourse on public airwaves. It's a legitimate conversation that this country needs to discuss.

We are at an interesting point in this country when the voting is often 50/50, but the airwaves represent 10/1 in pure quantity. That's a problem.

[S0S]

. That's a problem.

If there is a problem, what would you like the solution to be?

[epo]

If there is a problem, what would you like the solution to be?

Now that's an interesting and fair point. My answer would be I'm not sure, but I think many people would admit there is currently a serious problem that needs a solution.

I ask you to use this statement as a means to form an opinion: "The Communications Act permits the operation of a broadcast station only in accordance with a license issued by the FCC upon a finding that the grant of a license would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity."

Simply put, in our society the role of even getting the license from the FCC to operate in the terrestial radio world is to "Serve the public interest". Currently the political talk radio landscape is not serving that interest.

Now does that mean a 50/50 split? I don't think so. Does that mean a variety? Certainly.

I know many people don't like those darned "government rules", but this is a case that demands that we look at a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine for terrestial radio. It's all about balance to ensure the public good.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of others.....

[HBox]

Inhofe doesn't seem to know what he himself is talking about. (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/22/inhofe)

[JPMNICK]

on this topic, i still find it wierd that R&F have to censor their best of's. O&A did not get suspended for content, so why do they censor for them.

[AgnosticJihad]

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2042.html

Though I initially thought this was going to concern the post-Imus world, it is actually about right-wing talk shows. Apparently, these two lovely senators want to do something (though I'm not sure what) about right-wing dominance of political talk radio, through use of legislation.

Now, being pretty far to the left myself, and personally having listened to a number of right-wing talk shows and having heard the kind of distortion, misinformation, and sometimes flat-out lying some of these shows can do, I understand thier frustration. However, being a true lefty and not some half-assed, middle-of-the-road "liberal", I feel the government has no place in this, and in fact despise laws in general, especially laws that censor people, even those I disagree with. After all, if the liberals can start censoring the conservatives, who's to stop the cons from censoring the libs (and besides, true left-wing voices would still go unheard even if these two centrists got their way). And if by "fixing" talk radio they mean some equal-time bullshit, all that will result in is the same shit the right-wing talkers pull being done by the liberals, and we will thus be subjected to the lies, distortions, and misinformation of both sides YAY!

This just serves as a prime example of why I despise this cunt Clinton. What's next? Censoring video games? Oh wait, the fucking whore has already come out in favor of that.

I have more to say, but the 10 glasses of Guiness I've had are clouding my thoughts. Prehaps I'll post more in the morning, hangover permitting.

[scottinnj]

From what I heard, it's something Inhofe "overheard" as a third party not in the conversation and that the conversation took place 3 years ago.

Therefore, I am putting it into the Bravo Sierra category.

[scottinnj]

I have more to say, but the 10 glasses of Guiness I've had are clouding my thoughts. Prehaps I'll post more in the morning, hangover permitting.

I'm in the same boat right now dude, my posts have been either sarcastic, stupid or meaningless.

But I gotta ask, if you aren't going for Senator Clinton, who are you looking at right now on the Dems side?

[AgnosticJihad]

From what I heard, it's something Inhofe "overheard" as a third party not in the conversation and that the conversation took place 3 years ago.

Therefore, I am putting it into the Bravo Sierra category.

If so, it is probably bullshit

However, where did whoever/whatever you heard this from hear it from?

[HBox]

If so, it is probably bullshit

However, where did whoever/whatever you heard this from hear it from?

Inhofe doesn't seem to know what he himself is talking about. (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jun/22/inhofe)

You'd be best off double and triple checking anything James Inhofe says.

[scottinnj]

If so, it is probably bullshit

However, where did whoever/whatever you heard this from hear it from?


Believe it or not, Bill O'Reilly. He was pretty mad at the talk radio people for making it a story when its BS.

[AgnosticJihad]

You'd be best off double and triple checking anything James Inhofe says.

Honestly, I've never heard of this Inhofe doucheor of anything he's said aside from this, and hopefully never will again. And considering I pay rather close attention to who are Senators are and what they are up to, he must be quite irrelevant for me to have never heard his name before.

[empulse]

This is all MADE UP!. Ine-douche will probably have to issue an apology for this. Already been debunked. Check HuffPo.

[AgnosticJihad]

Believe it or not, Bill O'Reilly. He was pretty mad at the talk radio people for making it a story when its BS.

O'Reilly? Mad? No, not him! Never!

I wouldn't cite him as a good source of information though. Not that he's wrong on this, but anyone who can't get the facts about his own past right doesn't strike me as very trustworthy.

And now that I think about it, this story does sound familiar, like I did hear about it a few years ago. Though I still find it likely that Clinton at least thinks censoring talk radio would be a good thing, given some of the other things she's said publicly expressed a desire to censor.

[scottinnj]

O'Reilly? Mad? No, not him! Never!

I wouldn't cite him as a good source of information though. Not that he's wrong on this, but anyone who can't get the facts about his own past right doesn't strike me as very trustworthy.

And now that I think about it, this story does sound familiar, like I did hear about it a few years ago. Though I still find it likely that Clinton at least thinks censoring talk radio would be a good thing, given some of the other things she's said publicly expressed a desire to censor.

Ed Schultz has been talking about this too....not exactly the Inhofe angle, but he is a progressive who is against the Fairness Doctrine. It's funny he is against censorship of the right wing and he is liberal, but Senator Lott is pissed off at the conservatives because the talk radio people deep-sixed the immigration bill.

[epo]

but Senator Lott is pissed off at the conservatives because the talk radio people deep-sixed the immigration bill.

Bill O'Reilly has a vote in the Congress? Holy Shit!

[SouthSideJohnny]

Now that's an interesting and fair point. My answer would be I'm not sure, but I think many people would admit there is currently a serious problem that needs a solution.

* * * *

Simply put, in our society the role of even getting the license from the FCC to operate in the terrestial radio world is to "Serve the public interest". Currently the political talk radio landscape is not serving that interest.

Now does that mean a 50/50 split? I don't think so. Does that mean a variety? Certainly.

I know many people don't like those darned "government rules", but this is a case that demands that we look at a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine for terrestial radio. It's all about balance to ensure the public good.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of others.....

I don't know the answer, but I am firmly of the opinion that more laws are not the answer.

Air America had ample opportunity to present the viewpoint of the "other" fifty percent; AA had/has talented hosts, but the audience numbers can't compare with "right wing radio" - that's why AA is in bankruptcy. If the vote is split roughly 50/50, should the government mandate fifty percent of airtime present the opposing view? What if that 50% doesn't listen to talk radio. It's ridiculous to mandate that view gets equal air time if the people subscribing to that view don't listen to the radio. That's not serving the public interest either.

Also, I don't subscribe to either the Republican or Democratic agendas. What if an issue can be viewed three or four different ways? Does that mean airtime is going to be split equally three or four ways. What if the fourth perspective is only subscribed to by 2% of the population? Does that view get 25% of the air time or 2%?

[scottinnj]

Yeah, it would be like mandating Split Screens on my laptop. If I goto the Washington Post website, my display automatically splits so I can see the Washington Times frontpage as well.
Or if I stream a speech from Mitt Romney, does a Hillary segment have to appear before I shutdown my computer?

[epo]

Also, I don't subscribe to either the Republican or Democratic agendas. What if an issue can be viewed three or four different ways? Does that mean airtime is going to be split equally three or four ways. What if the fourth perspective is only subscribed to by 2% of the population? Does that view get 25% of the air time or 2%?

How awesome would it be to hear the view of Libertarians or Green Party people? The more views the better as we all could use a bit more knowledge.

[epo]

Yeah, it would be like mandating Split Screens on my laptop. If I goto the Washington Post website, my display automatically splits so I can see the Washington Times frontpage as well.
Or if I stream a speech from Mitt Romney, does a Hillary segment have to appear before I shutdown my computer?

Actually your example doesn't really hold water on this one and heres what I mean:

A newspaper exists because an individual or company is able to hire writers and have the capital to print & distribute their medium. They need no permission from the government to exist, hence they basically are able to print what they want. They are essentially an independent business.

Broadcast radio & television exist because of the government. They use the public airwaves, but essentially rent them from the people. With that being said, the government is able to make rules on their abilities to broadcast on those airwaves. So if the FCC wants to make a rule (not another law), they have the right to do so if it suits the public good.

So if the FCC deems that a new version of the Fairness Doctrine is in order, then there is nothing a broadcast radio station can do about it if it wants to keep that license.

[Fat_Sunny]

Isn't The FCC An Anachronism In The Internet And Satellite Era? The "Airways" Are Now Unlimited. It Is Time To Re-Think Licensing, And The FCC.

[epo]

Isn't The FCC An Anachronism In The Internet And Satellite Era? The "Airways" Are Now Unlimited. It Is Time To Re-Think Licensing, And The FCC.

That's somewhat true, but at the end of the day broadcast TV & terrestial radio are still used and licensed by the FCC because of the nature of their existence.

Actually what's interesting how many people people still use those channels despite their many choices in the market, especially in radio.

[ShapopoJoe]

Dems are mounting a crusade again AMERICANS and Talk Radio....Cant win over the people with your WONDERFUL ideas for the country?? Here is an idea ...SILENCE THEM...What a joke....Libs can't put together a popular talk radio show so they decide to just do away with the competition...ITS CALLED A FREE MARKET, Feinstein you MAO loving hag....While I dont see this going very far because the Supremes will overrule, its just sad that Democrats want to silence anyone who disagrees or exposes them...

Commie, Lib, Pinkos feel free to attack...better yet, have a moderator ban me to silence me! LMAO

Shap

[IMSlacker]

I think this topic was already covered in one of SOS's many recent threads (http://www.ronfez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=61127).

[ShapopoJoe]

Hey, thanks...Sorry about that...Maybe a mod can go ahead and kill this thread...I will jump in on the other one...

Shap

[prothunderball]

Dems are mounting a crusade again AMERICANS and Talk Radio....Cant win over the people with your WONDERFUL ideas for the country?? Here is an idea ...SILENCE THEM...What a joke....Libs can't put together a popular talk radio show so they decide to just do away with the competition...ITS CALLED A FREE MARKET, Feinstein you MAO loving hag....While I dont see this going very far because the Supremes will overrule, its just sad that Democrats want to silence anyone who disagrees or exposes them...

Commie, Lib, Pinkos feel free to attack...better yet, have a moderator ban me to silence me! LMAO

Shap

I suppose if you knew me, you'd probably call me a "commie, lib, pinko" (really aren't "commie" and "pinko" the same thing? maybe get some new adjectives) but I don't agree with this. My only suggestion would be to maybe try and get your point across in a little less agressive and angry manner. Using language like you do really just makes you come off as a little ignorant. And maybe include a link so people actually know what you're talking about.
and I'd almost guarantee you that if the talk radio demographics went the other way and it was overwhelmingly liberal, there would be a conservative politician doing the exact same thing.

[ShapopoJoe]

Now that's an interesting and fair point. My answer would be I'm not sure, but I think many people would admit there is currently a serious problem that needs a solution.

I ask you to use this statement as a means to form an opinion: "The Communications Act permits the operation of a broadcast station only in accordance with a license issued by the FCC upon a finding that the grant of a license would serve the public interest, convenience and necessity."

Simply put, in our society the role of even getting the license from the FCC to operate in the terrestial radio world is to "Serve the public interest". Currently the political talk radio landscape is not serving that interest.

Now does that mean a 50/50 split? I don't think so. Does that mean a variety? Certainly.

I know many people don't like those darned "government rules", but this is a case that demands that we look at a modernized version of the Fairness Doctrine for terrestial radio. It's all about balance to ensure the public good.

I'd be interested in the thoughts of others.....

Ummm..excuse, me KOMRADE??? There is a "serious problem that needs a solution"??? LMAO..Yeah, the serious problem is that you have UNITED STATES (Oh, you know this one, land of the FREE, first amendment, by the people for the people, that whole country THING?) CONGRESSMEN and CONGRESSWOMEN openly talking about SILENCING an entire segment of the population that does not agree with them....whether its the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or these commies talking about getting rid of the electoral college ( Why? Well, not getting any votes from the flyover states, lets just make sure we get the big liberal cities to choose the elections and cut them out all together..) The other serious problem is that there are AMERICAN citizens actually thinking this is a good idea....WOW...Where is this country going? Look, I did not serve in the United States Marine Corps so that certain segments of the population could have their voices heard...

Talk radio is served by the free market....There is a reason that CONSERVATIVE talk radio is huge...its called AMERICAN CITIZENS AKA LISTENERS....Boxer, you had Talk America (or whatever the hell it was called) and NOBODY LISTENED...THAT IS THE PROBLEM...If Sean Hannity had a ZERO SHARE, I friggin guarantee you he would be run off the air...ITS about having the listeners and generating the money....Adverstisers are not going to pay for ads on Al Frankens show if he has 4 listeners...

Just remember LIBS...They silence us now, they will have a reason to silence you later...guaranteed....

A TRUE AMERICAN
SHAPOPO JOE

Fuck the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE aka...SILENCE OF THE PEOPLE

[reeshy]

OH....I am so tired of this shit!!!!!!!

[prothunderball]

Ummm..excuse, me KOMRADE??? There is a "serious problem that needs a solution"??? LMAO..Yeah, the serious problem is that you have UNITED STATES (Oh, you know this one, land of the FREE, first amendment, by the people for the people, that whole country THING?) CONGRESSMEN and CONGRESSWOMEN openly talking about SILENCING an entire segment of the population that does not agree with them....whether its the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or these commies talking about getting rid of the electoral college ( Why? Well, not getting any votes from the flyover states, lets just make sure we get the big liberal cities to choose the elections and cut them out all together..) The other serious problem is that there are AMERICAN citizens actually thinking this is a good idea....WOW...Where is this country going? Look, I did not serve in the United States Marine Corps so that certain segments of the population could have their voices heard...

Talk radio is served by the free market....There is a reason that CONSERVATIVE talk radio is huge...its called AMERICAN CITIZENS AKA LISTENERS....Boxer, you had Talk America (or whatever the hell it was called) and NOBODY LISTENED...THAT IS THE PROBLEM...If Sean Hannity had a ZERO SHARE, I friggin guarantee you he would be run off the air...ITS about having the listeners and generating the money....Adverstisers are not going to pay for ads on Al Frankens show if he has 4 listeners...

Just remember LIBS...They silence us now, they will have a reason to silence you later...guaranteed....

A TRUE AMERICAN
SHAPOPO JOE

Fuck the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE aka...SILENCE OF THE PEOPLE

Do you know what a communist is? Because your usage of it in this context is really way off base. If I were you I might go with "fascist" I think that might better suit your purpose.

[ShapopoJoe]

I suppose if you knew me, you'd probably call me a "commie, lib, pinko" (really aren't "commie" and "pinko" the same thing? maybe get some new adjectives) but I don't agree with this. My only suggestion would be to maybe try and get your point across in a little less agressive and angry manner. Using language like you do really just makes you come off as a little ignorant. And maybe include a link so people actually know what you're talking about.
and I'd almost guarantee you that if the talk radio demographics went the other way and it was overwhelmingly liberal, there would be a conservative politician doing the exact same thing.


Oh, Excuse me....maybe we should have just "kindly inquired" of the British to leave us alone? When congress openly talks about limiting my free speech, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET...I didnt server 6 years of blood, sweat and tears in the United States Marine Corps to have some MORONS talk about limiting freedoms...Sorry if you take that personally but taking freedom, I take personally...

Shap Out, moving to original thread on this subject...

[Fat_Sunny]

Just remember LIBS...They silence us now, they will have a reason to silence you later...guaranteed....

A TRUE AMERICAN
SHAPOPO JOE

Fuck the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE aka...SILENCE OF THE PEOPLE

Wow, This Boy Is Feisty! Passion Is Always A Good Thing, So F_S Says 'Rock On' SJ !!

Prothunderball: Let's Push Things Forward!!

[MadBiker]

How awesome would it be to hear the view of Libertarians or Green Party people? The more views the better as we all could use a bit more knowledge.

For a discussion of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine from a Libertarian perspective (snarky commentary included free of charge) go here: http://reason.com/blog/show/121031.html

Radio, like any other media, has consumers who are drawn to it because it gives them what they want: music they want to hear, comedy talk, news talk from a perspective with which they agree...if the consumer wanted to hear opposing viewpoints, the consumer has an option to switch from one radio station to another. People tend to segragate along ideological lines because they want to be heard by others who commisserate with them.

If the market indicates one type of talk radio is more popular than another, so be it. More legislation is not the answer. You cannot force-feed people bones they have already refused to gnaw.

[ShapopoJoe]

For a discussion of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine from a Libertarian perspective (snarky commentary included free of charge) go here: http://reason.com/blog/show/121031.html

Radio, like any other media, has consumers who are drawn to it because it gives them what they want: music they want to hear, comedy talk, news talk from a perspective with which they agree...if the consumer wanted to hear opposing viewpoints, the consumer has an option to switch from one radio station to another. People tend to segragate along ideological lines because they want to be heard by others who commisserate with them.

If the market indicates one type of talk radio is more popular than another, so be it. More legislation is not the answer. You cannot force-feed people bones they have already refused to gnaw.

Amen brother

[Fat_Sunny]

Amen brother

Actually, It's Amen Sister !

[MadBiker]

Ummm..excuse, me KOMRADE??? There is a "serious problem that needs a solution"??? LMAO..Yeah, the serious problem is that you have UNITED STATES (Oh, you know this one, land of the FREE, first amendment, by the people for the people, that whole country THING?) CONGRESSMEN and CONGRESSWOMEN openly talking about SILENCING an entire segment of the population that does not agree with them....whether its the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or these commies talking about getting rid of the electoral college ( Why? Well, not getting any votes from the flyover states, lets just make sure we get the big liberal cities to choose the elections and cut them out all together..) The other serious problem is that there are AMERICAN citizens actually thinking this is a good idea....WOW...Where is this country going? Look, I did not serve in the United States Marine Corps so that certain segments of the population could have their voices heard...

Talk radio is served by the free market....There is a reason that CONSERVATIVE talk radio is huge...its called AMERICAN CITIZENS AKA LISTENERS....Boxer, you had Talk America (or whatever the hell it was called) and NOBODY LISTENED...THAT IS THE PROBLEM...If Sean Hannity had a ZERO SHARE, I friggin guarantee you he would be run off the air...ITS about having the listeners and generating the money....Adverstisers are not going to pay for ads on Al Frankens show if he has 4 listeners...

Just remember LIBS...They silence us now, they will have a reason to silence you later...guaranteed....

A TRUE AMERICAN
SHAPOPO JOE

Fuck the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE aka...SILENCE OF THE PEOPLE

I agree that the Fairness Doctrine should remain dead and buried. But Joe, it says nothing about silencing an entire segment of the population, merely that w/r/t controversial, polarized arguments and issues, airtime should be devoted equally to opposing views so people are not intentionally misled into believing something without hearing the other side of the argument.

A person who cared enough about an argument or political issue ought always, first and foremost, question. Question the source, question the motivation, question the outcome. Thoroughly research the pros and cons, and come to your own decision after acquiring an education of the terminology, history, the political players and what they stand to gain, and consequences for the other things you care about. I rather think that politicians count on us being too lazy to do this kind of thinking, and they bank on biased speech on the radio to educate us as to their greatness, knowing all along that we might never bother to see the other side.

[prothunderball]

For a discussion of the revival of the Fairness Doctrine from a Libertarian perspective (snarky commentary included free of charge) go here: http://reason.com/blog/show/121031.html

Radio, like any other media, has consumers who are drawn to it because it gives them what they want: music they want to hear, comedy talk, news talk from a perspective with which they agree...if the consumer wanted to hear opposing viewpoints, the consumer has an option to switch from one radio station to another. People tend to segragate along ideological lines because they want to be heard by others who commisserate with them.

If the market indicates one type of talk radio is more popular than another, so be it. More legislation is not the answer. You cannot force-feed people bones they have already refused to gnaw.
See this I agree with for most part as well, and there wasn't any need for name calling and yelling.
What I have question though is, how much does the marketplace matter anymore? As we saw with Imus as JV and Elvis, the market place was there for them, yet they are still not on the air. It seems to me that we are starting to let these giant media corporations decide what the market place wants, and Americans seem more than willing to except that. And that is what worries me.

Now I am a liberal(not a communist though), but I do disagree with Fairness Doctrine. Really the only legislation I'd like to see is legislation that would disband some of these giant media conglomerations so that the power over what went out over out airwaves wasn't in the hands of just a few old white men.

[HBox]

See this I agree with for most part as well, and there wasn't any need for name calling and yelling.
What I have question though is, how much does the marketplace matter anymore? As we saw with Imus as JV and Elvis, the market place was there for them, yet they are still not on the air. It seems to me that we are starting to let these giant media corporations decide what the market place wants, and Americans seem more than willing to except that. And that is what worries me.

Now I am a liberal(not a communist though), but I do disagree with Fairness Doctrine. Really the only legislation I'd like to see is legislation that would disband some of these giant media conglomerations so that the power over what went out over out airwaves wasn't in the hands of just a few old white men.


SHUT UP AND GO BACK TO RUSSIA!

[ShapopoJoe]

Actually, It's Amen Sister !

ouch...Oops....Sorry..."fairly" new guy here...

Shap

[prothunderball]

SHUT UP AND GO BACK TO RUSSIA!


What fun is preaching to the choir? It's much more fun spreading my socialist propaganda on radio message boards in this country.

[MadBiker]

See this I agree with for most part as well, and there wasn't any need for name calling and yelling.
What I have question though is, how much does the marketplace matter anymore? As we saw with Imus as JV and Elvis, the market place was there for them, yet they are still not on the air. It seems to me that we are starting to let these giant media corporations decide what the market place wants, and Americans seem more than willing to except that. And that is what worries me.

Now I am a liberal(not a communist though), but I do disagree with Fairness Doctrine. Really the only legislation I'd like to see is legislation that would disband some of these giant media conglomerations so that the power over what went out over out airwaves wasn't in the hands of just a few old white men.

I would be hesitant to blame Giant Media Conglomerations solely for the JV & Elvis, Imus, etc. incidents. They bow to pressure from Special Interest Groups who threaten them with [percieved] financial damage and a poor public image. The GMCs can be as spineless as SIGs are disingenuous.

There is a growing contingent of people who would like to see the FCC completely deregulate the airwaves, so any person able to afford an antenna and a transmitter could broadcast to the public. I like this idea. How government can claim to control the energy of space that criss-crosses our atmosphere simply because it can carry sound is beyond me. The radio waves are like UV rays, there for all to use. If you get sunburned, its your fault for sitting out in the sun too long. If you heard something you didn't want to hear, its because you were dialed in to a frequency known to carry material not to your taste.

Unfortunately, part of the Human Condition is a propensity to spiral towards more and more hierarchy until the bottom of the pyramid becomes disturbed enough to scrap the whole thing and start fresh.

[ShapopoJoe]

I agree that the Fairness Doctrine should remain dead and buried. But Joe, it says nothing about silencing an entire segment of the population, merely that w/r/t controversial, polarized arguments and issues, airtime should be devoted equally to opposing views so people are not intentionally misled into believing something without hearing the other side of the argument.

A person who cared enough about an argument or political issue ought always, first and foremost, question. Question the source, question the motivation, question the outcome. Thoroughly research the pros and cons, and come to your own decision after acquiring an education of the terminology, history, the political players and what they stand to gain, and consequences for the other things you care about. I rather think that politicians count on us being too lazy to do this kind of thinking, and they bank on biased speech on the radio to educate us as to their greatness, knowing all along that we might never bother to see the other side.

Sorry but I disagree...Democrats/Liberals/Evil Ones have CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the nations top newspapers...should I go on? Fox News and Talk Radio show the OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY and that seems to be the side that liberals do not want anyone to hear...Why do you think Trent Lott mouthed off about Talk Radio that has long supported him? Because the politicians want everyone to believe THEIR WAY about the Immigration Bill...and he knows if Talk radio was not exposing the reality or questioning this bill, the liberal media would have it cemented for them...

Talk Radio and Fox News, the only ones questioning Al Gore and his whackadoo movie on Global Warming, exposing the lies therein.....Talk Radio and Fox News, the only media outlets exposing the fact that while 7000 scientists signed the Global Warming is real document (paraphrase), 40000 scientist have signed a document saying that its a joke...

Remember Talk Radio is not all about the hosts of the shows, its about the PEOPLE CALLING IN...While you might think they must all be uneducated morons, most are upper middle class college graduates.

gee, Neil Boortz would be ashamed of you...

Shap

[prothunderball]

Sorry but I disagree...Democrats/Liberals/Evil Ones have CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the nations top newspapers...should I go on? Fox News and Talk Radio show the OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY and that seems to be the side that liberals do not want anyone to hear...Why do you think Trent Lott mouthed off about Talk Radio that has long supported him? Because the politicians want everyone to believe THEIR WAY about the Immigration Bill...and he knows if Talk radio was not exposing the reality or questioning this bill, the liberal media would have it cemented for them...

Talk Radio and Fox News, the only ones questioning Al Gore and his whackadoo movie on Global Warming, exposing the lies therein.....Talk Radio and Fox News, the only media outlets exposing the fact that while 7000 scientists signed the Global Warming is real document (paraphrase), 40000 scientist have signed a document saying that its a joke...

Remember Talk Radio is not all about the hosts of the shows, its about the PEOPLE CALLING IN...While you might think they must all be uneducated morons, most are upper middle class college graduates.

gee, Neil Boortz would be ashamed of you...

Shap

But you agreed with her first post that said, that we should let the market place make the desisions, right? If all those media outlets are so left leaning(which with the exception of a couple I don't think they are) shouldn't the market place be showing them that they don't agree with it.
Also I think it should be pointed out that, while I don't know the specifics about your examples, I'm sure there are plenty of items that are covered on CNN that Fox News doesn't cover because it doesn't fit into their political agenda.

[HBox]

But you agreed with her first post that said, that we should let the market place make the desisions, right? If all those media outlets are so left leaning(which with the exception of a couple I don't think they are) shouldn't the market place be showing them that they don't agree with it.
Also I think it should be pointed out that, while I don't know the specifics about your examples, I'm sure there are plenty of items that are covered on CNN that Fox News doesn't cover because it doesn't fit into their political agenda.


WHY DON'T YOU GO SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION YOU GODLESS COMMIE!

[ShapopoJoe]

H, I could not have said it any better....

[ShapopoJoe]

But you agreed with her first post that said, that we should let the market place make the desisions, right? If all those media outlets are so left leaning(which with the exception of a couple I don't think they are) shouldn't the market place be showing them that they don't agree with it.
Also I think it should be pointed out that, while I don't know the specifics about your examples, I'm sure there are plenty of items that are covered on CNN that Fox News doesn't cover because it doesn't fit into their political agenda.

Have you seen the ratings for the major networks evening news lately? First of all, thats all anyone had for years...now with CNN, FOX, MSNBC out there, they are losing market share at an alarming rate...So yes, people are finding out that there is another side to the news and they are moving away from the staples of yesteryear, the network news.

As far as what CNN covers that Fox does not touch...Oh, I am sure any piece where Christine Amanpour coddles terrorists (Oh sorry, CNN calls them freedom fighters), Fox does not touch it...

[MadBiker]

Sorry but I disagree...Democrats/Liberals/Evil Ones have CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the nations top newspapers...should I go on? Fox News and Talk Radio show the OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY and that seems to be the side that liberals do not want anyone to hear...Why do you think Trent Lott mouthed off about Talk Radio that has long supported him? Because the politicians want everyone to believe THEIR WAY about the Immigration Bill...and he knows if Talk radio was not exposing the reality or questioning this bill, the liberal media would have it cemented for them...

Talk Radio and Fox News, the only ones questioning Al Gore and his whackadoo movie on Global Warming, exposing the lies therein.....Talk Radio and Fox News, the only media outlets exposing the fact that while 7000 scientists signed the Global Warming is real document (paraphrase), 40000 scientist have signed a document saying that its a joke...

Remember Talk Radio is not all about the hosts of the shows, its about the PEOPLE CALLING IN...While you might think they must all be uneducated morons, most are upper middle class college graduates.

gee, Neil Boortz would be ashamed of you...

Shap

No, Joe, it sounds like you agree with me completely. That, or you want the FD to be instituted so a conservative viewpoint will be presented alongside the liberal viewpoint. I am not sure where you are going with this line of reasoning.

The conservative media outlets may not be as numerous, but I wonder why that is. Perhaps they are able to survive with their current consumer base, or they have big-money advertisement that sustains them despite being so small in number. Conservative Radio does very well via syndication especially on AM airwaves - not glamorous, I know, but there are not very many FM news-talk stations. Most news talk is on the AM band, conservative, liberal, or otherwise.

As for thinking that all callers must be morons, nowhere did I ever assert that nor did I raise the issue of callers.

[TheMojoPin]

Shapopo Joe is my favorite board character of all time.

[foodcourtdruide]

Ummm..excuse, me KOMRADE??? There is a "serious problem that needs a solution"??? LMAO..Yeah, the serious problem is that you have UNITED STATES (Oh, you know this one, land of the FREE, first amendment, by the people for the people, that whole country THING?) CONGRESSMEN and CONGRESSWOMEN openly talking about SILENCING an entire segment of the population that does not agree with them....whether its the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or these commies talking about getting rid of the electoral college ( Why? Well, not getting any votes from the flyover states, lets just make sure we get the big liberal cities to choose the elections and cut them out all together..) The other serious problem is that there are AMERICAN citizens actually thinking this is a good idea....WOW...Where is this country going? Look, I did not serve in the United States Marine Corps so that certain segments of the population could have their voices heard...

Talk radio is served by the free market....There is a reason that CONSERVATIVE talk radio is huge...its called AMERICAN CITIZENS AKA LISTENERS....Boxer, you had Talk America (or whatever the hell it was called) and NOBODY LISTENED...THAT IS THE PROBLEM...If Sean Hannity had a ZERO SHARE, I friggin guarantee you he would be run off the air...ITS about having the listeners and generating the money....Adverstisers are not going to pay for ads on Al Frankens show if he has 4 listeners...

Just remember LIBS...They silence us now, they will have a reason to silence you later...guaranteed....

A TRUE AMERICAN
SHAPOPO JOE

Fuck the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE aka...SILENCE OF THE PEOPLE

At the risk of being called a LIB (all caps), I think you're going a little overboard. I think it's obvious that the only reason the dem's are calling attention to this issue is that it is having a negative impact on them, however I think there should be a serious debate about the influence private industry has on the minds of citizens. News Corp., ABC News, etc. are major corporations that have their own interests. Are you comfortable with privately owned major corporations pumping out programming that could potentially sway elections, dictate policy or influence public opinion?

[underdog]

At the risk of being called a LIB (all caps), I think you're going a little overboard. I think it's obvious that the only reason the dem's are calling attention to this issue is that it is having a negative impact on them, however I think there should be a serious debate about the influence private industry has on the minds of citizens. News Corp., ABC News, etc. are major corporations that have their own interests. Are you comfortable with privately owned major corporations pumping out programming that could potentially sway elections, dictate policy or influence public opinion?

Russian, motherfucker! Do you speak it?

[MadBiker]

At the risk of being called a LIB (all caps), I think you're going a little overboard. I think it's obvious that the only reason the dem's are calling attention to this issue is that it is having a negative impact on them, however I think there should be a serious debate about the influence private industry has on the minds of citizens. News Corp., ABC News, etc. are major corporations that have their own interests. Are you comfortable with privately owned major corporations pumping out programming that could potentially sway elections, dictate policy or influence public opinion?

Private industry has always exerted control on politics. Money, period, exerts control of politics. The American Revolution was about money [not solely] and spawned a new form of government not seen by the world. The Communist Revolution was also about money [not solely] - and spawned a new form of government the world had never seen.

Whether you don't like the way its being taken (taxation without representation), or don't like the way its being taken (peasant laborers starving to support Tsarist excesses), the genesis and sustenance of government is money and how it is controlled.

Without the private industry machines in America, from whence would wealth be generated? Where would people work?

I am not disagreeing with you 100%. It is only a small hop to imagine a world where Kellog's food was legislated as the only thing we could eat for breakfast and school textbooks are revisionist history only published by giant corporation. But more and more, WE THE PEOPLE are ceding control of these very things to corporate interests. We don't have to do it with our vote, we already do it with our dollars. If the Giant Corprations want to sit back and, you know, be all corporation-y, they should as that is their raison d'etre. If one fears their influence in ones life, escape from it with a simple act: KILL YOUR TELEVISION.

[ShapopoJoe]

At the risk of being called a LIB (all caps), I think you're going a little overboard. I think it's obvious that the only reason the dem's are calling attention to this issue is that it is having a negative impact on them, however I think there should be a serious debate about the influence private industry has on the minds of citizens. News Corp., ABC News, etc. are major corporations that have their own interests. Are you comfortable with privately owned major corporations pumping out programming that could potentially sway elections, dictate policy or influence public opinion?

Well, CBS has Dan Rather using fake documents to try and divebomb GWB in 2004 so why not? I mean its happening every day....You have NPR which is supposed to be the most unbiased of any of the networks since it is purely govt supported entity, just railing against George Bush on a daily basis as well as coddling up to terrorist organizations by refusing to air anything that might paint them in a bad light...as if they are just some local glee club or something....so you see there is no other option here...Govt cannot control the media, Chavez...Its a free market baby...

[ShapopoJoe]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56346

Ack...this woman should be working for Putin or Chavez...disgusting to me....Here is a tip lady, dont go visit the troops ANYWHERE, ANYTIME soon....

[foodcourtdruide]

Well, CBS has Dan Rather using fake documents to try and divebomb GWB in 2004 so why not? I mean its happening every day....You have NPR which is supposed to be the most unbiased of any of the networks since it is purely govt supported entity, just railing against George Bush on a daily basis as well as coddling up to terrorist organizations by refusing to air anything that might paint them in a bad light...as if they are just some local glee club or something....so you see there is no other option here...Govt cannot control the media, Chavez...Its a free market baby...

The stuff you're saying about NPR is ridiculous so I'm not going to address it, but in referring to me as Chavez.. let me ask you. Do you believe the government should regulate against the use of subliminal messages on tv/radio/the internet?

[Fat_Sunny]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56346

This Is One Of The Very Few Issues That Could Actually Get F_S And Alot Of Others Into The Streets.

If The Pols Think The Call-Ins Were Bad On The Immigration Bill, Wait Till They See What Comes Out Of The Woodwork When They Go After This One!

[foodcourtdruide]

Private industry has always exerted control on politics. Money, period, exerts control of politics. The American Revolution was about money [not solely] and spawned a new form of government not seen by the world. The Communist Revolution was also about money [not solely] - and spawned a new form of government the world had never seen.

Whether you don't like the way its being taken (taxation without representation), or don't like the way its being taken (peasant laborers starving to support Tsarist excesses), the genesis and sustenance of government is money and how it is controlled.

Without the private industry machines in America, from whence would wealth be generated? Where would people work?

I am not disagreeing with you 100%. It is only a small hop to imagine a world where Kellog's food was legislated as the only thing we could eat for breakfast and school textbooks are revisionist history only published by giant corporation. But more and more, WE THE PEOPLE are ceding control of these very things to corporate interests. We don't have to do it with our vote, we already do it with our dollars. If the Giant Corprations want to sit back and, you know, be all corporation-y, they should as that is their raison d'etre. If one fears their influence in ones life, escape from it with a simple act: KILL YOUR TELEVISION.

Agreed that major corporations will always have an influence in government whether we like it or not, however I think it is the governments responsibility to maintain some control of that influence. If major corporations were able to sit back and do whatever they wanted 90% of us wouldl be living ala the late 1800's/early 1900's in tenaments and working for considerably less money than the cost of living.

[MadBiker]

Quote from WorldNet article:

"The Democrat [Feinstein] said talk radio tends to be one-sided.

"It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information."

Uh, I listen to Air America and Fox News Radio, along with NPR on occassion. This statement could be said for TRUTH about broadcasts made from either viewpoint.

The Dems never really had me in the first place, but I am totally lost on this one. Its whining pure and simple..."but, but, the people need to Heeeeaaaaarrrrr Meeeeee. What I have to say is impooooortant. Damn it, make them liiiiiiissten to meeeeee!"

Why do I feel like I am in Kindergarten again every time I read about some new piece of coddling legislation the Dems propose?

[underdog]

just railing against George Bush on a daily basis

Reporting the news and telling the truth isn't "railing".

[prothunderball]

I'm done with this one now. all I'm going to say is that what's really funny is that we all basically agreed that the Fairness Doctrine was BS, but then it just deteriorated into a "Liberal Media," vs Conservative Talk Radio argument, that will never end. The Conservatives think that the media is too liberal. The Liberals think that it's not. That's the bottom line, and I'm not going to waste anymore energy trying to argue my point, especially if any point I make is simply met with me being a called a communist.

Also I think it's worth pointing out that this may all be just a tad bit premature considering it was just a comment made by a politican and no actual legislation has been introduced yet, I'm going to wait and see what actually happens before I spend anymore time thinking about it

[HBox]

I'm done with this one now. all I'm going to say is that what's really funny is that we all basically agreed that the Fairness Doctrine was BS, but then it just deteriorated into a "Liberal Media," vs Conservative Talk Radio argument, that will never end. The Conservatives think that the media is too liberal. The Liberals think that it's not. That's the bottom line, and I'm not going to waste anymore energy trying to argue my point, especially if any point I make is simply met with me being a called a communist.

Also I think it's worth pointing out that this may all be just a tad bit premature considering it was just a comment made by a politican and no actual legislation has been introduced yet, I'm going to wait and see what actually happens before I spend anymore time thinking about it


SHUT UP TROTSKY!

[underdog]

SHUT UP TROTSKY!


I agree and would like to subscribe to your magazine.

[prothunderball]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v299/cld1313/MARXPIN.jpg

[Snacks]

Oh, Excuse me....maybe we should have just "kindly inquired" of the British to leave us alone? When congress openly talks about limiting my free speech, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET...I didnt server 6 years of blood, sweat and tears in the United States Marine Corps to have some MORONS talk about limiting freedoms...Sorry if you take that personally but taking freedom, I take personally...

Shap Out, moving to original thread on this subject...

So why arent you going nuts over this administration? Bush has taken more freedoms away then any president in our countures history. The patriot act is so against what we as Americans believe in. But after 9/11 everyone just did whatever he wanted until they woke up. The war on terror is like the war on drugs, you cant win. There will always be a crazy person out there. You cant fight nations when its not entire counties, its individuals. All we have done since 9/11 is make it worse. Dont believe me, watch you beloved faux news. Whenever they have analyst (even right leaning) they have admitted that this war has made Iraq a training school for terrorist. They all know it was not before.

See this I agree with for most part as well, and there wasn't any need for name calling and yelling.
What I have question though is, how much does the marketplace matter anymore? As we saw with Imus as JV and Elvis, the market place was there for them, yet they are still not on the air. It seems to me that we are starting to let these giant media corporations decide what the market place wants, and Americans seem more than willing to except that. And that is what worries me.

Now I am a liberal(not a communist though), but I do disagree with Fairness Doctrine. Really the only legislation I'd like to see is legislation that would disband some of these giant media conglomerations so that the power over what went out over out airwaves wasn't in the hands of just a few old white men.

I agree with that statement. Newscorp is trying to buy, the wall street journal, and even yahoo. They are trying to own every large media company. If this happens then we will have a one sided media org.

Sorry but I disagree...Democrats/Liberals/Evil Ones have CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, the nations top newspapers...should I go on? Fox News and Talk Radio show the OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY and that seems to be the side that liberals do not want anyone to hear...Why do you think Trent Lott mouthed off about Talk Radio that has long supported him? Because the politicians want everyone to believe THEIR WAY about the Immigration Bill...and he knows if Talk radio was not exposing the reality or questioning this bill, the liberal media would have it cemented for them...

Talk Radio and Fox News, the only ones questioning Al Gore and his whackadoo movie on Global Warming, exposing the lies therein.....Talk Radio and Fox News, the only media outlets exposing the fact that while 7000 scientists signed the Global Warming is real document (paraphrase), 40000 scientist have signed a document saying that its a joke...

Remember Talk Radio is not all about the hosts of the shows, its about the PEOPLE CALLING IN...While you might think they must all be uneducated morons, most are upper middle class college graduates.

gee, Neil Boortz would be ashamed of you...

Shap

All those tv stations you think of are no more left then right. Just b/c they report the war as it is, which is a disaster doesnt mean they are left. you need to stop listening to faux news. Bill O'Bully talks about the war being lost, yet he always says whenever there is a new way to fight the war he will say "I will give them this one last chance to try this new way to fight the war. You got to give this administartion one more chance"

No you dont.

Anyway I dont care 2 shits if hannity or rush spew their shit. If people want to listen to them, then they should be allowed to. The problem with this country is people believe what they say as fact even though nothing they say is ever proven as fact, but lies.

If you think that Gore is nuts and that there is no Global warming or that we are part of the reason for global warming then I wont waste anymore time to discuss this with you.

[Snacks]

Shapopo Joe is my favorite board character of all time.

Why? B/C he is so miguided and angry that you laugh at him. Or b/c you agree with his views? Please tell me its the b/c you think hes misguided? B/C your one of my favs and most of your political views are so similar to mine that this could hurt.

At the risk of being called a LIB (all caps), I think you're going a little overboard. I think it's obvious that the only reason the dem's are calling attention to this issue is that it is having a negative impact on them, however I think there should be a serious debate about the influence private industry has on the minds of citizens. News Corp., ABC News, etc. are major corporations that have their own interests. Are you comfortable with privately owned major corporations pumping out programming that could potentially sway elections, dictate policy or influence public opinion?

I love how being "liberal" has now become a bad word. I always thought liberal was a good thing. Being open minded, let people be themselves and doing what they want as long as what they do doesnt stop others from the same or hurt others? I love being called liberal, b/c I am.

oh and the other part of your post is exactly why I dont want a monopoly in the media, which it is becoming.

Well, CBS has Dan Rather using fake documents to try and divebomb GWB in 2004 so why not? I mean its happening every day....You have NPR which is supposed to be the most unbiased of any of the networks since it is purely govt supported entity, just railing against George Bush on a daily basis as well as coddling up to terrorist organizations by refusing to air anything that might paint them in a bad light...as if they are just some local glee club or something....so you see there is no other option here...Govt cannot control the media, Chavez...Its a free market baby...


First no one has ever said what those documents stated was unture, if anything most that was in those documents are very true, but the right was able to spin everything (like they always do) and no one talked about what was in those docs as being true.

The funny thing is, faux news never reports the truth or even has documents to report what they are saying.

[SinA]

We are at an interesting point in this country when the voting is often 50/50, but the airwaves represent 10/1 in pure quantity. That's a problem.


that's because the hayseeds listen to bortz, limbaugh, and hannity; and the other side knows how to read

[high fly]

Have you seen the ratings for the major networks evening news lately? First of all, thats all anyone had for years...now with CNN, FOX, MSNBC out there, they are losing market share at an alarming rate...So yes, people are finding out that there is another side to the news and they are moving away from the staples of yesteryear, the network news.

As far as what CNN covers that Fox does not touch...Oh, I am sure any piece where Christine Amanpour coddles terrorists (Oh sorry, CNN calls them freedom fighters), Fox does not touch it...


Yes, let's talk about the ratings and how they show the reason George W. Bush is president is because he swept the "dunce vote."

The country is evnly split between those whose politice lean to the left or the right.
When Faux News competes head to head with the major networks and is but a click away, Faux doesn't come anywhere close to having half of the viewers.

Thus, it appears that those on the right are just too damned stupid to know which side their bread is buttered on.
When they saw one of their own, that dunce in the White House, run for president, they came out in droves and put him over the top....

[jetdog]

Well, CBS has Dan Rather using fake documents to try and divebomb GWB in 2004 so why not? I mean its happening every day....You have NPR which is supposed to be the most unbiased of any of the networks since it is purely govt supported entity, just railing against George Bush on a daily basis as well as coddling up to terrorist organizations by refusing to air anything that might paint them in a bad light...as if they are just some local glee club or something....so you see there is no other option here...Govt cannot control the media, Chavez...Its a free market baby...

NPR are not purely government supported. Christ... have you never heard the summer fund drive?
On another note, I think when NPR aired the number of U.S. troops killed that day, and the number of civilians, they painted the terrorists in a bad light.

[epo]

Ummm..excuse, me KOMRADE??? There is a "serious problem that needs a solution"??? LMAO..Yeah, the serious problem is that you have UNITED STATES (Oh, you know this one, land of the FREE, first amendment, by the people for the people, that whole country THING?) CONGRESSMEN and CONGRESSWOMEN openly talking about SILENCING an entire segment of the population that does not agree with them....whether its the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or these commies talking about getting rid of the electoral college ( Why? Well, not getting any votes from the flyover states, lets just make sure we get the big liberal cities to choose the elections and cut them out all together..) The other serious problem is that there are AMERICAN citizens actually thinking this is a good idea....WOW...Where is this country going? Look, I did not serve in the United States Marine Corps so that certain segments of the population could have their voices heard...

Talk radio is served by the free market....There is a reason that CONSERVATIVE talk radio is huge...its called AMERICAN CITIZENS AKA LISTENERS....Boxer, you had Talk America (or whatever the hell it was called) and NOBODY LISTENED...THAT IS THE PROBLEM...If Sean Hannity had a ZERO SHARE, I friggin guarantee you he would be run off the air...ITS about having the listeners and generating the money....Adverstisers are not going to pay for ads on Al Frankens show if he has 4 listeners...

Just remember LIBS...They silence us now, they will have a reason to silence you later...guaranteed....

A TRUE AMERICAN
SHAPOPO JOE

Fuck the UNFAIRNESS DOCTRINE aka...SILENCE OF THE PEOPLE

Excuse me, you are going to lecture me about how liberals are silencing free speech on the same day that the Supreme Court, voting 5-4 with a straight conservative majority ruled to limit free speech (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19414576/)? Obviously you don't see the irony in your statement.

As for you statement: "Look, I did not serve in the United States Marine Corps so that certain segments of the population could have their voices heard...", I am udderly shocked. This is the most ignorant statement that I have ever read on this board. Did you seriously pass Civics class in junior high?

As for your assertion that "Talk Radio is served by the free market" I laugh. Try this on for size: Talk radio that is allowed to exist by the government through the means provided by the federal government should serve the needs of the people while balancing the needs of the free market.

[epo]

Oh, Excuse me....maybe we should have just "kindly inquired" of the British to leave us alone? When congress openly talks about limiting my free speech, THIS IS WHAT YOU GET...I didnt server 6 years of blood, sweat and tears in the United States Marine Corps to have some MORONS talk about limiting freedoms...Sorry if you take that personally but taking freedom, I take personally...

Shap Out, moving to original thread on this subject...

You throw around this bullshit about freedoms and the implied righteous conservative way. Some how the conservatives respect the way this country should be...yet the irony is the executive branch of this nation as run by George W. Bush doesn't even respect the checks and balances that are the foundation of this nation.

The executive branch has claimed oversight exemption. Story here (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-cheney23jun23,1,7680698.story?track=crosspromo&coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=1&cset=true). Did you serve 6 years in the military so that your president could shit all over what this country stands for?

[epo]

Have you seen the ratings for the major networks evening news lately? First of all, thats all anyone had for years...now with CNN, FOX, MSNBC out there, they are losing market share at an alarming rate...So yes, people are finding out that there is another side to the news and they are moving away from the staples of yesteryear, the network news.


Seriously dude, you don't know what you are talking about. People aren't moving because of "another side" but rather "another vehicle" that better suits their lifestyle. That has been the trend for awhile now.

[prothunderball]

Seriously dude, you don't know what you are talking about. People aren't moving because of "another side" but rather "another vehicle" that better suits their lifestyle. That has been the trend for awhile now.

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time, to make better points against this moron than I did. Though I'm sorry to say that you're a communist too now.

[HBox]

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time, to make better points against this moron than I did. Though I'm sorry to say that you're a communist too now.
WHY DON'T YOU BOTH GO JOIN THE CULT OF PERSONALITY YOU STALINISTS!

[prothunderball]

WHY DON'T YOU BOTH GO JOIN THE CULT OF PERSONALITY YOU STALINISTS!

Fuck you, I'm a Marxist.

[epo]

I just wanted to say thanks for taking the time, to make better points against this moron than I did. Though I'm sorry to say that you're a communist too now.

No problem, but what bothers me is the fact that he didn't read that I originally said that "some version" of the Fairness Doctrine should be re-installed, rather than the 50/50 split as claimed by right-wing talking point radio.

The right wing when arguing this issue seems to forget that terrestial radio is not a free market situation. It exists completely because the federal government has made it possible. Those airwaves are not owned by the media corporations, but rather are rented from the people. Don't ever forget that point.

And yes, I guess I'm a commie.

[HBox]

Fuck you, I'm a Marxist.

THEN GO LISTEN TO "RIGHT HERE WAITING" YOU LATE 80s MUSIC LISTENING TO FAGGOT! THAT'S EVEN WORSE THAN BEING A COMMIE!

[prothunderball]

THEN GO LISTEN TO "RIGHT HERE WAITING" YOU LATE 80s MUSIC LISTENING TO FAGGOT! THAT'S EVEN WORSE THAN BEING A COMMIE!


that one took me a minute. I was always more of "Hazard" fan.

[Fat_Sunny]

THEN GO LISTEN TO "RIGHT HERE WAITING" YOU LATE 80s MUSIC LISTENING TO FAGGOT! THAT'S EVEN WORSE THAN BEING A COMMIE!


In Fairness To The Marxist PTB, His Music Is From The 2000's. Not From The 80's!!! F_S Will Not Speculate On Anyone's Orientation.

STAY POSITIVE.

[scottinnj]

I figured that was a joke from HBOX....primal scream therapy or something.

I used to think that talk radio was a balance against liberal media. But now there is so much of it now it's like preaching to the choir with no debate. So I have been listening to Lionel and Ed Schultz. Still can't tolerate Randi Rhodes...she's the progressive equivalent of Ann Coulter.
But at least I'd fuck Ann if she had a ballgag in her mouth. Randy is just a mess.

[epo]

I figured that was a joke from HBOX....primal scream therapy or something.

I used to think that talk radio was a balance against liberal media. But now there is so much of it now it's like preaching to the choir with no debate. So I have been listening to Lionel and Ed Schultz. Still can't tolerate Randi Rhodes...she's the progressive equivalent of Ann Coulter.
But at least I'd fuck Ann if she had a ballgag in her mouth. Randy is just a mess.

As a liberal, I'm the first to admit that Randi Rhodes is the female equivalent to Rush Limbaugh....just fucking awful.

Wouldn't Ann's adam's apple bother you?

[scottinnj]

:lol: Hee Hee Hee!

[empulse]

Amazing. ShapopoJoe, and ProThunderball you are the hayseed kings. This story was manufactured 100%, so to start you are arguing from the point of...nothing. Why did this come up? WHy did Inhoffe stick his own cock in his mouth?

Talk Radio Fun Facts:

2750 hrs of conservative bullshit are broadcast daily.

Vs.

200 hrs of progressive talk.

I think this survey / analysis of the Talk Radio World has some wondering if there shouldn't be some revised middle ground reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. But again, Inhoffe made up that little radio snippet because he thought he could fire up the base, and in the process not get caught. Fucking pinhead.

Liberal Media is a term thought up by the right. Is causes divide and gives people of your ilk someone else to hate and be afraid of. Your idea (actually not yours it was spoonfed to your dumb fucking mouth) that the market decides is crap. It's OWNERSHIP. If right-wing nut jobs own 95% of the media, who's voice and ideas will be heard??? I will give you a second to think about it.

Deregulation and the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine were the downfall of progressives having the peoples ear, or at least being able to offer an opposing view point.

The myth of The Market Decides is easily debunked-- If Rupert Murdoch owns 85-90% of the media outlets in a given market and he is an unyielding neo-con supporter, is he going to put on Randi Rhodes? Ed Schultz? Young Turks? or Rush and Hannity? If it were up to him (and it is) he will put on his boys. Even in markets where progressives do get on the airwaves, and say hand Hannity his ass in ratings.... they still put on Hannity.

The fairness doctrine did work, it wasn't until Reagan that it suddenly became broken. Those on the right claimed it had a chilling effect on reporting and that it was really an effort by the left to silence their right to free speech. Actually it just said if you present something of political nature that attacks a person or group with an opposing view, the individual(s) who had been attacked had the right to respond, as TV and Radio stations use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES and said airwaves are not the property of those stations. Supreme Court in '69 said it best:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

Weird, it's like they were saying things should be fair an balanced.

News should be defined, and Limbaugh and others should have to say explicitly that they are making things up and everything they say is for .. I don't know.. comedies sake.
News and Political reporting should be accurate, 100% truthful and be able to be backed up by FACTS. I know some of you on the right don't believe in facts, so I guess we are at an impasse on that one.

[prothunderball]

Amazing. ShapopoJoe, and ProThunderball you are the hayseed kings.


First and foremost, I'd much rather be called a communist than a hayseed, that is one thing I am not. Beyond that if read all my post you'd see that I eventually came to the same conclusion that you did, the fact that we were arguing about something that hasn't happened. Sorry I just skimmed the rest of you post, I was too thrown off by being called a hayseed.

[ShapopoJoe]

that's because the hayseeds listen to bortz, limbaugh, and hannity; and the other side knows how to read

Gee ...is that why the ny times best seller list is regularly littered with conservative books? Another one bites the dust

[ShapopoJoe]

Amazing. ShapopoJoe, and ProThunderball you are the hayseed kings. This story was manufactured 100%, so to start you are arguing from the point of...nothing. Why did this come up? WHy did Inhoffe stick his own cock in his mouth?

Talk Radio Fun Facts:

2750 hrs of conservative bullshit are broadcast daily.

Vs.

200 hrs of progressive talk.

I think this survey / analysis of the Talk Radio World has some wondering if there shouldn't be some revised middle ground reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. But again, Inhoffe made up that little radio snippet because he thought he could fire up the base, and in the process not get caught. Fucking pinhead.

Liberal Media is a term thought up by the right. Is causes divide and gives people of your ilk someone else to hate and be afraid of. Your idea (actually not yours it was spoonfed to your dumb fucking mouth) that the market decides is crap. It's OWNERSHIP. If right-wing nut jobs own 95% of the media, who's voice and ideas will be heard??? I will give you a second to think about it.

Deregulation and the abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine were the downfall of progressives having the peoples ear, or at least being able to offer an opposing view point.

The myth of The Market Decides is easily debunked-- If Rupert Murdoch owns 85-90% of the media outlets in a given market and he is an unyielding neo-con supporter, is he going to put on Randi Rhodes? Ed Schultz? Young Turks? or Rush and Hannity? If it were up to him (and it is) he will put on his boys. Even in markets where progressives do get on the airwaves, and say hand Hannity his ass in ratings.... they still put on Hannity.

The fairness doctrine did work, it wasn't until Reagan that it suddenly became broken. Those on the right claimed it had a chilling effect on reporting and that it was really an effort by the left to silence their right to free speech. Actually it just said if you present something of political nature that attacks a person or group with an opposing view, the individual(s) who had been attacked had the right to respond, as TV and Radio stations use the PUBLIC AIRWAVES and said airwaves are not the property of those stations. Supreme Court in '69 said it best:

"A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount."

Weird, it's like they were saying things should be fair an balanced.

News should be defined, and Limbaugh and others should have to say explicitly that they are making things up and everything they say is for .. I don't know.. comedies sake.
News and Political reporting should be accurate, 100% truthful and be able to be backed up by FACTS. I know some of you on the right don't believe in facts, so I guess we are at an impasse on that one.

Wow, you obviously did not read my link...Sen Feinstein has added fuel to this argument and that story has been proven 100% FACT....and anyone who listens to Talk Radio besides yourself knows when they are running a bit or talking facts...You seem to be drinking that DNC koolaid...

Shap

[HBox]

Gee ...is that why the ny times best seller list is regularly littered with conservative books? Another one bites the dust

Wow, you obviously did not read my link...Sen Feinstein has added fuel to this argument and that story has been proven 100% FACT....and anyone who listens to Talk Radio besides yourself knows when they are running a bit or talking facts...You seem to be drinking that DNC koolaid...

Shap

:laugh:

[ShapopoJoe]

First and foremost, I'd much rather be called a communist than a hayseed, that is one thing I am not. Beyond that if read all my post you'd see that I eventually came to the same conclusion that you did, the fact that we were arguing about something that hasn't happened. Sorry I just skimmed the rest of you post, I was too thrown off by being called a hayseed.


You must be ignorant of history or simply ignorant...rather be a communist than a hayseed, eh? Hayseeds harvest your food, mine your coal, drill your oil, break their backs to make a dime while some PROGRESSIVE tool sits on his ass trying to find ways to take that dime for their own uses...Social progressives are simply communists that changed their name because of the righteous stigma associated with being a commie...check out the mandates of the social progressives then check out a communist party website....SAME THING...and the only good commie is a dead commie...

[epo]

Wow, you obviously did not read my link...Sen Feinstein has added fuel to this argument and that story has been proven 100% FACT....and anyone who listens to Talk Radio besides yourself knows when they are running a bit or talking facts...You seem to be drinking that DNC koolaid...

Shap

Is that what Rush or O'Reilly told you?

[ShapopoJoe]

Is that what Rush or O'Reilly told you?
NO, thats what the ASSOCIATED PRESS told me......Anything else or do you want another smack down?

[prothunderball]

You must be ignorant of history or simply ignorant...rather be a communist than a hayseed, eh? Hayseeds harvest your food, mine your coal, drill your oil, break their backs to make a dime while some PROGRESSIVE tool sits on his ass trying to find ways to take that dime for their own uses...Social progressives are simply communists that changed their name because of the righteous stigma associated with being a commie...check out the mandates of the social progressives then check out a communist party website....SAME THING...and the only good commie is a dead commie...

Man did I want to drop this, first off, by hayseed, I meant small minded, ignorant fools, who refuse to open their minds to new ideas. But really it's a subjective term that I don't think one can really define. However if we're going by your definition another term would "proletariat," which Webster's defines as " The laboring class." Either way, you're saying that is "progressives" that are trying to make a buck off of the working man. That is so ridiculous especially in this day and age. The people that are trying to make money off of the working class today are large corporations. Are you saying that it is progressives that run Walmart, General Motors, or Exxon Mobil? That is simply ridiculous.
Please tell me how the republicans have stood up for the working class in this country? By cutting taxes to rich? By allowing the out sourcing of jobs to other countries? This country has lost jobs under the current administration, so to act like they are the friend of the working class isn't only misguided it's just plain stupid.

Now as far as the difference between Communists and Progressives, I can't find to many definitions of "social progessives," but accoriding to wikipedia:
Social progressivism is the view that as time progresses, so should societal mores and morality. Social progressives believe that there is no inherent value in tradition. They argue that all social arrangements - including marriage, the family and gender roles - are not fixed; rather, they should be changed or updated whenever such a change is for the greater good of society or it benefits the people who wish to engage in those social arrangements. The opposite of social progressivism is called social conservatism.

I really can't see what that has to communism, if you want I can find a definition of that for you too, but I'm really losing interest at this point.

[ShapopoJoe]

Man did I want to drop this, first off, by hayseed, I meant small minded, ignorant fools, who refuse to open their minds to new ideas. But really it's a subjective term that I don't think one can really define. However if we're going by your definition another term would "proletariat," which Webster's defines as " The laboring class." Either way, you're saying that is "progressives" that are trying to make a buck off of the working man. That is so ridiculous especially in this day and age. The people that are trying to make money off of the working class today are large corporations. Are you saying that it is progressives that run Walmart, General Motors, or Exxon Mobil? That is simply ridiculous.
Please tell me how the republicans have stood up for the working class in this country? By cutting taxes to rich? By allowing the out sourcing of jobs to other countries? This country has lost jobs under the current administration, so to act like they are the friend of the working class isn't only misguided it's just plain stupid.

Now as far as the difference between Communists and Progressives, I can't find to many definitions of "social progessives," but accoriding to wikipedia:


I really can't see what that has to communism, if you want I can find a definition of that for you too, but I'm really losing interest at this point.


Good, then this Marine says Go fuck yourself...Hugo Chavez is looking for sheeple like you...Maybe you can take a trip to Venezuela where there is a government brewing that surely you would be honored to bow down to...

Semper Fi
Shapopo

[HBox]

Good, then this Marine says Go fuck yourself...Hugo Chavez is looking for sheeple like you...Maybe you can take a trip to Venezuela where there is a government brewing that surely you would be honored to bow down to...

Semper Fi
Shapopo

You are gonna last here a real long time.

[prothunderball]

Good, then this Marine says Go fuck yourself...Hugo Chavez is looking for sheeple like you...Maybe you can take a trip to Venezuela where there is a government brewing that surely you would be honored to bow down to...

Semper Fi
Shapopo

way to refute my points there chief. You sure know how to win an argument. Oh wait you didn't refute my points. You just called me "sheeple" and made yet one more misguided and uninformed communist reference. I WIN. YOU LOSE.

[epo]

Wow, you obviously did not read my link...Sen Feinstein has added fuel to this argument and that story has been proven 100% FACT....and anyone who listens to Talk Radio besides yourself knows when they are running a bit or talking facts...You seem to be drinking that DNC koolaid...

Shap

NO, thats what the ASSOCIATED PRESS told me......Anything else or do you want another smack down?

Alright jackass, I've had enough of this. The original story was Inohofe mouthing off about a conversation that he overheard Boxer & Clinton having over 3 years ago. Of course conservative talk radio ran off and treated it like news.

Sen Feinstein was asked a question by Faux Mother Fucking News and she answered the question as to whether she favored a return of some version of the Fairness Doctrine. Of course the AP picked up the story, but provided no context.

If you are so great at the smackdown then why didn't you answer any of my three other quotes of your illogical drivel?

[SinA]

Gee ...is that why the ny times best seller list is regularly littered with conservative books? Another one bites the dust

you're good at getting jokes

[Snacks]

You must be ignorant of history or simply ignorant...rather be a communist than a hayseed, eh? Hayseeds harvest your food, mine your coal, drill your oil, break their backs to make a dime QUOTE]

those arent hayseeds, those are mexicans and other minorities that all your friends want to kick out or lock up. Hayseeds are white folk who want things to stay as they are. They are usually very religious people who never practice what they preach. They have no tolerance for oothers. Some hayseeds dont work, they sit around chewing tabacco and btiching about the north, and minorities

[QUOTE=ShapopoJoe;1368760]Good, then this Marine says Go fuck yourself...Hugo Chavez is looking for sheeple like you...Maybe you can take a trip to Venezuela where there is a government brewing that surely you would be honored to bow down to...

Semper Fi
Shapopo

stop throwing out that you were a marine. Great thanks for your service. Just b/c you served this country doesnt make you any more American then the rest. I was enlisted in the Navy and my departure was postponed 3 times b/c your boy Bush Sr fucked up the economy and his spending (reagonamics of the 80's) that more then half the enlisties from 1990-1991 were delayed forward or given D.E.P discharge.

[epo]

You must be ignorant of history or simply ignorant...rather be a communist than a hayseed, eh? Hayseeds harvest your food, mine your coal, drill your oil, break their backs to make a dime while some PROGRESSIVE tool sits on his ass trying to find ways to take that dime for their own uses...Social progressives are simply communists that changed their name because of the righteous stigma associated with being a commie...check out the mandates of the social progressives then check out a communist party website....SAME THING...and the only good commie is a dead commie...

I love it when a goddamned hayseed bitches about some city slicker for stealing their money. It's goddamned fact that the people who live in the country receive more than their fair share of tax dollars in return. Without those "sitting on their ass" progressives in the city, the country folk wouldn't have any roads or schools as their tax dollars wouldn't support it. But do you ever hear a progressive complain about it? Not a good one as every deserves those basic rights.

Furthermore I love a conservative that bitches about social progressives but uses the system without thinking about it:


They use the public transportation system, because some stupid social progressive thought we should have good transportation.
They use the public school system, because some stupid social progressive thought we should have a school system for everyone.
They eat the food from the grocery store which is safe as some stupid social progressive thought we should have the FDA to keep our food safe.
They worked an 8 hour day as some stupid social progressive thought that corporations shouldn't own you like a pig.
They worked in a safe area as some stupid social progressive developed OSHA so that you wouldn't get crippled at work.
They put their money in a bank and felt good about it as some stupid social progressive developed the FDIC to ensure that you wouldn't get ripped off from your hard-earned dollar.


I would go on, but this is just too goddamned easy....

Honestly, think before you speak.

[MadBiker]

In a debate as polarized as this one, the general recourse is to take two steps back from your viewpoint, take a deep breath and count to 10, and then another.

This argument is beginning to sound like one of those "round-table" talk shows where they bring in liberals and conservatives to shout at each other across a room, and The One Who Is Loudest, Wins.

The issue of Lib vs. Con is not as simple as shouting pejoratives at each other. Has anyone taken a few courses in economics, political science, history, or journalism that might help provide a context for your broad arguments?

My point is that you should neither base your opinions nor derive your knowledge of "facts" from any source in the media. Media exists to persuade you. The News, as we once knew its noble institution, crawled out of the muck and slime of Yellow Journalism to live a decent life for awhile, then ceased to exist in the late 60s, by what my personal research tells me. If you look to talk radio, TV news, or one or two national newspapers to derive your sole opinion of any issue at hand, then sadly, whether your side be Lib or Con, you do not know the whole picture, you do not grasp the fine points, and you will not form a coherent argument based on rational observation.

You must also have a decent bullshit detector and a desire to dig deeper. I never, ever take what I am told at face value. Scepticism can be a virtue when exercised properly. Always look deeper for truth; like a vein of gold hidden in the rock, it is worth the effort to sweat and toil for the liberating riches it offers.

[epo]

Has anyone taken a few courses in economics, political science, history, or journalism that might help provide a context for your broad arguments?



Alright MadBiker I'm gonna give you the CliffNotes of a Communications graduate class I took: The Political Economy of Mass Media.

A. The "media" was born with the printing press in the Gutenberg in the mid 1400's. The press spread throughout Europe and where mainly purchased by an organization that had the money to buy them & a message to spread: The Church.

This essentially taught those outside of the church the most valuable lesson about the media: Who owns the medium? That question is quinessential as we continue to look at media through the current day.

B. Move to America. The printing press is largely unregulated, but broadcast television & radio are developed using public monies & airwaves. At this point the federal government has a right to license and oversee the new broadcast entities.

So the Communications Acts of 1934 is developed. It essentially gives birth to the FCC, and it's right to regulate broadcast media. The FCC in a later received the right to regulate "to the extent marketplace forces are deficient". Amongst those regulations was the Fairness Doctrine.

C. Goldwater Revolution/Reagan Follow-Up. One of the first things that Reagan went after in his presidency was media ownership rules & the Fairness Doctrine. He managed to throw both in the garbage changing the history of this nation. (Better or worse).

The FCC argued against Reagan with the following words, "If our democratic society is to function, nothing can be more important than insuring that there is a free flow of information from as many divergent sources as possible." Of course none of that mattered when Reagan's boys got into office.

D. Needless to say the essence of the Fairness Doctrine was within the tenets of the FCC's formation: "Operate within the public interest". The fairness doctrine once required broadcasters to devote a reasonable time to discussion of controversial public issues and to permit reasonable opportunities for opposing views to be heard in an opposing view was presented.

It was the special interests that got those basic rules of good media repealed. With the media conglomerates are now controlling the marketplace and yet we lack the ability to "regulate when the marketplace is deficient."

Actually it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[MadBiker]

epo, I was referring the pejoratives being hurled back and forth on this thread. Reducing an argument to something as basic as name-calling and insults clouds an issue. One will never arrive at a suitable solution to a complex problem when insults are traded in lieu of analyzing facts.

The truth often lies in the subleties, not the synopsis.

[ShapopoJoe]

I love it when a goddamned hayseed bitches about some city slicker for stealing their money. It's goddamned fact that the people who live in the country receive more than their fair share of tax dollars in return. Without those "sitting on their ass" progressives in the city, the country folk wouldn't have any roads or schools as their tax dollars wouldn't support it. But do you ever hear a progressive complain about it? Not a good one as every deserves those basic rights.

Furthermore I love a conservative that bitches about social progressives but uses the system without thinking about it:


They use the public transportation system, because some stupid social progressive thought we should have good transportation.
They use the public school system, because some stupid social progressive thought we should have a school system for everyone.
They eat the food from the grocery store which is safe as some stupid social progressive thought we should have the FDA to keep our food safe.
They worked an 8 hour day as some stupid social progressive thought that corporations shouldn't own you like a pig.
They worked in a safe area as some stupid social progressive developed OSHA so that you wouldn't get crippled at work.
They put their money in a bank and felt good about it as some stupid social progressive developed the FDIC to ensure that you wouldn't get ripped off from your hard-earned dollar.


I would go on, but this is just too goddamned easy....

Honestly, think before you speak.


Wow, do I really have to refute all of these one at a time??? SIGH...Ok, lets start with the FDIC...I assume you were referring to Roosevelt as the social progressive that started the FDIC??? Go back to history 101 or better yet, read and weep at your ignorance...

As a result of the Great Depression, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg and Democratic Representative Henry Steagall strived to restore public confidence after a massive series of bank runs in early 1933 caused 4,004 banks to close, with an average of $900,000 in deposits. These banks were merged into stronger banks; many months later, depositors received compensation for roughly 85% of their former deposits.

In May, the U.S. House Banking and Currency Committee submitted a bill that would insure deposits 100 percent to $1,000,000, and after that on a sliding scale; it would be financed by a small assessment on the banks. However the U.S. Senate Banking Committee reported a bill that excluded banks that were not members of the Federal Reserve System. Senator Vandenberg rejected both bills because neither contained a ceiling on the guarantees. He proposed an amendment covering all banks beginning using a temporary fund and a $2,500 ceiling. It was passed as the Glass-Steagall Deposit Insurance Act in June with Steagall's amendment that the program would be managed by the new Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Led by Chicago banker Walter J. Cummings, Jr. the FDIC soon included almost all the country's 19,000 banking offices. Insurance started January 1, 1934. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was personally opposed to insurance because it would protect irresponsible bankers, but yielded when he saw Congressional support was overwhelming. As the second head of FDIC in early 1934 he appointed Leo Crowley, a Wisconsin banker who, Roosevelt soon discovered, was using the FDIC to cover his own embezzlements. After some anguish, Roosevelt kept Crowley on and hushed up the episode. This early corruption was first revealed in 1996

See..even hayseeds can use Wikipedia...thanks for proving my point about libs...you just performed a feat that you claim talk radio pulls everyday...MISINFORMATION...sorry but I am not one of the sheeple, I do my research...

Shall I go on to the next fallacy?

[epo]

Wow, do I really have to refute all of these one at a time??? SIGH...Ok, lets start with the FDIC...I assume you were referring to Roosevelt as the social progressive that started the FDIC??? Go back to history 101 or better yet, read and weep at your ignorance...

As a result of the Great Depression, Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg and Democratic Representative Henry Steagall strived to restore public confidence after a massive series of bank runs in early 1933 caused 4,004 banks to close, with an average of $900,000 in deposits. These banks were merged into stronger banks; many months later, depositors received compensation for roughly 85% of their former deposits.

In May, the U.S. House Banking and Currency Committee submitted a bill that would insure deposits 100 percent to $1,000,000, and after that on a sliding scale; it would be financed by a small assessment on the banks. However the U.S. Senate Banking Committee reported a bill that excluded banks that were not members of the Federal Reserve System. Senator Vandenberg rejected both bills because neither contained a ceiling on the guarantees. He proposed an amendment covering all banks beginning using a temporary fund and a $2,500 ceiling. It was passed as the Glass-Steagall Deposit Insurance Act in June with Steagall's amendment that the program would be managed by the new Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Led by Chicago banker Walter J. Cummings, Jr. the FDIC soon included almost all the country's 19,000 banking offices. Insurance started January 1, 1934. President Franklin D. Roosevelt was personally opposed to insurance because it would protect irresponsible bankers, but yielded when he saw Congressional support was overwhelming. As the second head of FDIC in early 1934 he appointed Leo Crowley, a Wisconsin banker who, Roosevelt soon discovered, was using the FDIC to cover his own embezzlements. After some anguish, Roosevelt kept Crowley on and hushed up the episode. This early corruption was first revealed in 1996

See..even hayseeds can use Wikipedia...thanks for proving my point about libs...you just performed a feat that you claim talk radio pulls everyday...MISINFORMATION...sorry but I am not one of the sheeple, I do my research...

Shall I go on to the next fallacy?

Then explain the Emergency Banking Act of 1933 to me and how much FDR hated that. Or the fact that the Glass-Steagall Banking Act (1933) was co-sponsored by Carter Glass (D) & Henry Steagall (D) and signed into law by FDR. Surely those progressives hated the common man.

Don't treat me like an idiot because you know how to use Wikipedia. I'm going to bed as I'm bored with you and I have a job where I have to sit on my progressive ass all day tomorrow. Yawn.

[scottinnj]

B. Move to America. The printing press is largely unregulated, but broadcast television & radio are developed using public monies & airwaves. At this point the federal government has a right to license and oversee the new broadcast entities.

So the Communications Acts of 1934 is developed. It essentially gives birth to the FCC, and it's right to regulate broadcast media. The FCC in a later received the right to regulate "to the extent marketplace forces are deficient". Amongst those regulations was the Fairness Doctrine.




While that may be true, it doesn't make it right. The FCC has become a political beauracracy, used by both the left and the right to control the message from the other side or to punish the broadcasters who buck the system.

The FCC should only be regulating airwave frequencies so that:

Two radio stations within broadcast distance of each other send their signal on the same frequency and interfere with each other.

Regulate the spectrum so companies can transmit and receive signals and manufacture electronic components and oscillators that are safe to use and don't interfere with government emergency radios and other communications.

Other then that, what is said on such bandwidths should be protected as free speech.

The part of one company owning all the broadcast and print media marbles is a different matter though. I think Congress should be able to regulate that under the "no monopolies" rule.


Or I could be totally off base. It's just my opinion.