John H. wrote:
On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:27:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JLH wrote:
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:07:14 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.
Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?

--
Wafa free since 2009
In spite of the fact that there is no movement in Congress to re-
implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' that would silence conservative talk
radio, the Obama administration and Democrats on The Hill are working
behind the scenes to accomplish that very goal without the Doctrine.

With the appointment of Mark Loyd to the FCC as the nation's very
first 'Chief Diversity Officer,' Obama hopes to accomplish the very
things that the Fairness Doctrine would mandate.

The main focus would be to force commercial radio stations to offer a
'diversity of opinion,' meaning of course that liberals would get
equal time to promote their causes and concepts. Rather than get
mired in the swampland of rules and regulations concerning how to do
that, radio stations will simply cancel programs such as Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.

But this is not the only thing Loyd would do as Chief Diversity
Officer.

Loyd wants public broadcasting to be the dominant force in radio,
overshadowing commercial stations. And, as we have cited before, he
would do this by forcing commercial radio stations to pay a fee equal
to their entire operating cost to the government in order to directly
benefit NPR.

However, more danger lurks just under the surface with regard to Loyd.

Today, we discovered this:

Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton
administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the
tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of
Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the
course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply
convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We
understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent,
the commercial broadcasters ...."


In addition, Loyd makes it clear that the concepts pushed by extremist
Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals, would serve as the
inspiration for his war on commercial broadcasting:

"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a
guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the
campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-
conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we
drew inspiration and guidance."


In order to wrest control of broadcasting from private commercial
interests to place it under government control, Loyd outlines 6 goals,
which include vastly expanding NPR with money collected from
commercial radio stations, expanding the FCC by setting up powerful
regional hubs, and 'clear regulations over political commentary and
advertising.'

In other words, good-bye freedom of speech.

But Loyd has an answer to critics who cry foul over his plan to muzzle
First Amendment rights. He thinks that concern over the First
Amendment is 'exaggerated':

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech
or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an
exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech
or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of
other communications policies.”


These examples make it clear that Obama intends to wage all-out war on
conservative talk radio, free speech, free commerce through private
radio broadcasting corporations, and new government regulations that
control broadcast content. The First Amendment is simply an
exaggerated concern that gets in the way.
Yes, and all liberals want to kill your elderly, kick your dogs and eat
your babies.........

Can you guys get any more unhinged? I'm betting you can!
What part of the post was erroneous, Loogy. You're showing that you
don't watch the news.
--
John H
It's intellectually dishonest. The writer is making it sound as though
government regulation of broadcast content is something new. It isn't.

No, it isn't new. The Russians have been doing it for years, along
with the Venezuelans.

You need to wake up, Loogy.
--
John H

Holy ****! *I* need to wake up??? Do you not know that the United States
government regulates broadcast content??? Really?

Let's try this one more time.. Read it carefully, the constitutional
aspect of freedom of speech is irrelevant the way they are going to go
about it.. Here it is again...

Here, in simple language.. The doctrine will force public radio to air
opposing opinions or pay huge fines which would put them out of
business. At the same time, liberal radio doesn't work and nobody wants
to listen to it. So the way it works is, right wing shows would draw
the
same advertising revenue they do now, but a Washington panel would
decide what was right leaning and of course, even Al Sharpton considers
himself a "moderate" so we know where the line would be.

{Anyway, here is the meat of the bill and how it would put right leaning
radio off the air. Read on)

Anyway, for
every hour of profitable right wing radio, the station would have to
play an hour of basically free left wing radio (remember, left wing
radio is not and has not ever been able to sustain itself in a free
market). So either the radio stations play have of their prime time
radio time free, cutting their gross income by 50% (what company can
give away half of it's services?) or just don't play the right wing
radio programs.. What do you think the outcome will be there? It will
censor anything "moderates" like Pelosi, and Jessi Jackson think is
right wing...


--
Wafa free since 2009

On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:35:57 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

Let's try this one more time.. Read it carefully, the constitutional
aspect of freedom of speech is irrelevant the way they are going to go
about it.. Here it is again...

Here, in simple language.. The doctrine will force public radio to air
opposing opinions or pay huge fines which would put them out of
business. At the same time, liberal radio doesn't work and nobody wants
to listen to it. So the way it works is, right wing shows would draw
the
same advertising revenue they do now, but a Washington panel would
decide what was right leaning and of course, even Al Sharpton considers
himself a "moderate" so we know where the line would be.

{Anyway, here is the meat of the bill and how it would put right leaning
radio off the air. Read on)

Anyway, for
every hour of profitable right wing radio, the station would have to
play an hour of basically free left wing radio (remember, left wing
radio is not and has not ever been able to sustain itself in a free
market). So either the radio stations play have of their prime time
radio time free, cutting their gross income by 50% (what company can
give away half of it's services?) or just don't play the right wing
radio programs.. What do you think the outcome will be there? It will
censor anything "moderates" like Pelosi, and Jessi Jackson think is
right wing...

It's too much like talking to a rock. Might as well be discussing with
Harry for that matter.

Anyway, more power to you. I give up with Loogy.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

On Aug 28, 4:23*pm, NotNow wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:08 am, NotNow wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. *One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet..
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. *The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.
Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?
Jesus.....you make it sound like tthe panthers were there forcing people
to vote a certain way! The internet fairness doctrine? The guy knows
it'll never gain legs, so is more or less just talking about it. He even
goes so far as to say that if it ever happened it would be
unconstitutional. So, I beg to ask, where did you get the information
that the Obama administration is proposing this idea?
You see, it's not a question of either proving or disproving something.
It's the intellectual dishonesty of someone saying that the admin. is
proposing it when that's not true.
**** that! You are completely uninformed here. Read the ****ing
doctrine, read Jacks post above so you at least have a slight idea how
the doctrine will work..
Here, in simple language.. The doctrine will force public radio to air
opposing opinions or pay huge fines which would put them out of
business. At the same time, liberal radio doesn't work and nobody wants
to listen to it. So the way it works is, right wing shows would draw the
same advertising revenue they do now, but a Washington panel would
decide what was right leaning and of course, even Al Sharpton considers
himself a "moderate" so we know where the line would be. Anyway, for
every hour of profitable right wing radio, the station would have to
play an hour of basically free left wing radio (remember, left wing
radio is not and has not ever been able to sustain itself in a free
market). So either the radio stations play have of their prime time
radio time free, cutting their gross income by 50% (what company can
give away half of it's services?) or just don't play the right wing
radio programs.. What do you think the outcome will be there? It will
censor anything "moderates" like Pelosi, and Jessi Jackson think it
right wing...
Now if you can't understand that, I just can't bother here anymore...
pssst, it doesn't matter WHAT it says. The author even stated that it's
unconstitutional so it can't happen.

The liberals have been saying that all sorts of unconstitutional
things have happened over the last 8 years. *Using your logic they're
wrong, since that can't happen.

That's not logic. Logic would be if I thought that a LAW COULD GET
PASSED in congress that is unconstitutional.

You've got to be kidding!! Remember the Patriot Act? Remember how
loudly many people howled that it was unconstitutional? Remember that
*after* it was passed into *law*, at least one section of it was
struck down by the courts as, in fact, *being* unconstitutional?

Now you're trying to say that this can't happen? Well, it already
has, and can again! You're going off the deep end, loogy. Reel it
back in.

Jack wrote:
On Aug 28, 4:23 pm, NotNow wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Aug 28, 10:08 am, NotNow wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.
Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?
Jesus.....you make it sound like tthe panthers were there forcing people
to vote a certain way! The internet fairness doctrine? The guy knows
it'll never gain legs, so is more or less just talking about it. He even
goes so far as to say that if it ever happened it would be
unconstitutional. So, I beg to ask, where did you get the information
that the Obama administration is proposing this idea?
You see, it's not a question of either proving or disproving something.
It's the intellectual dishonesty of someone saying that the admin. is
proposing it when that's not true.
**** that! You are completely uninformed here. Read the ****ing
doctrine, read Jacks post above so you at least have a slight idea how
the doctrine will work..
Here, in simple language.. The doctrine will force public radio to air
opposing opinions or pay huge fines which would put them out of
business. At the same time, liberal radio doesn't work and nobody wants
to listen to it. So the way it works is, right wing shows would draw the
same advertising revenue they do now, but a Washington panel would
decide what was right leaning and of course, even Al Sharpton considers
himself a "moderate" so we know where the line would be. Anyway, for
every hour of profitable right wing radio, the station would have to
play an hour of basically free left wing radio (remember, left wing
radio is not and has not ever been able to sustain itself in a free
market). So either the radio stations play have of their prime time
radio time free, cutting their gross income by 50% (what company can
give away half of it's services?) or just don't play the right wing
radio programs.. What do you think the outcome will be there? It will
censor anything "moderates" like Pelosi, and Jessi Jackson think it
right wing...
Now if you can't understand that, I just can't bother here anymore...
pssst, it doesn't matter WHAT it says. The author even stated that it's
unconstitutional so it can't happen.
The liberals have been saying that all sorts of unconstitutional
things have happened over the last 8 years. Using your logic they're
wrong, since that can't happen.
That's not logic. Logic would be if I thought that a LAW COULD GET
PASSED in congress that is unconstitutional.

You've got to be kidding!! Remember the Patriot Act? Remember how
loudly many people howled that it was unconstitutional? Remember that
*after* it was passed into *law*, at least one section of it was
struck down by the courts as, in fact, *being* unconstitutional?

Now you're trying to say that this can't happen? Well, it already
has, and can again! You're going off the deep end, loogy. Reel it
back in.


What could be more pleasing than seeing right-wing trash like you,
JustHate and the others suffering a bit of apoplexy.