|
Internet fairness doctrine
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet. |
Internet fairness doctrine
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 06:45:31 -0700 (PDT), Frogwatch
wrote: HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an "Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet. Groan... "1984" was supposed to be a fiction novel. -- Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service -------http://www.NewsDemon.com------ Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access |
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
Internet fairness doctrine
On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:02:46 -0400, NotNow wrote:
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. I agree, that's pretty damn sick. -- 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 |
Internet fairness doctrine
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 |
Internet fairness doctrine
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...? If you weren't such a ****-for-brains, scotty, you'd know the chairman of the fcc has already stated more than once that there will be no rebirth of the "fairness doctrine," most recently to that idiot grassly. So, your source of third-reich opinion will continue uninterrupted. |
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
Internet fairness doctrine
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. Ahhh...another right-wing screed. Does it mention teabags and deathers, too? |
Internet fairness doctrine
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! |
Internet fairness doctrine
"NotNow" wrote in message
... Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too. That ship has sailed. -- Nom=de=Plume |
Internet fairness doctrine
nom=de=plume wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too. That ship has sailed. Not for some! |
Internet fairness doctrine
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 "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 |
Internet fairness doctrine
H the K wrote:
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...? If you weren't such a ****-for-brains, scotty, you'd know the chairman of the fcc has already stated more than once that there will be no rebirth of the "fairness doctrine," most recently to that idiot grassly. So, your source of third-reich opinion will continue uninterrupted. The Chairman of the FCC does not control Congress, idiot. |
Internet fairness doctrine
"NotNow" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too. That ship has sailed. Not for some! We have to do it again? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Internet fairness doctrine
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! Do you understand the concept of incremental change. Obama and his minons in the House and Senate are idiots. They have decided that since they have a majority in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White House they can move their big programs thorough faster and achieve their goals in a shorter amount of time. They see this as a means of cementing their legacy in the progressive movement and attaining God-like status. But, they didn't count on the US citizens resisting the Democrats desired changes. |
Internet fairness doctrine
nom=de=plume wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message ... Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too. That ship has sailed. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/petas-pet-slaughterhouse/ |
Internet fairness doctrine
In article ,
says... On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:02:46 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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. I agree, that's pretty damn sick. I am hoping I read down further and find the problem with the two incidents I noted above. They are both facts, in the case of the ACLU, the admit it freely on the website, and in the case of the New Black Panther Party, the video is everywhere. But alas, even when faced with video my friend Loogie can only avoid and deflect, and excuse bad behavior blaming it on other perceived bad behavior... sad... Yup it's all Bushes fault... Pfffttt... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Internet fairness doctrine
In article ,
says... On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:02:46 -0400, NotNow wrote: 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. I agree, that's pretty damn sick. Yeah, and now the invstigation into Bill Richardson has been officially killed in Washington.. Same old, same old.. Dems don't get investigated and have no desire to know the truth when it comes to them. But **** if Scooter Libby forgets a date.. He's a repub.. **** the double standard and the leadership who allows it... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Internet fairness doctrine
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... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Internet fairness doctrine
|
Internet fairness doctrine
"BAR" wrote in message
... nom=de=plume wrote: "NotNow" wrote in message ... Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too. That ship has sailed. http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/petas-pet-slaughterhouse/ But we usually eat them too... -- Nom=de=Plume |
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
Internet fairness doctrine
|
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 |
Internet fairness doctrine
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. |
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. |
Internet fairness doctrine
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 "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 |
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. |
Internet fairness doctrine
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? |
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 |
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 |
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. |
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:09 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com