| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
Internet fairness doctrine
In article ,
says... 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. Don't you get it? The author wrote a book on how to get around the law! That's what the book is about... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
|
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
|
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
|
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet fairness doctrine
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 |
|
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet fairness doctrine
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 |
|
#7
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
|
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
|
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| internet geld machen , geld verdienen im internet de , geld seite , wie kann ich online gewinnen , jetzt sofort schnelles geld , schnell geld , www geld im internet , wars schnell viel geld , geld verdienen mit online casino , geld über internet v | General | |||
| "Fairness Doctrine"...more liberal crap.. | General | |||
| What the Internet has done for me. | General | |||
| Bush Doctrine at Work | General | |||
![NotNow[_3_] is offline](https://www.boatbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Hybrid Mode
