I support President Obama (yes, it's true)

[luns101]

At least when it comes to our opposition to the Fairness Doctrine

[CrazyAnglican]

I too, support the President on this.

[pimpdave]

It's an appropriate division of power to defer to the FCC's opinion on this.

It would have been nice if the Bush White House had deferred to other agencies once in awhile, for [MANY EXPLETIVES]-sake.

[Juan_Bottom]

Obama is a weirdo. He's against the fairness doctrine now, but he's pro having the office of the president control censuses? Or whatever the contraversy is?
One is obviously not fair but the other is? Weird. At least I can see some good in the fairness doctrine, even if I do think that overall it is a pile of lies.
Seriously president Pelosi needs to straiten Obama up and have him be more consistant.

[Zeppflyer]

Well, I guess that's ONE thing I'll agree with him on.

[Iz Man]

At least when it comes to our opposition to the Fairness Doctrine

You really think he means what he says Luns?
The "Fairness Doctrine" will be brought back..... with his majesty's blessing. It'll just be in the guise of something with a different name. (that way he gets to "save face")
He let Pilosi & Dingy Harry write the stimulus. They both want the fairness doctrine BAD.
Those two will make him go along with it.

Or maybe he'll just issue another executive order....

[got tonkaed]

I think the odd thing about this is it seemingly must almost be an ideology issue. If i was to say would you want your news to carry both sides of controversial issues without mentioning government (or if we were to assume news was capable of doing this on its own) id seemingly get a landslide yes (or at least id hope so). Throw the word mandate in there and all the sudden its a landslide no.

I dont think theres anything wrong with opposing governent intervention (and opposition to this certainly has its merits) but i think its odd that people dont demand this in their news as a matter of course.

[Iz Man]

I think the odd thing about this is it seemingly must almost be an ideology issue. If i was to say would you want your news to carry both sides of controversial issues without mentioning government (or if we were to assume news was capable of doing this on its own) id seemingly get a landslide yes (or at least id hope so). Throw the word mandate in there and all the sudden its a landslide no.

I dont think theres anything wrong with opposing governent intervention (and opposition to this certainly has its merits) but i think its odd that people dont demand this in their news as a matter of course.

You hit the nail on the head: government intervention.
The Fairness Doctrine is geared specifically to regulate AM Talk Radio, which is largely conservative. Which is why the likes of Pelosi et all are promoting it.
It's the only way to get their "liberal side" out on the AM waves. Liberal talk radio has failed because the people that listen to talk radio don't want it, so they don't listen to it, so sponsors don't support those shows. In other words, no demand.

There are plenty of news outlets for the public to peruse.
Some lean liberal, some lean conservative, some libertarian, some a blend of all.
It is up to the citizen to determine how and where he gets his news. Not the government.

[Neoteny]

Indeed. "Fairness" seems a bit ridiculous in this sense.

[pimpdave]

http://www.presidentplease.com/

[soka]

spread the wealth , the fairness , and taxes ...yet it seems dems havent spread their fair share of taxes , fairness , or wealth .... joe biden ..“It’s time to be patriotic … time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut.”


Daschle , Geithner , rangle , and other dems who dont pay taxes ...we are not even getting the best people to repersent usa obamas first picks are the best yet he are getting second best ... like biden

[Neoteny]

http://www.presidentplease.com/

That's pretty awesome.

[luns101]

At least when it comes to our opposition to the Fairness Doctrine

You really think he means what he says Luns?
The "Fairness Doctrine" will be brought back..... with his majesty's blessing. It'll just be in the guise of something with a different name. (that way he gets to "save face")
He let Pilosi & Dingy Harry write the stimulus. They both want the fairness doctrine BAD.
Those two will make him go along with it.

Or maybe he'll just issue another executive order....

If that happens, he is guaranteeing the Republicans to take back both houses of Congress in 2010. The country hasn't gone totally off the deep end yet. I think he'll oppose it just for the sake of keeping power, if nothing else.

[InkL0sed]

http://www.presidentplease.com/

That's pretty awesome.

President please, that's fucking awesome

[spurgistan]

At least when it comes to our opposition to the Fairness Doctrine

You really think he means what he says Luns?
The "Fairness Doctrine" will be brought back..... with his majesty's blessing. It'll just be in the guise of something with a different name. (that way he gets to "save face")
He let Pilosi & Dingy Harry write the stimulus. They both want the fairness doctrine BAD.
Those two will make him go along with it.

Or maybe he'll just issue another executive order....

If that happens, he is guaranteeing the Republicans to take back both houses of Congress in 2010. The country hasn't gone totally off the deep end yet. I think he'll oppose it just for the sake of keeping power, if nothing else.

While I'm really not a big fan of regulating what people can or can't say (I think there's something in the Bill of Rights about that... hmmm, just let me check my pocket Constitution) there are much worse things than making sure people aren't just hearing one side of an issue.

[Snorri1234]

At least when it comes to our opposition to the Fairness Doctrine

You really think he means what he says Luns?
The "Fairness Doctrine" will be brought back..... with his majesty's blessing. It'll just be in the guise of something with a different name. (that way he gets to "save face")
He let Pilosi & Dingy Harry write the stimulus. They both want the fairness doctrine BAD.
Those two will make him go along with it.

Or maybe he'll just issue another executive order....

If that happens, he is guaranteeing the Republicans to take back both houses of Congress in 2010. The country hasn't gone totally off the deep end yet. I think he'll oppose it just for the sake of keeping power, if nothing else.

While I'm really not a big fan of regulating what people can or can't say (I think there's something in the Bill of Rights about that... hmmm, just let me check my pocket Constitution) there are much worse things than making sure people aren't just hearing one side of an issue.

Word. I don't think anyone should be losing sleep over the fact that Hannity and Limbaugh can't spout their hatefilled bullshit all the time.

[Iz Man]

At least when it comes to our opposition to the Fairness Doctrine

You really think he means what he says Luns?
The "Fairness Doctrine" will be brought back..... with his majesty's blessing. It'll just be in the guise of something with a different name. (that way he gets to "save face")
He let Pilosi & Dingy Harry write the stimulus. They both want the fairness doctrine BAD.
Those two will make him go along with it.

Or maybe he'll just issue another executive order....

If that happens, he is guaranteeing the Republicans to take back both houses of Congress in 2010. The country hasn't gone totally off the deep end yet. I think he'll oppose it just for the sake of keeping power, if nothing else.

While I'm really not a big fan of regulating what people can or can't say (I think there's something in the Bill of Rights about that... hmmm, just let me check my pocket Constitution) there are much worse things than making sure people aren't just hearing one side of an issue.

Making sure?
People have the right to listen to whatever they want to.
Without government interference.
No one is forcing anyone to tune into a particular station or buy a specific newspaper; unless this "doctrine" is put in place.
*EDIT* They may not be forced to tune into a particular station, but those stations (outlets) will be forced to provide additional content that may not be in keeping with their business plan.
Just because someone espouses an opinion or dialog that disagrees with another doesn't mean that person must then provide an "opposite" opinion. That's what the Fairness Doctrine says they must do. It's just plain wrong.

Word. I don't think anyone should be losing sleep over the fact that Hannity and Limbaugh can't spout their hatefilled bullshit all the time.

The bold part is interesting, as it is subjective (i.e. your opinion). So you are willing to silence those with whom you do not agree?
I won't defend Rush's or Hannity's opinions, but I'd like to see some specific examples of "hate filled bullshit".
It really doesn't matter though, because even the KKK, Black Panthers, or Air America have the right to give their opinions without having to provide "the other side".

Once again, it all boils down to government interference, which is unacceptable.

If you don't like what someone is saying on the radio, writing in a newspaper, or saying on TV, then buy a different newspaper or turn the channel.

[nagerous]

Gotta take Spurg and Snorri's side as usual.

[flabio]

That black bastard is a new world order shill of the highest order. They will set him up and knock him down like they did to Adolph Hitler.

[Snorri1234]

Word. I don't think anyone should be losing sleep over the fact that Hannity and Limbaugh can't spout their hatefilled bullshit all the time.

The bold part is interesting, as it is subjective (i.e. your opinion).

Nah man, it's pretty much scientific fact.

So you are willing to silence those with whom you do not agree?

No. The thing is that the Fairness doctrine doesn't silence anyone. The only thing it says is that you must provide the counterargument when dealing with controversial issues. So basically it means that after each hannity-show someone else (or a group of people) can say what they think about that issue.

So I don't understand all the public outcry over this. It is actually not much of big deal. So your station can't be completely dedicated to one side of the debate? Who cares?

I won't defend Rush's or Hannity's opinions, but I'd like to see some specific examples of "hate filled bullshit".

Allright.

So last vacation I was actually in the US of A, and I enjoyed myself immensely because it's an awesome country, and we turned on the radio. Suddenly we heard Hannity and since we don't really have talk-radio over here we decided to listen. What he said was "All democrats are communists and while some of them mean well others are actually evil tirant commies who wish to turn the USA into a communist dictatorship."(Also said some shit about Obama being a muslim but I was laughing way too hard to really hear it.)

Seriously. I cannot believe this guy is on the air and that people listen to him. That's just fucked up.

It really doesn't matter though, because even the KKK, Black Panthers, or Air America have the right to give their opinions without having to provide "the other side".

Yes, but they are not doing so on a limited newssource.

Once again, it all boils down to government interference, which is unacceptable.

Word. That's why I would never call the cops when a store gets robbed. The government should never interfere with our lives.

If you don't like what someone is saying on the radio, writing in a newspaper, or saying on TV, then buy a different newspaper or turn the channel.

You are completely missing the point.

[Snorri1234]

That black bastard is a new world order shill of the highest order. They will set him up and knock him down like they did to Adolph Hitler.

I thought the NWO disbanded after Eazy E died?

[Juan_Bottom]

I consider the fairness doctrine to be an obvious political attack. Conservatives by far have the most radio stations....... and now they will be required to seek out an opposing viewpoint or be fined/shut down. It is a very prejudice piece of legislation.
It does nothing for liberal tax payer-funded tv programs, like everything on PBS or even NPR.
It's the consevatives that are taking the hit to the $$$ on this.

And free radio.

I'm with IZ Man, the government has no right to protect us by controlling what we hear or what we think. And anytime they claim that this is what they are doing I know better. Democrats are liberal, and in control, so they are going to punish the republicans. Simple as that.

[Snorri1234]

I consider the fairness doctrine to be an obvious political attack. Conservatives by far have the most radio stations....... and now they will be required to seek out an opposing viewpoint or be fined/shut down. It is a very prejudice piece of legislation.

Why? Because it means stations must show both sides of the debate?

It does nothing for liberal tax payer-funded tv programs, like everything on PBS or even NPR.
It's the consevatives that are taking the hit to the $$$ on this.

What hit? Allowing 5 minutes of air-time for the opposing view every 3 hours Limbaugh rants on one single issue?

And free radio.

Well yeah, that's a solid point. But the problem with radio is that it's a limited source, unlike internet or television. There are only so many bandwiths.

I'm with IZ Man, the government has no right to protect us by controlling what we hear or what we think. And anytime they claim that this is what they are doing I know better. Democrats are liberal, and in control, so they are going to punish the republicans. Simple as that.

I don't actually care about whether the fairness-doctrine is put in place or not. I just want everyone to understand what it is and form an actual good opinion on it.

[Juan_Bottom]

Why? Because it means stations must show both sides of the debate?

It doesn't matter what my personel beliefs are. PERSONALLY, if I owned a talk-radio station it would undoubtedly be liberal-leaning. And I would no doubt require some level of fairness of representation on any issue. It's true.
But I don't believe in telling other people what they can or can't listen to, or think. And I think that this "fairness doctrine" is doing just that.

And what I ment by "prejudice" is exactly this;

Liberal voices are well represented in talk radio, and are available to anyone with a modem or an FM radio. Six of the top 25 commercial talk radio hosts are liberals. The commercial Air America network, created to spread liberal ideas, has 55 stations broadcasting over the air. Twenty-six of these stations also stream over the Internet, as do hundreds of public radio stations. Noncommercial public radio has more than 800 stations with a total weekly news/talk audience of 14 million. At least 850 of the 2,200 talk stations air mostly liberal programming.
Radio is only one slice of the pie. Major liberal-leaning sources of news and opinion reach a far greater audience than conservative-leaning sources. Audience reach and circulation statistics illustrate the liberal domination of the five major information media, two of which have no conservative sources:

Broadcast TV news, millions/day Liberal 42.1 Conservative 0
Top 25 newspapers, millions/day Liberal 11.7 Conservative 1.3
Cable TV news, millions/month Liberal 182.8 Conservative 61.6
Top talk radio, millions/week Liberal 24.5 Conservative 87.0
Newsweeklies, millions/week Liberal 8.5 Conservative 0

http://www.rightsidenews.com/editorial- ... trine.html
(this site is unimportant to me. I took the discussion in a different direction than they did)

Notice how Liberals dominate everything, except talk radio? This legislation is attempting to drive a stake into the heart of conservative press. It's that simple. It's a new form of censorship.
This bill doesn't cover the newspapers or tv stations.... just those pesky Conservative radio programs.

Now if the bill were to encompass all forms of "news," then this discussion would be very differen't and I might be able to understand the opposing veiwpoint. But I mostly see this as a political trick. And as much a Conservative Christians bug me, I still will gladly defend their Freedom of Speech.

What hit? Allowing 5 minutes of air-time for the opposing view every 3 hours Limbaugh rants on one single issue?

Whatever he talks about, he has to find someone who disagrees with him. It shouldn't be hard for RMr. Limbaugh, but what about the local stations? What happens when a conservative station in a conservative town in a conservative state cannot find someone who disagrees with them?

Well yeah, that's a solid point. But the problem with radio is that it's a limited source, unlike internet or television. There are only so many bandwiths.

After the thought that this is a political attack on our Conservative neighbor's freedom of speech, this is the next worst thing that troubles me. Lots of stations do go out over the internet... but still, the poor little stations are going to be hit hard by this. Especially free radio that rely on donations and local support. Liberals aren't going to listen to a conservative station that is constantly asking for money. So it will be much harder for them to find someone to give a counter arguement. I think this is going to hurt the common man's ability to be heard. It's going to cripple local(and distant)free radio.

[Frigidus]

That black bastard is a new world order shill of the highest order. They will set him up and knock him down like they did to Adolph Hitler.

Hahaha, I am seriously hoping this was a troll. I mean, damn.