they better wake up its all out WAR
Stupid question, He is. Are we going to target Durbin? LOts of targets there.
Durbin wouldn’t make a pimple on an Elephants arse. He is just another self absorbed politician. Politicians may soon be a rare breed, they can’t legislate so why have them. I am wondering if they are willing to take a pay cut?
Dirtbag is up to his old trick again.
I seem to remember Rush wiping up all the Senate democrats on a dare/bet about a year ago. Something about a letter signed by The Beast and 40 other dems.
Olberman is hysterical about Limbaugh. It is both pathetic and hillarious to listen to him lose it.
One FReeper posted, after the “news” that Obama was against the Fairness Doctrine, that it would be back just another a different name.
Can’t remember which FReeper, but he was right on in his prediction.
Easy to see why his parents named him Dick.
Durbin is the wicked of the bunch. imo
He’s from Chicago!!
What was the number of this amendment? I want to check out my Senators (as if I didn’t know) and go after them.
I seriously doubt that the senior senator from Illinois is acting without the tacit approval of the former junior senator from Illinois. As far as I’m concerned, Sen. Turban speaks for Obama.
“President Obama has made clear that he does not intend to reinstate the doctrine. “
Who does he think he’s kidding? What an insult to everyone’s intelligence.
Limbaugh has been saying for a while that Obama and friends would attempt to bring back the Fairness doctrine under a different name. So now they call it “diversity in media ownership”. In today’s parlance, terms like “diversity” and “political correctness” have become synonymous with quotas and censorship.
My question is this: How many Americans are willing to live under tyranny? More importantly, How many Americans will be willing to act, yes I mean invoke the real reason for the second amendment, and HELL YES, take up arms against a tyrannical government?
All you lurkers here, put me on your little list. I WILL NOT LIVE under tyranny!!! That is my answer!
SEC. 9. FCC AUTHORITIES.
(a) Clarification of General Powers.—Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
``SEC. 303B. CLARIFICATION OF GENERAL POWERS.
``(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.—The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.
``(b) Construction.—Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.’’.
(b) Severability.—Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.
888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
SEC. 10. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.
(a) Limitation on General Powers: Fairness Doctrine.—Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.
``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, guidelines, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part)—
``(1) the requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine’, as repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987); or
``(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.’’.
(b) Severability.—Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.
scroll to near the bottom of page:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r111:9:./temp/~r111IeKJwl:e309814:
I dunno but SpongeRomm sure has his little panties in a bunch lately.