Keep pushing idiots. It will blow up in your face.
Call them the UnAmerican Stalinists that they are, Michele!
but blantant bias over the TV airwaves is perfectly ok...
Imagine a daily three hour show where the liberal gets to spout thier ideas out there, for all to see, in broad daylight, then get hammered with logic and reason by the likes of Rush.
It would get the debate out in the open, and they will fail, miserabley, because every one of their ideas fail when put to the test, or have light shined on them.
The other day O’Reilly essentially brushed off the possibility of the (so-called) Fairness Doctrine being reinstated. But I disagree — the possibility is very real. ...and the libs’ target is obviously conservative “hate radio” (as they’re fond of saying).
Democrats control just about every other media and now they want control over talk shows. It’s not the Fairness Doctrine..........it’s Communist Doctrine.
I am not worried, though, because I know that once people get a taste of freedom, they won't easily give it up for NOTHING. Unlike Socalism, there is no 'reward' or percieved benefit to giving up your freedom of speech. The message will continue to get out.
What I want to know is what can we do about it. It seems to me that if you are not ready to stand and die for freedom of speeech then freedom doesn’t mean much to you. Am I over the top on this?
Question: because viewpoint is so important, who decides what is liberal or conservative?
Question: what philosophical guidelines are used? Marx? Rand? Alynski? Thomas Jefferson?
The basis for the fairness doctrine is that the radio stations use the public airwaves for distribution of their message. Since it is public, there is a responsibility to present all views.
By the same logic, any media that uses public facilities to get out the message must be similarly fair. Take for instance newspapers, These for profit companies use the public streets and roads for distributing their product. Taken in the abstract, the network of publically owned streets and roads is no different than the public airways.
The news papers must be restricted from using the public streets and roads. If people want biased newspapers, they must visit the printing site and pick them up.
A similar and perhaps even stronger philosophy applies to newspapers using the US Mail as a delivery mechanism. The newspapers utilize the US Mail network in a similar manner to the Radio stations. The transport is via public owned pathways.
In the meantime, zero's digital brownshirts will take over the net to work their misinformation campaign which is where information seekers are headed as traditional media expends its last gasps.
Please consider the pleas of John Fund of the Wall Street Journal to call these Orwellian termed democrat party legislations by their real names.
In this case it is the “CENSORSHIP DOCTRINE,” not the “Fairness Doctrine.”
It is designed to remove all Republican speech from all the electronic media.
I can’t imagine how the “Fairness Doctrine” could possibly stand up in the courts, but of course I remember us saying the same thing about “Campaign Finance Reform”.
Fairness Doctrine = Kill Dissent Doctrine
What about those idiotic daytime shows? Would this mean that Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham could do a show counter to the View? And maybe Sarah could counter Ellen’s gay agenda? Laura Bush could counter Oprah?
Seriously, wouldn’t the above be required if their “Fairness” doctine was actually enacted?
And what about Leno, Letterman and Stewart? Do we get to have Christian comedians, or some other “talent” to counter their conservative bashing?
This MUST occur if they remove Sean and Rush from the airwaves.
Schmucky Schumer comparing conservative talk radio to pornography? Nice. There’ll be hell to pay if the lib-dominated gov’t tosses both the 1st amendment and 2nd amendments into the constitutional trashbin. ...and I doubt Shmucky and Co. realize the full extent of that payment.