After the Democrats SHUT DOWN TALK RADIO, what will happen next?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm thinking, at that time, what's left of the economy will also shut down, and the foundation will be laid for SicEm's Second American Civil War.(the SACW)! then, what happens?

[r5TPsooner]

They'll take our right to bare arms. I guarantee it.

[Viking Kitten]

So they are going to outlaw tank tops?

[olevetonahill]

They are gonna Outlaw Grass?

[StoopTroup]

They will probably put the Golden EIB microphone in the Smithsonian's Outlaw Section next to Scarface's Little Friend. :D

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/69850_scarface1.jpg

[Rogue]

What
ever

[StoopTroup]

If you join SicEm's Army...do you get free cigars?

I mean...if we have to go without Women during the War...I'm gonna need some cigars. :D

[tommieharris91]

I'm thinking, at that time, what's left of the economy will also shut down, and the foundation will be laid for SicEm's Second American Civil War.(the SACW)! then, what happens?

The Repubs will sue to get their 1st amendment back.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

What
everYes, that's the question. What comes next after the First Amendment is totally scrapped?

[StoopTroup]

Yes, that's the question. What comes next after the First Amendment is totally scrapped?

I'd say you probably won't want to be at the Obama Rally in Chicago's Southside. :D

[Rogue]

Yes, that's the question. What comes next after the First Amendment is totally scrapped?

Your tin foil hat will start getting signals from the mothership's new higher powered signals forcing you to arrange a complicated system of reflective metals on your roof?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Your tin foil hat will start getting signals from the mothership's new higher powered signals forcing you to arrange a complicated system of reflective metals on your roof?Does this mean you don't think the Democrats are going to shut down talk radio?

[Rogue]

Correct. I don't think the Dems are going to shut down talk radio.

The Reps won the war of talk-radio for sure. NPR is still around, arguably because it's not partisan. Air America was a complete bust.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Correct. I don't think the Dems are going to shut down talk radio.

The Reps won the war of talk-radio for sure. NPR is still around, arguably because it's not partisan. Air America was a complete bust.By shut down, what they will prolly do is require equal ime for liberals/socialists on every station, and possibly within every program. That would kill interest in the programming, and advertising revenue would dry up, effectively shutting down talk radio. NPR is still around because it's not dependent on advertisers for revenue.

[Scott D]

just to be clear, are they going to shut down all talk radio or just bad talk radio? because I can think of quite a few stations that should be shut down for having talent that makes the sports animal look like it's a major market #1 rated station.

[TopDawg]

By shut down, what they will prolly do is require equal ime for liberals/socialists on every station, and possibly within every program. That would kill interest in the programming,

Because conservatives aren't interested in what other people have to say?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Because conservatives aren't interested in what other people have to say?For liberal direction, they can turn to every other media except talk radio. It's been proven that liberal talk radio is a commercial failure. (I have treated your comment srsly, as if you didn't already know the answer)

[TopDawg]

as if you didn't already know the answer)

You're right. I already knew that conservatives...well, your kind anyway...don't like to listen to other points of view.

[King Crimson]

By shut down, what they will prolly do is require equal ime for liberals/socialists on every station, and possibly within every program. That would kill interest in the programming, and advertising revenue would dry up, effectively shutting down talk radio. NPR is still around because it's not dependent on advertisers for revenue.

c'mon Favor, we've been down this "Fairness Doctrine" paranoia road about a thousand times.

it ain't gonna happen because the original legal justification for the FD was based in scarcity of electromagnetic spectrum....which is NOT an issue in today's multimedia/big bandwidth/fiberoptic marketplace. i've posted about this at length at least 4-5 times if not more. and you know it.

[TopDawg]

c'mon Favor, we've been down this "Fairness Doctrine" paranoia road about a thousand times.

it ain't gonna happen because the original legal justification for the FD was based in scarcity of electromagnetic scarcity....which is NOT an issue in today's multimedia/big bandwidth/fiberoptic marketplace. i've posted about this at length at least 4-5 times if not more. and you know it.

He doesn't like to listen to other points of view.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

c'mon Favor, we've been down this "Fairness Doctrine" paranoia road about a thousand times.

it ain't gonna happen because the original legal justification for the FD was based in scarcity of electromagnetic scarcity....which is NOT an issue in today's multimedia/big bandwidth/fiberoptic marketplace. i've posted about this at length at least 4-5 times if not more. and you know it.OK, what DO you think the democrats will do with/to talk radio? They are not going to leave it be. How will they go about sabotaging it?

[King Crimson]

He doesn't like to listen to other points of view.

it's not even a POV, it's the historical, legal justification for the Fairness Doctrine and essentially all FCC regulation in the 20th Century (the formation of the FCC is grounded in the scarcity argument).....there was no major comprehensive communications legislation between the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecom Act. if it was 1964, he might be justified in being paranoid.

[TopDawg]

it's not even a POV, it's the historical, legal justification for the Fairness Doctrine and essentially all FCC regulation in the 20th Century (the formation of the FCC is grounded in the scarcity argument).....there was no major comprehensive communications legislation between the 1934 Communications Act and 1996 Telecom Act. if it was 1964, he might be justified in being paranoid.

Facts are no good either.

[King Crimson]

OK, what DO you think the democrats will do with/to talk radio? They are not going to leave it be. How will they go about sabotaging it?

while the Dems are responsible for all the evil in the world, they don't have the power to bring back the FD. the FCC and 99.9% of media regulation since 1934, or even the 1912 Radio Act, has been based in "technological capacity and fitness to serve"....which, given that "technology" today makes the spectrum scarcity argument in terms of the FD as legally relevant as suing United Airlines for trespassing because they fly over your land, it ain't gonna happen.

it's only a free speech issue in a secondary sense. it's market issue.

needless to say, your series of questions above contains about 5 thousand suppressed premises posing as conclusions.

[Sooner Born Sooner Bred]

So they are going to outlaw tank tops?

No more wife beaters!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Let's say IF the democrats are successful at severely damaging or destroying Talk Radio, just to make it easier for you to move on, what wil happen next?

[TopDawg]

Talk podcasts will become even more popular. And then the Democrats will outlaw those. And then they'll go after TV and outlaw any talking on TV. And then they'll go for a ban on talking altogether.

After that? Sign language.

[King Crimson]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

"End of Fairness Doctrine

In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[6]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).

In 1986, Appeals Court Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it."

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.

[badger]

I think people take their "first amendment" rights a little too hardcore and beyond the law at times. You see a guy like Don Imus get razzed in the court of public opinion for saying "nappy headed hoes" and you wonder why people judge him. After all, he has his first amendment right. This is like the celebrities out there loving their rich lifestyle but hating the paps invading their privacy.

It's a double-edged sword. We want freedom of expression, but don't want people to offend us. We want freedom of speech, but don't want to be judged by what we say. We want media available for people to express opinions we agree with, but cringe when the same media is available for people with other opinions.

The phrase "But this is America!" gets thrown out a lot when people get fired for smoking, or when people can't get past a job interview when they have dozens of tattoos, or the many other examples of your "freedoms." Alas, it's a double-edged sword, and you can't enjoy some freedoms while bemoaning the strings attached in the form of regulation.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Thanks for the legal history(srsly), KC. I still contend the democrats will make a very determined effort to seriously damage Talk Radio, one way or another. I would be quite surprised if they aren't able to accomplish that. See post #26.

[Scott D]

I contend that the democrats don't have to make much of an effort. Talk Radio as a medium has been hemorrhaging advertising dollars at a rate that makes the government's bungling of the economy look tame by comparison.

I'm going to assume that Rush is off on this tangent again on his show. 3 to 1 he's just building up a straw man so he can pull his Howard Stern move and go to Satellite Radio where the real money is.

[TopDawg]

RLIMC: what do YOU think will happen next IF they are able to do it?

And, along those lines, what makes you think that they WILL be able to do it? You say you think they will, but KC puts some convincing stuff out there that seems to say that they won't be able to. Why do you think they will be able to?

[King Crimson]

Thanks for the legal history(srsly), KC. I still contend the democrats will make a very determined effort to seriously damage Talk Radio, one way or another. I would be quite surprised if they aren't able to accomplish that. See post #26.

think about it this way, from your point of view and standing critique of the MSM....wouldn't an enforced Fairness Doctrine be like losing 5$ to make 10$ if conservative viewpoints were required on all media outlets?

still ain't gonna happen, but ask why you think what you think about the FD. seems plain that a guarantee of equal time would be a boon for the right....if the assumption that the media is mostly left is true. "Fair and Balanced", that's the language of the Fairness Doctrine right out of the document.

regardless, as long as there is a market for right talk radio it will exist. and it should.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

think about it this way, from your point of view and standing critique of the MSM....wouldn't an enforced Fairness Doctrine be like losing 5$ to make 10$ if conservative viewpoints were required on all media outlets?

still ain't gonna happen, but ask why you think what you think about the FD. seems plain that a guarantee of equal time would be a boon for the right....if the assumption that the media is mostly left is true. "Fair and Balanced", that's the language of the Fairness Doctrine right out of the document.

regardless, as long as there is a market for right talk radio it will exist. and it should.It never applied to TV before, and you can bet the farm the democrats won't try to make TV "Fair and Balanced". The FD is absurd, anyway. It's obviously contrary to the First amendment, no matter where it's applied.

WHAT ELSE MIGHT THE DEMOCRATS DO? They could have perpetual IRS audits of companies that advertise on Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, etc. Any other things they might try?

[OUstudent4life]

Obviously, they'll shut down the message boards next.

;)

[Jerk]

May 4, 2008

DONKEY Congressman Proposes that Government Establish a "Reasonable Profits Board"

by Gerald Prante


The current high price of gas has led to a lot of crazy proposals from gas tax holidays to creating a tax deduction based upon energy consumption. But Rep. Paul Kanjorski's (D-PA) may top them all in terms of its stupidity. From the Times Leader, Kanjorski's plan would do the following:

• H.R. 5800 would tax industries’ windfall profits.

• The bill would set up a Reasonable Profits Board to determine when these companies’ profits are in excess, and then tax them on those windfall profits.

• As oil and gas companies’ windfall profits increase, so would the tax rate for those companies.

• Kanjorski said his legislation will encourage oil companies to lower prices to prevent them from receiving higher tax rates. (is he really this big of an idiot?)

While Hillary Clinton may have failed ECON 101 along with John McCain, it appears as if Kanjorski may been enrolled in Marxism 450 at the time. In all honesty, nationalization of the oil industry (i.e. Venezuela) may be better than Kanjorski's ridiculous proposal.

One can make a case for taxing that portion of the return to capital that comes from economic rents, but Kanjorski has probably never even heard the term. An economist who backed such a tax would understand that such a tax is not going to lead to lower prices at the pump, just as economists are setting the record straight on the current gas tax holiday gimmick. Furthermore, the justification for taxing economic rents would apply to all sectors, not just petroleum.

Members of Congress and the American public need to understand that no tax cut or tax hike in the short-term is going to lower the prices at the pump. And any tax hike is going to raise prices in the long-term. Raising taxes on energy is not all bad, however. While any tax hike has its costs, raising taxes on gasoline does lead to less pollution (indirectly whereas a carbon tax is more direct) and greater funds for transportation (assuming they are spent in the right way which is unfortunately not always a safe assumption).

[Jerk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91kdwxFsthI

[StoopTroup]

All this political correctness is ruining my life.

[shaun4411]

theyll never shutdown talk radio because the liberals have nothing good enough to say to make anyone listen on teh radio.

[Jerk]

They will probably put the Golden EIB microphone in the Smithsonian's Outlaw Section next to Scarface's Little Friend. :D

http://images.techtree.com/ttimages/story/69850_scarface1.jpg

That is an M16A1 with an M203 grenade launcher. It belongs in my gunsafe, not some ****ing museum.

[bri]

WHAT ELSE MIGHT THE DEMOCRATS DO?

"OUTLAWING INANE D*UCHEBAGGERY" gets my vote, but I'm trying not to get my hopes up.

[VeeJay]

Liberal Talk Radio.

Say what you will, but Fox News knows how to market talk babes. Outfits like Air America do not.

Rachel Maddow, AAR host and frequent guest when Keith Olbermann is out getting a colon cleansing....let's just say it's obvious why she's on radio.

http://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2007/10/16/54459.jpg

[bri]

Hey, that dude's kind of funny looking, but at least he's clean cut.

[r5TPsooner]

More reason for the need of a political forum off in the corner by itself, say next to zee blendee.

[bri]

Dude, I've seen threads on the Football board turn political. It's already spread too far; just ignore them.

[r5TPsooner]

Dude, I've seen threads on the Football board turn political. It's already spread too far; just ignore them.

What can I say? I'm passionate about some stuff but the rest is just free humor to me. I think both parties suck and I just get a kick out of it all.

Just don't mess with my guns.:D

[VeeJay]

Hey, that dude's kind of funny looking, but at least he's clean cut.

He looks sorta like that goofy kid that played centerfield for us on my HS baseball team.

That kid beefed up in the gym and turned out to be quite the ladies' man.

[bri]

What can I say? I'm passionate about some stuff but the rest is just free humor to me. I think both parties suck and I just get a kick out of it all.

Just don't mess with my guns.:D

Ah, guns. I was watching clips of Glenn Beck spazzing out during a speech at the big NRA shootenanny last week, and every time he ranted about how the founders thought everyone should have a gun, I wanted to yell "MUSKETS, YOU F*CKWIT! THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A F*CKING MUSKET!"

Which, BTW, I hole-heartedly support everyone's right to own a musket. :D

[Jerk]

Ah, guns. I was watching clips of Glenn Beck spazzing out during a speech at the big NRA shootenanny last week, and every time he ranted about how the founders thought everyone should have a gun, I wanted to yell "MUSKETS, YOU F*CKWIT! THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A F*CKING MUSKET!"

Which, BTW, I hole-heartedly support everyone's right to own a musket. :D


Would you say the same thought-process applies to the 1st amendment? Say, everyone has a right to an ink pin, but TV, radio, and internet, is dangerous.

Let's just throw out everything invented after the 18th century, call it unreasonable, and let it be.

[soonerscuba]

RLIMC might be the only person in America who thinks that Democrats are too competent.

[bri]

Would you say the same thought-process applies to the 1st amendment? Say, everyone has a right to an ink pin, but TV, radio, and internet, is dangerous.

Let's just throw out everything invented after the 18th century, call it unreasonable, and let it be.

I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do there, but it's as full of fail as Boston Harbor was full of tea. I don't care how scathing of a comment I make on the interwubs, it can't rip through body armor. ;)

[Jerk]

I can certainly appreciate what you're trying to do there, but it's as full of fail as Boston Harbor was full of tea. I don't care how scathing of a comment I make on the interwubs, it can't rip through body armor. ;)

It'll be alright bri. At least someone else will do your dirty work. You won't have to come get them yourself.

I'd like to see it:

"Hi, I'm the local do-gooder, and I'm here to take your guns!"

There are over 300,000,000 million guns in circulation. GOOD LUCk! lol

[bri]

You know, when people with stockpiles start saying "Just you try and take 'em and see what happens!", it sort of makes our point for us. :D

[Jerk]

You know, when people with stockpiles start saying "Just you try and take 'em and see what happens!", it sort of makes our point for us. :D


What's the point? That you can't mind your own ****ing business?

[bri]

Wow, cranky much?

This is always my favorite part of the gun "debate". When it just becomes, "Oh yeah? Well, um, SHUT UP, how about that?" :D

[Jerk]

Wow, cranky much?

This is always my favorite part of the gun "debate". When it just becomes, "Oh yeah? Well, um, SHUT UP, how about that?" :D

There is no debate. When someone tries to take them, they're going to get shot.

[Jerk]

I mean, really, what the **** did I ever do?

I never killed anyone.

I have no felonies.

I am a productive member of society who pays taxes and is self-sufficient.

Why in the **** do YOU care what is in my closet?

[bri]

There is no debate. When someone tries to take them, they're going to get shot.

Do I have to wait until then to refer to your home as a "compound", or can I start now and save time? ;)

[47straight]

I mean, really, what the **** did I ever do?

I never killed anyone.

I have no felonies.

I am a productive member of society who pays taxes and is self-sufficient.

Why in the **** do YOU care what is in my closet?


I think that maybe you voted republican and believed in a living God. You can't be trusted, you know.

[Jerk]

Do I have to wait until then to refer to your home as a "compound", or can I start now and save time? ;)

Start now. Only 3 people here and it's a small house, but that's what the MSM would call it. My collection of several rifles will be called an 'arsenal,' and the powder I use for reloading ammunition will be called 'bomb-making material."

[Jerk]

I think that maybe you voted republican and believed in a living God. You can't be trusted, you know.

After I'm declared a felon, I won't be able to vote. I think that's the plan.

I'm not a sponge.

The Japanese have a saying, something like that the 'nail that sticks out is the first to get hammered down."

[47straight]

Liberal Talk Radio.

Say what you will, but Fox News knows how to market talk babes. Outfits like Air America do not.

Rachel Maddow, AAR host and frequent guest when Keith Olbermann is out getting a colon cleansing....let's just say it's obvious why she's on radio.

http://www.madison.com/images/articles/tct/2007/10/16/54459.jpg


Is that Ralph Maccio's brother?

[bri]

I think that maybe you voted republican and believed in a living God. You can't be trusted, you know.

Oh noez, then I can't be trusted either!

Oh, wait, I forgot we're all dealing in black and white 'cause it's easier that way. :D

[Jerk]

Oh, I forgot to mention the 400 rounds of centerfire ammo I have loaded up for next weekend's trip to the pandhandle for prairie dog shooting:

"ammo cache"

"The suspect was arrested in his compound with an arsenal of weapons, bomb-making material, and a cache of cop-killer ammunition."

[SicEmBaylor]

If you join SicEm's Army...do you get free cigars?

I mean...if we have to go without Women during the War...I'm gonna need some cigars. :D

Cigars are a privilege of the officer class.

[SicEmBaylor]

I absolutely detest the idea of the fairness doctrine, but I'm also a firm believer in listening and understand opposing view points. It's vitally necessary to the intellectual health of conservatism that our views be constantly challenged both internally (among fellow conservatives) and externally.

I for one also find it disgusting the way liberalism is daemonized in this country. The best of conservatism has come from its opposition to liberalism and that alone is worth ensuring that liberalism has an important place in politics. I'd also like to point out that this country was built by liberals. The only problem with liberals is that they don't know when to stop.

[Jerk]

I'd also like to point out that this country was built by liberals. The only problem with liberals is that they don't know when to stop.

Dude, it's a stretch to compare classic liberalism with modern liberalism.

[SicEmBaylor]

Dude, it's a stretch to compare classic liberalism with modern liberalism.

Yes it is, but modern liberalism is nonetheless rooted in classic liberalism. Like I said, the problem is that they didn't know when to stop.

[SCOUT]

Ah, guns. I was watching clips of Glenn Beck spazzing out during a speech at the big NRA shootenanny last week, and every time he ranted about how the founders thought everyone should have a gun, I wanted to yell "MUSKETS, YOU F*CKWIT! THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A F*CKING MUSKET!"

Which, BTW, I hole-heartedly support everyone's right to own a musket. :D




Oh, wait, I forgot we're all dealing in black and white 'cause it's easier that way. :D

If you say so.

[47straight]

Cigars are a privilege of the officer class.


When the Iraq war first got rolling, an acquaintence of mine was a company commander in the 10 Mtn Division. Some of our mutual friends organized a "cigar fund" and we'd pool our cash and send over stogies once a month, intending for the guy to pass them out to deserving enlisted men.

The best story was how he late asked some 19-year-old GI later how he liked it. Apparently, the kid said, "Eh, not as good as swisher sweets."

Heck, we could've kept the whole company in swisher sweets for the price of the few fancy stinky ones we got! That's what you get for tryin'. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

When the Iraq war first got rolling, an acquaintence of mine was a company commander in the 10 Mtn Division. Some of our mutual friends organized a "cigar fund" and we'd pool our cash and send over stogies once a month, intending for the guy to pass them out to deserving enlisted men.

The best story was how he late asked some 19-year-old GI later how he liked it. Apparently, the kid said, "Eh, not as good as swisher sweets."

Heck, we could've kept the whole company in swisher sweets for the price of the few fancy stinky ones we got! That's what you get for tryin'. :D

lol, nice.

Altadis (the makers of Upmann, Romeo y Julieta, Montecristo) has a special going on right now for our troops. They've put together these 5 packs and every 5 pack that is bought = one cigar they'll send to the troops. Not a horrible deal.

[TopDawg]

Like I said, the problem is that they didn't know when to stop.

Isn't that the problem with everybody?

Conservatives think that hard-core liberals don't know when to stop. But liberals think that hard-core conservatives don't know when to stop. In fact, even hard-core liberals/conservatives think that moderate liberals/conservatives don't know when to stop (they think they stop too soon).

Yes, the problem with everybody is that they don't know when to stop, unless they stop at the same place I stop. And then the problem with them is that they're taking up space in my spot. Something like that. ;)

But anyway, I appreciate what you said about the exchange of ideas. I don't agree with a lot of what you say politically, but I enjoy reading it because it's usually well thought out, well expressed, and respectful of other opinions.

[SleestakSooner]

For liberal direction, they can turn to every other media except talk radio. It's been proven that liberal talk radio is a commercial failure. (I have treated your comment srsly, as if you didn't already know the answer)

Which is why Rush switched from being anti-Reagan to anti-Clinton long ago.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Which is why Rush switched from being anti-Reagan to anti-Clinton long ago.???You been consorting wiith that fellow in your avatar?

[Rogue]

I absolutely detest the idea of the fairness doctrine, but I'm also a firm believer in listening and understand opposing view points. It's vitally necessary to the intellectual health of conservatism that our views be constantly challenged both internally (among fellow conservatives) and externally.

I for one also find it disgusting the way liberalism is daemonized in this country. The best of conservatism has come from its opposition to liberalism and that alone is worth ensuring that liberalism has an important place in politics. I'd also like to point out that this country was built by liberals. The only problem with liberals is that they don't know when to stop.

Sic, this is a helluva post right here! I agree with about 89% of it. Of course, I would argue that the best of liberalism comes from it's opposition to conservativism and NOT vice versa. Chicken and egg I spose. It gets my head all wrapped into a spiral.

[Scott D]

I absolutely detest the idea of the fairness doctrine, but I'm also a firm believer in listening and understand opposing view points. It's vitally necessary to the intellectual health of conservatism that our views be constantly challenged both internally (among fellow conservatives) and externally.

I for one also find it disgusting the way liberalism is daemonized in this country. The best of conservatism has come from its opposition to liberalism and that alone is worth ensuring that liberalism has an important place in politics. I'd also like to point out that this country was built by liberals. The only problem with liberals is that they don't know when to stop.

you mean the same fairness doctrine that over 10 years ago was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Next Rushy is going to tell us that J Edgar Hoover has begun to keep a file on every one of us, because we're not 'Dittoheads'

[King Crimson]

it's not really chicken and egg.

historically, conservatism rises with people like Edmond Burke as a response to the "liberalizing" economy of the rising merchant class in the 17th and 18th centuries. to protect the old "aristocratic", rentier land based concepts of value which were pretty much associated with divine rights.....not emerging exchange values typical to the "mercantile class".

at the time, "liberalism", the Enlightenment, the rise of science versus the authority of the Catholic Church, the Protestant Reformation, the Gutenberg Press in the background, upset existing social orders such that "conserving" the old institutions of power/values became a political project.

later, the other response to "liberalism" is Marxism....which is a critique of the commodity and the social relations that accompany "capitalism".

[VeeJay]

Isn't that the problem with everybody?

Conservatives think that hard-core liberals don't know when to stop. But liberals think that hard-core conservatives don't know when to stop. In fact, even hard-core liberals/conservatives think that moderate liberals/conservatives don't know when to stop (they think they stop too soon).

Yes, the problem with everybody is that they don't know when to stop, unless they stop at the same place I stop. And then the problem with them is that they're taking up space in my spot. Something like that. ;)

But anyway, I appreciate what you said about the exchange of ideas. I don't agree with a lot of what you say politically, but I enjoy reading it because it's usually well thought out, well expressed, and respectful of other opinions.

I agree. We give SicEm a lot of shiite but i find myself agreeing with him more often than not.

A healthy balance of liberals and conservatives has worked well (proof is our experiment with a "conservative" chief executive and a "conservative" congress the early part of this decade). when there's absolute gridlock and threats of the federal government shutting down, the economy roars onward.

[SoonerBOI]

How about letting the market dictate what’s on the airways? We don’t need more government regulation. If corporate station owners could make money with progressive talk shows, then they would do it. When you have a message that people want to hear, you will have more radio play. Advertisers go where the audience goes.

[r5TPsooner]

Regardless of what your party affiliation may or may not be, I think that a greater percentage of us would agree that until we get a TRUE 3rd party in this country, politicians will continue to cater towards their rich friends and big business allies in Washington.

Until that happens, the tax payer will be the one continuously being screwed.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

How about letting the market dictate what’s on the airways? We don’t need more government regulation. If corporate station owners could make money with progressive talk shows, then they would do it. When you have a message that people want to hear, you will have more radio play. Advertisers go where the audience goes.To those who would sabotage Talk Radio, your argument is quite irrelevant.

[bri]

Dude, seriously, if some imaginary "Lib" shutdown of your beloved Talk Radio is the biggest concern you have, then shut the hell up and enjoy your blissfully simple life.

Gah.

[47straight]

you mean the same fairness doctrine that over 10 years ago was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court? Next Rushy is going to tell us that J Edgar Hoover has begun to keep a file on every one of us, because we're not 'Dittoheads'


I do not think it means what you think it means. - I. Montoya

I could be wrong, though. Cite?

[Scott D]

I do not think it means what you think it means. - I. Montoya

I could be wrong, though. Cite?

This was ground that was covered on the first page, that the OP has decidedly ignored.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2301939&postcount=28

[King Crimson]

This was ground that was covered on the first page, that the OP has decidedly ignored.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2301939&postcount=28

i don't think he ignores it, he just projects his own motives (the world will be great when everyone thinks like me) on everyone else.

here's the two things that you can always go to the bank with:

1. Democrats are incompetent and they'll blow it. Somehow.

2. Republicans love a good fairy-tale about great America is.

[King Crimson]

by the way, American Idol is not sub for the POTUS.

the almighty "Framers" were not about star power and the executive branch.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Two points...the Fairness Doctrine was UNCONSTITUTIONAL when we had a more liberal Supreme Court...but now with a MUCH more conservative Supreme Court...it is suddenly going to get through?

My second point is that gun laws are fine as long as they are reasonable. I don't really mind that your family of 3 has as many guns as you want. The problem lies within bigger weapons. Does your family really need a rocket launcher or surface to air missiles? Also let's say a group of white people of say 50 white people start stockpiling guns and weapons and moving into a large compound together. Now imagine 50 Islamic guys in Turbans move into a combine and start collecting weapons. Now you can't be for one and not the other....personally I want the government to be able to check both groups.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

i don't think he ignores it, he just projects his own motives (the world will be great when everyone thinks like me) on everyone else...
Republicans love a good fairy-tale about great America is.He guesses you and perhaps others ignored or somehow didn't comprehend that he acknowledged the FD was declared illegal, and yet he contends the Democrats are not going to be easily deterred from going after Talk Radio, however they can. (post# 30) Pay more attention, libs.

OK, IF Talk Radio is severely damaged, what will happen next?

[King Crimson]

He guesses you and perhaps others ignored or didn't comprehend that he acknowledged the FD was declared illegal, and yet he contends the democrats are not going to be easily deterred from going after Talk Radio, however they can. Pay more attention, libs.

this is moronic. i told you why the FD was "unconstitutional". i've posted this before: i think the idea of talk radio is fantastic. Rush Limbaugh is a realization of what makes America great. the fact that he scapegoats and name-calls is not so great.

however, i bet i'd defend Rush's right of free speech more than you would my own.

[Cam]

This seems to be missing from this thread.

http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/office_space_kit_mat.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

this is moronic. i told you why the FD was "unconstitutional". i've posted this before: i think the idea of talk radio is fantastic. Rush Limbaugh is a realization of what makes America great. the fact that he scapegoats and name-calls is not so great.

however, i bet i'd defend Rush's right of free speech more than you would my own.your response is like you didn't even read what you quoted from me, and then explain you think talk radio should be allowed. Well, yeah! Are you in the right thread?

[SicEmBaylor]

Rush Limbaugh is exponentially more tolerable than Sean Hannity. Everyone complains about Limbaugh but at least Limbaugh occasionally has an original, creative, or even intelligent thought.

[Scott D]

He guesses you and perhaps others ignored or somehow didn't comprehend that he acknowledged the FD was declared illegal, and yet he contends the Democrats are not going to be easily deterred from going after Talk Radio, however they can. (post# 30) Pay more attention, libs.

OK, IF Talk Radio is severely damaged, what will happen next?

I say that Talk Radio doesn't need help from the Democrats to end up on some decline. The fact that radio is a struggling media by virtue of the fact that revenue dollars have declined, and you have entities like ClearChannel virtually controlling the airwaves.

It won't be the Democrats that 'shut down' Talk Radio, it will be overcorporatisation of Radio as a medium that will destroy it.

[Jerk]

Rush Limbaugh is exponentially more tolerable than Sean Hannity. Everyone complains about Limbaugh but at least Limbaugh occasionally has an original, creative, or even intelligent thought.

Sean Hannity is too much of a a do-gooder IMO, to the point of being irritating.

Limbaugh has good humor, that borders on taudry sometimes. Small example: A sex change operation from woman to man is called an 'addadictomy' :D

If Rush ever goes on Satellite, there will be some foul language.

[Cam]

I say that Talk Radio doesn't need help from the Democrats to end up on some decline. The fact that radio is a struggling media by virtue of the fact that revenue dollars have declined, and you have entities like ClearChannel virtually controlling the airwaves.

It won't be the Democrats that 'shut down' Talk Radio, it will be overcorporatisation of Radio as a medium that will destroy it.

Exactly. Radio's done itself in more in the last 15-20 years than the Democrats could possibly hope to do in a 4 year presidential term.

[yermom]

when are the Democrats going to do this? when they have a President in the White House?

what is preventing them from doing it now? why didn't they do it in the early 90's?

[SleestakSooner]

ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm)

The above article shows that Limbaugh received an advantage due to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. It is no wonder Rush is worried it may be reinstated should democrats gain control of the whitehouse again.

The Way Things Aren't (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895)

This article exposes a few of the myriad of disinformations promulgated by Limbaugh. When he states "I'm not making this stuff up folks" he probably is.

[olevetonahill]

Yall really Listen to that shat ?
:confused:
I like
Younger women
Faster Horses
More Money !:cool:

[olevetonahill]

Oh
and Watermellon wine !
Im gonna try to make some this year !:D

[Jerk]

ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm)

The above article shows that Limbaugh received an advantage due to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. It is no wonder Rush is worried it may be reinstated should democrats gain control of the whitehouse again.

The Way Things Aren't (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895)

This article exposes a few of the myriad of disinformations promulgated by Limbaugh. When he states "I'm not making this stuff up folks" he probably is.

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z96/M4builder/smilies/jerkit.gif

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z96/M4builder/smilies/jerkit.gifWhat does that emoticon supposed to mean?(haven't seen it before)

[StoopTroup]

I think it's ghey code for you need to shave.

You really need to consult an expert though.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

ABC and the rise of Rush Limbaugh (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-libmedia.htm)

The above article shows that Limbaugh received an advantage due to the demise of the Fairness Doctrine. It is no wonder Rush is worried it may be reinstated should democrats gain control of the whitehouse again.

The Way Things Aren't (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895)

This article exposes a few of the myriad of disinformations promulgated by Limbaugh. When he states "I'm not making this stuff up folks" he probably is. He's supposed to be correct 98+% of the time. you ought listen, Sleestak, to find the approx 1.5% errors

[King Crimson]

What does that emoticon supposed to mean?(haven't seen it before)

you're kidding, right?

[Jerk]

your kidding, right?

ok now I'm giggling like a school girl :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I think it's ghey code for you need to shave.

You really need to consult an expert though.It does look like shaving, doesn't it?

[47straight]

This was ground that was covered on the first page, that the OP has decidedly ignored.

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2301939&postcount=28



Sorry, that case did not say that the FD as applied to radio is unconsitutional. Sure, there's some signs that indicate that if it did come up, it might well be ruled as such but using that dicta would depend entirely on the facts in play.


And the FCC's statements are 100% irrelevant. They're not exactly the last word about what is or is not unconstitutional, though they are bound to act as what they believe to be constitutional. The (theoretically democrat) new administration appoints said FCC which is free to change its mind about what is or is not good policy. They aren't bound by their earlier statement as precedent.

[King Crimson]

Sorry, that case did not say that the FD as applied to radio is unconsitutional. Sure, there's some signs that indicate that if it did come up, it might well be ruled as such but using that dicta would depend entirely on the facts in play.


And the FCC's statements are 100% irrelevant. They're not exactly the last word about what is or is not unconstitutional, though they are bound to act as what they believe to be constitutional. The (theoretically democrat) new administration appoints said FCC which is free to change its mind about what is or is not good policy. They aren't bound by their earlier statement as precedent.

the Supreme Court is not good enough fer ya?

[SleestakSooner]

What does that emoticon supposed to mean?(haven't seen it before)

It looks like Jerk is calling you into the circle! :eek:

[jkjsooner]

When someone tries to take them, they're going to get shot.
...
"The suspect was arrested in his compound with an arsenal of weapons, bomb-making material, and a cache of cop-killer ammunition."

And that synopsis contradicts with your previous statement?

Serious question, why when someone attempts to take your guns you consider it acceptable to shoot back yet any other perceived rights violation should be handled through legal means (courts, etc.)?

If I went to vote and was rejected could I go in and shoot the place up just because my civil rights were violated? Or is that right to shoot someone who is simply doing their job simply reserved for those who may take away your weapon?

A policemen simply enforces the laws that congress writes and the courts interpret/validate. I guess that's enough for him to lose his life over....

Sorry, I have little patience for your irrational and hypocritcal arguments. For anyone shooting back to protect their rights, I can promise there won't be many sympathizers when said person is waiting to fry on the chair.

[Jerk]

A policemen simply enforces the laws that congress writes and the courts interpret/validate. I guess that's enough for him to lose his life over....

Sorry, I have little patience for your irrational and hypocritcal arguments.

The Nazi's tried the "just following orders" defense at Nurenmberg and lost. A cop who willingly enforces an illegal order shouldn't be a cop.

My whole argument is based on wholesale gun bans and confiscations, btw. Which would require the repeal of the 2nd and 4th amendments.

Your argument about you being rejected at the voting both doesn't apply here.

If a cop with a warrant showed up and wanted in, I would not resist. I'd do like you, fight them in court. But if congress bans guns and orders cops to go door to door in every house to get them all, then I will resist. Likewise, would you just roll over if the government decided that ALL voting rights be suspended, for everyone? Do you see the difference? It might be too late to 'take it to court' in that case.

You'd have a tryrannical government on your hands, and protesting only works against democracies.

[Jerk]

okay, I'm done editing. sheesh.

[jkjsooner]

The Nazi's tried the "just following orders" defense at Nurenmberg and lost. A cop who willingly enforces an illegal order shouldn't be a cop.

My whole argument is based on wholesale gun bans and confiscations, btw. Which would require the repeal of the 2nd and 4th amendments.

Your argument about you being rejected at the voting both doesn't apply here.

If a cop with a warrant showed up and wanted in, I would not resist. I'd do like you, fight them in court. But if congress bans guns and orders cops to go door to door in every house to get them all, then I will. Likewise, would you just roll over if the government decided that ALL voting rights be suspended, for everyone? It might be too late to 'take it to court' in that case.

You'd have a tryrannical government on your hands, and protesting only works against democracies.

Well, I agree with you more now that you clarified it. The problem is some (like G Gordon Liddy) encouraged shooting any an all ATF agents who raid your house.

And, by the way, it isn't a police officer's job to interpret constitutional issues, especially complex issues with differing interpretations. I think the comparison to Nazi's following orders is a little overboard. Not that it's relevant but I don't think the low level Nazis were tried and convicted in the Nuremberg trials.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not that it's relevant but I don't think the low level Nazis were tried and convicted in the Nuremberg trials.

You're right. Many of them were tried, convicted, and sometimes executed in later courts.

If you're a law enforcement officer there's no excuse to knowingly violate someone's constitutional rights unless someone is holding a gun to your head and even then...

[Jerk]

Well, I agree with you more now that you clarified it. The problem is some (like G Gordon Liddy) encouraged shooting any an all ATF agents who raid your house.

And, by the way, it isn't a police officer's job to interpret constitutional issues, especially complex issues with differing interpretations. I think the comparison to Nazi's following orders is a little overboard. Not that it's relevant but I don't think the low level Nazis were tried and convicted in the Nuremberg trials.

I'm glad you understand. I'm by no means 'anti-cop.' If they singled me out for a raid, I'd assume they thought I was up to no good and I'd get a good attorney and fight them in court, because I am not breaking any laws that I'm aware of.

[jkjsooner]

You're right. Many of them were tried, convicted, and sometimes executed in later courts.

If you're a law enforcement officer there's no excuse to knowingly violate someone's constitutional rights unless someone is holding a gun to your head and even then...

That is just not true. Most Nazis were not tried or convicted. Almost all the leaders (that didn't escape to S. America or kill themselves) were convicted and executed. Sure, there were lower level guys who on their own committed crimes worthy of punishment and were punished but your average person who was clearly following orders was not tried and executed.

Anyway, "knowingly violating someone's constitutional rights" is not a clear-cut issue and I hope the life or death of a police officer is based on more than your interpretation of that issue.

[shaun4411]

jkjsooner is right. i am german and am pretty familiar with the whole thing. most of those prosecuted in Nuremberg were high ranking officers, and commanders at extermination/concentration camps. not every member of the military was a nazi, and few were even aware of the extent of hitler's plans with the 'final solution'.

these days there are a lot of former soldiers sprinkled throughout germany who served their country just as americans did or theirs.

[Frozen Sooner]

Dude, were you not paying attention? I already covered this with Jerk.

Outlawing heterosexual marriage and including eating a cheeseburger as being an accessory after the fact to murder are up after we stick Rush in a gulag.

[47straight]

the Supreme Court is not good enough fer ya?

The court simply didn't say that the fairness doctrine was unconstitutional in that case. There's plenty of mileage to be had, even from the wikipedia snippet quoted.

[Scott D]

It's funny really. So far as I'm concerned if "Talk Radio" is so important to folks like RLimC, the Democrats should let them have it, while they work with this stuff called technology and present their viewpoints on television, the internet, and satellite radio. ;)

I don't think it matters what the Democrats in Congress say, the FCC still has final say on if they would revive the FD. So it's still going to be an absolutely moot point, considering that they'd likely be flooded with petitions. Paperwork that they would rather avoid.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It looks like Jerk is calling you into the circle! :eek:You're NOT saying he's a Circle Jerk?!?

[Scott D]

he's a Jerk of all trades.

[LosAngelesSooner]

Radio without music or sports is teh succ.

[SleestakSooner]

You're NOT saying he's a Circle Jerk?!?

Pivot boy sez wut?

[Sooner_Havok]

I just wish we could get Science Fantastic by this guy:
http://www.freescale.com/files/graphic/other/FTF2007DayThree/images/kaku1.jpg

He is pretty fascinating. I emailed the local Talk Radio Network affiliate, but he said that he didn't think a science based program would go over to well in the OKC market:(

[frankensooner]

science friday on NPR is pretty good.

[Sooner_Havok]

science friday on NPR is pretty good.

True dat. I still wouldn't mind having a little more science on the radio. Can't we use the FD? To much crap that makes you stupid, we need to balance it out with stuff that makes you smart :D

[Animal Mother]

Yes, that's the question. What comes next after the First Amendment is totally scrapped?

You're just fantastically bored or over paid and under worked, correct?

[Whet]

Well, I guess the Obamakins are still denying anyone wants to restore the "Fairness Doctrine" to control the airways and remove opposition thought!

When will you snap out of the fog????

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/Sen_Stabenow_wants_hearings_on_radio_accountabilit y_talks_fairness_doctrine.html?showall

February 05, 2009
Categories: Talk Radio (http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/index.cfm/category/TalkRadio) Sen. Stabenow wants hearings on radio 'accountability'; talks fairness doctrine

This morning, radio host Bill Press (http://www.billpress.com/)brought up the recent closing of liberal station Obama 1260 (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0209/DC_loses_liberal_radio_station_.html)when speaking with Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and talked about whether there needs to be a balance to right-wing talk on the radio dial.
BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.
Although Obama has been publicly opposed to reinstating the fairness doctrine (http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine .php), conservative radio has talked nonstop about the fear of it returning (or perhaps something like it with another name) while there's a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress.
UPDATE: A commenter points out that Stabenow is married to Tom Athans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Athans), a liberal talk radio executive.

Of course, they fail to point out Athans is the "owner" of Air America, the failed left-wing radio station that couldn't make it the free-market, so he needs that market controlled!

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87895

...A think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama's transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on talk radio using language that has since been parroted by both the Obama campaign and the new administration's White House website.
In June of 2007, Podesta's Center for American Progress released a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," detailing the conservative viewpoint's dominance on the airwaves and proposing steps for leveling the playing field.
"Our conclusion is that the gap between conservative and progressive talk radio is the result of multiple structural problems in the U.S. regulatory system," the report reads, "particularly the complete breakdown of the public trustee concept of broadcast, the elimination of clear public interest requirements for broadcasting, and the relaxation of ownership rules including the requirement of local participation in management."
The report then demonstrates how radio stations owned locally, or operated by female and minority owners, are statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.
Therefore, the report concludes, the answer to getting equal time for "progressives" lies in mandating "localism" and "diversity" without ever needing to mention the "Fairness Doctrine."
To accomplish the strategy, the report recommends legislating local and national caps on ownership of commercial radio stations and demanding radio stations regularly prove to the FCC that they are "operating on behalf of the public interest" to maintain their broadcasting license.
And if stations are unwilling to abide by the FCC's new regulatory standards, the report recommends, they should pay spectrum-use fees directly to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting "with clear mandates to support local news and public affairs programming and to cover controversial and political issues in a fair and balanced manner."
In this way, the report concludes, between $100 million and $250 million could be raised for public radio, which will be compelled to broadcast via the old standards established by the "Fairness Doctrine."
Since the report's release in 2007, the Obama camp has twice gone on record advocating positions identical to Podesta's think tank.
Last summer, in denying the presidential candidate's support of the "Fairness Doctrine," Obama's press secretary said, "Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets."
Further, the White House website lists on its technology agenda page (http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/technology/) that the president plans to "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."
The president's position and proposals match the language of his transition co-chair's think tank report almost word-for-word.
And while President Obama has declared no plans to renew the "Fairness Doctrine," 200 Republicans in Congress are determined not to take any chances.
"I want to take President Obama at his word," Pence said. "The reality though is, the speakers of the U.S. House of Representatives has indicated that the interest of her caucus was in the reverse. … We also know some of the most prominent members of the U.S. Senate in the Democratic Party have come out in favor of this legislation."
DeMint added, "If you look at what the Democrats have tried to do with [Internet] neutrality, they're starting to say this is a public entity, everyone has to be treated equally; and the next step for that is starting to regulate what is said on that. You see traditional ideas and moral convictions being called 'hate speech.' Everywhere we see [Democrats] inching in on free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is probably the most visible and understandable, and that's why we need to draw the line in the sand and help Americans see that they're free speech is under attack."
The House version of the Broadcast Freedom Act of 2009, sponsored by Pence and cosponsored by 170 others, is currently referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The Senate version, sponsored by DeMint and cosponsored by 28 others, has been read twice and placed on the Senate Legislative Calendar No. 12 under General Orders.
Just another little note for the 2nd Amendment head-in-the-sanders:
From your messiah's Whitehouse website:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent.

[mikeelikee]

Whet, I just read that Stabenow interview earlier this evening. The libs may not actually shut down talk radio, but they d*mn sure are going to try!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Whet, I just read that Stabenow interview earlier this evening. The libs may not actually shut down talk radio, but they d*mn sure are going to try!Took 'em less than 2 weeks after the Messiah took office to bring up the subject.

[King Crimson]

OK, so some crap host on Air America mentions a "fairness standard" and that means the President is actively going Stalin after Rush because he's so dangerous as a free-thinker?

go read the first 30 posts in this thread, particularly the one's written by me. Live your own romantic persecution fantasies if you want, but at least get your facts straight.

edit: it's also a confusion of legal FCC terms: there's the "Public Interest Standard" and the "Fairness Doctrine".

[Scott D]

Democrats won't need to shut down talk radio. ClearChannel is going to kill it in the name of capitalism.

[Whet]

OK, so some crap host on Air America mentions a "fairness standard" and that means the President is actively going Stalin after Rush because he's so dangerous as a free-thinker?

go read the first 30 posts in this thread, particularly the one's written by me. Live your own romantic persecution fantasies if you want, but at least get your facts straight.

edit: it's also a confusion of legal FCC terms: there's the "Public Interest Standard" and the "Fairness Doctrine".

Stabenow is not a crap host of Air America - she is a Senator from Michigan. HER HUSBAND is the owner of Air America.

As for the previous 30 posts - well, that shows you deniers continue to refuse to believe your mamby-pambies liberal friends want to control what is on the airwaves, come crook or high water, when there is ample evidence that is exactly want those socialists in Congress want to do!

If it talks like a socialist, legislates like a socialist, and struts like a socialist - it is a socialist!

[King Crimson]

Stabenow is not a crap host of Air America - she is a Senator from Michigan. HER HUSBAND is the owner of Air America.

As for the previous 30 posts - well, that shows you deniers continue to refuse to believe your mamby-pambies liberal friends want to control what is on the airwaves, come crook or high water, when there is ample evidence that is exactly want those socialists in Congress want to do!

If it talks like a socialist, legislates like a socialist, and struts like a socialist - it is a socialist!

no. i'm referring to the Supreme Court and 80 years of FCC legislation. nice try, paranoia.

read the first 30 posts, whet.

Bill Press (crap AA host) brings up the topic, in the dialogue YOU provide.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

no. i'm referring to the Supreme Court and 80 years of FCC legislation. nice try, paranoia.

read the first 30 posts, whet.

Bill Press (crap AA host) brings up the topic, in the dialogue YOU provide.No King, this thread is about destroying conservative talk radio by whatever means they can. Your obsession with using the Fairness Doctrine to do so is not the point of this thread, and never was.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

...let's discuss a solution over a pot of coffeeJust what do you think we're dong, anyway?

[TopDawg]

Just what do you think we're dong, anyway?

Paging Dr. Freud.

[King Crimson]

No King, this thread is about destroying conservative talk radio by whatever means they can. Your obsession with using the Fairness Doctrine to do so is not the point of this thread, and never was.

OK. right. says the guy who's brought up the FD 100 times.

[47straight]

no. i'm referring to the Supreme Court and 80 years of FCC legislation. nice try, paranoia.

read the first 30 posts, whet.

Bill Press (crap AA host) brings up the topic, in the dialogue YOU provide.


Why don't you actually quote the supreme court decision that shows we've got nothing to fear?

[Whet]

They like to call it "diversity of the airways," rather than "Fairness Doctirne."

[King Crimson]

Why don't you actually quote the supreme court decision that shows we've got nothing to fear?

see post #28 in this thread.

[Czar Soonerov]

Air America was a complete bust.

I actually thought this film improved with each viewing - some of the comic lines were lost first time around, with people speaking together, and rotor noise from the aircraft. Air America is probably a little too script-by-numbers, but only if you think about it too much - the key is to just enjoy the action and the comedy. I couldn't tell whether Mel Gibson's character was incredibly laid back, or if the actor just wasn't giving his all - but for me, the more interesting characters were the supporting cast anyway: David Marshall Grant as Rob Diehl and Art LaFleur as Jack Niely. There were a few too many pilots to pad all of the cast out, but the collective effort provided much of the humour. Robert Downey, Jnr. was perhaps the best out of the main cast, from cheesy 'eye in the sky' pilot ('the traffic is kinda sad, kinda bumsy-looking'), to Air America rookie, lost in a world of 'bar girls, squiggly writing on signs, and more bar girls'. Neither Gibson or Downey, Jnr. were particularly convincing as pilots, but luckily the planes (such as Pilatus Porters and Caribous) had enough character to pull off the airborne scenes. Downey, Jnr.'s character had a spectacular, if not slightly drawn out, crash-landing scene, slowly dismantling his aircraft as he slid along an old airstrip. The soundtrack was also a bonus, placing the film in time where the main characters were slightly anachronistic. Frank Sinatra's 'Come Fly With Me' saved the cliched ending with the same droll humour that was peppered throughout the rest of the movie. Overall, Air America is a film best watched with your brain switched to 'idle' - although the subject is serious, the film is best as pure entertainment.

[SoonerProphet]

yesterday's cries of treason have now turned to cries of tyranny. hypocrites.

[I Am Right]

Remember, in the lefts eyes, fairness only goes one way.

[SoonerProphet]

Remember, in the lefts eyes, fairness only goes one way.

oh get real, ideologues on both sides of the spectrum own the idiocy of "i am right".

[I Am Right]

oh get real, ideologues on both sides of the spectrum own the idiocy of "i am right".

Wow, name calling, you must be so proud!

[47straight]

see post #28 in this thread.



See posts #107 and #119.



We've got plenty of room to be concerned.

[TopDawg]

Remember, in the right's eyes, fairness isn't fair.

YAY! Meaningless hyperbole is smart and beneficial!

[Frozen Sooner]

Wow, name calling, you must be so proud!

OK, that made me laugh.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

You're right. I already knew that conservatives...well, your kind anyway...don't like to listen to other points of view.

I don't mind listening to the other side of an arguement. I am just not very likely to side or be persuaded to agree to a social and fiscal liberal view.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

OK. right. says the guy who's brought up the FD 100 times.In response to your not letting it go. I'm doing it again, now.

[mikeelikee]

It won't be called the Fairness Doctrine this time around. Obamer's too clever to try that. They will bleed it to death, market-by-market, with a little trick called "localism". What could be more important in Tulsa, for example, than a thorough (read incessant) dialogue about local Tulsa issues? How could that nationwide windbag Rush have any relevance in Tulsa? Insidious, but very effective. I hope they fail.

[47straight]

yesterday's cries of treason have now turned to cries of tyranny. hypocrites.


huffingtonpost.com, fascist. you'll like it better over there.

[SoonerBorn68]

The Bri protectors are at work again.

[SoonerProphet]

huffingtonpost.com, fascist. you'll like it better over there.

hardly, i've been on the record of pointing out government intervention as abhorrent on issues of both what are pidgenoholed as conservative or liberal. i am hardly one to applaud active governments only when it fits my political ideology and then rant from the rafters if it crosses it. i am an equal opportunity ranter.

[OklahomaTuba]

don't worry, shutting down conservative radio is part of the stimulus.

All those fine patriotic air America radio peeps need jobs too.

[I Am Right]

don't worry, shutting down conservative radio is part of the stimulus.

All those fine patriotic air America radio peeps need jobs too.

:pop: :pop:

[OklahomaTuba]

Oh damn, did I just call that a stimulus?

Sorry about that.

[Jerk]

Is it too early to start hanging the motherfukers from lamp-posts?

Hey commies, what other freedoms would you like to take away?

If you don't like what you hear on the radio, turn the knob, dumbasses.

[King Crimson]

Is it too early to start hanging the motherfukers from lamp-posts?

Hey commies, what other freedoms would you like to take away?

well, lamp-posts are paid for with taxes and therefore Stalinism. are you endorsing Stalinism?

[Jerk]

well, lamp-posts are paid for with taxes and therefore Stalinism. are you endorsing Stalinism?

The internet was built to withstand an attack from the USSR. Do you support nuclear war??

[Jerk]

oh, btw-

If you don't like what you hear on the radio, turn the knob, dumbasses.

[Jerk]

Hey guys. Let's say you're riding down the highway and you decide to listen to your radio. You turn it on. Some guy on there is saying things that you don't agree with. Turn knob, dumbass.

[Jerk]

Hey I got an idea. Let's suppress the political speech of our political opponents! In fact, that should be one of the first things we do, even though there are several wars and a major recession going on right now.

[King Crimson]

The internet was built to withstand an attack from the USSR. Do you support nuclear war??

not as much as you do, probably.

actually, if you read the stuff about Joseph Licklider it's debatable whether the idea of networking was solely based in the nuclear Cold War scenario. He claims it's not true. and the early history of the internet is based in academic and scientific communication, which is of course EVIL.

[Jerk]

If the left had domination of AM radio, would they support the 'fairness doctrine?"

[Jerk]

not as much as you do, probably.


You're probably right. The problem is getting all the people I don't like within a 10 mile radius of each other.

[Jerk]

not as much as you do, probably.

actually, if you read the stuff about Joseph Licklider it's debatable whether the idea of networking was solely based in the nuclear Cold War scenario. He claims it's not true. and the early history of the internet is based in academic and scientific communication, which is of course EVIL.

Wow, what a marvel of human innovation. It's made it so much easier to watch porn.

[Jerk]

This has really gotten me in a foul mood. Hopefully the dems will pass it, and teh "moderates" will wake the f*ck up and see what's going on.

Unless they don't give a sh*t about losing constitutional rights.

[Jerk]

Hey guys. Let's say you're riding down the highway and you decide to listen to your radio. You turn it on. Some guy on there is saying things that you don't agree with.

You can either:

A) Call your government and tell them to shut-down the radio show
B) Turn knob

Should we use the Constitution of the U.S. as a guide, or the Communist Manifesto?

[Jerk]

actually, if you read the stuff about Joseph Licklider it's debatable whether the idea of networking was solely based in the nuclear Cold War scenario. He claims it's not true. and the early history of the internet is based in academic and scientific communication, which is of course EVIL.


I thought Al Gore did it

(I know that one took me awhile)

[King Crimson]

I thought Al Gore did it

(I know that one took me awhile)

you are punching the wrong bag with dem hate, i'm not a dem...but i DO remember in 04 when a lot of what you see on this board in the hateful, anti-american 2 weeks of the Hussein king of hypocrisy presidency was called "whining" in 2004.

you lost, get over it. that was the mantra....from some of the biggest now whiners of the last two weeks.

[Jerk]

you are punching the wrong bag with dem hate, i'm not a dem...but i DO remember in 04 when a lot of what you see on this board in the hateful, anti-american 2 weeks of the Hussein king of hypocrisy presidency was called "whining" in 2004.

you lost, get over it. that was the mantra....from some of the biggest now whiners of the last two weeks.


They were whining for stupid reasons, like saying Bush stole the election by rigging Ohio. I'm whining because there are actually people in America who don't support the first amendment.

[SoonerBorn68]

Sure they do Jerk, just when they agree with what's being said.

[King Crimson]

soonerborn 68, are you going to smugly accuse me of saying things i didn't....again?

[King Crimson]

i thought "accountability" was one of those super macho conservative virtues. you were wrong and i think you should cop to it.

as a man.

[King Crimson]

still waiting for that apology about insulting someone's family, which i did not do.

[Jerk]

Let's see what I learned today from AM radio that will probably not be reported on PBS:

-The Fairness Doctrine is being introduced by some lady Senator from Michigan. Actually, she's calling for hearings.

-Lady Senator's husband founded Air America.

Hmm........................

Ok, libs, we're not dumb. We can put 2 and 2 together and see the agenda.

[SoonerBorn68]

Her husband also got busted with a $150 hooker.

[KC//CRIMSON]

So when are you ladies starting the coup d’état?

[Jerk]

So when are you ladies starting the coup d’état?

Don't have to. I'm just going to watch this train derail.