Bill Clinton Supports Return Of Fairness Doctrine

[Drixxx]

The public should not be responsible. I agree. I do not care if it is Rush, Maddow, Boortz or whatever.

You might not care but other tax payers in your community do. And since they (and you) are the owners you decide how they will be used.

 

[Wok]

You might not care but other tax payers in your community do. And since they (and you) are the owners you decide how they will be used.

Then it cannot be both ways. Either the government nationalizes the entire radio industry and pays for it all or not. If it is nationalized, then sponsors and ratings do not mean anything.

 

[Drixxx]

Hey Vetteman, I bet you can remember a time when you could hear a local high school football game on the radio. And local people giving rebuttals to what some pinhead said from station management. Local stations covering local events, farm reports etc.

Now it's all corporate created, loud mouth Rush wannbees from New York screaming all day. Do you really thinks that's better than when local stations were owned by local families who had a stake in your community?

 

[Drixxx]

Then it cannot be both ways. Either the government nationalizes the entire radio industry and pays for it all or not. If it is nationalized, then sponsors and ratings do not mean anything.

What are you talking about? I listen to commercial free broadcast radio everyday. You act like it's some fantastical feat that can never be accomplished.

 

[Wok]

What are you talking about? I listen to commercial free broadcast radio everyday. You act like it's some fantastical feat that can never be accomplished.

I am glad you do. And yes, I know there is commercial free paid programming out there. However, I disagree the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.

 

[Drixxx]

I am glad you do. And yes, I know there is commercial free paid programming out there. However, I disagree the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated.

What's wrong with fairness?

 

[Wok]

What's wrong with fairness?

Nothing is wrong with it. I can choose to listen to Rush, Colmes or whatever. I believe sponsors and listeners will decide who sinks or swims. If it does not go by that model, then let the government pay for the public radio stations (salaries, etc.), and force the likes of Rush or Colmes to pay channels. I do not think it can be both ways. I do not think it should be that way, but hey, that is just my opinion.

 

[Drixxx]

Nothing is wrong with it. I can choose to listen to Rush, Colmes or whatever. I believe sponsors and listeners will decide who sinks or swims. If it does not go by that model, then let the government pay for the public radio stations (salaries, etc.), and force the likes of Rush or Colmes to pay channels. I do not think it can be both ways. I do not think it should be that way, but hey, that is just my opinion.

That's not the way it works. When a local radio station is owned by a corporation they decide what is played in your market. Not the listeners. A local community might want country music but the corporation has spent millions on some talk personality they are going to utilize that that expensive talent and not create the expense of another format even though that is more popular.

 

[Worm]

Radio Free Cuba..errr America!!!!!!

 

[miles]

Liberals can rationalize anything. They live in Bizarro World where up is down, yes means no, government is good, and Obama is honest. It seems like most of them here have little or no real life experience. Many are stuck at the bottom rung of the ladder and either lack the education, work ethic, or emotional intelligence to lead productive lives. They're jealous of others' success and feel entitled to their "fair share," sucking at the teat of government. Of course, this is always someone else's fault.

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

How many Go 'Bama threads is Drixxx going to post on the subject?






Barack wants the new Rushing title? WTF???

 

[Cap’n AMatrixca]

Liberals can rationalize anything. They live in Bizarro World where up is down, yes means no, government is good, and Obama is honest. It seems like most of them here have little or no real life experience.

Horkheimer's book, Eclipse of Reason, deals with the concept of reason within the history of Western philosophy. Horkheimer defines true reason as rationality. He details the difference between objective and subjective reason and states that we have moved from objective to subjective. Objective reason deals with universal truths that dictate that an action is either right or wrong. Subjective reason takes into account the situation and social norms. Actions that produce the best situation for the individual are "reasonable" according to subjective reason. The movement from one type of reason to the other occurred when thought could no longer accommodate these objective truths or when it judged them to be delusions. Under subjective reason, concepts lose their meaning. All concepts must be strictly functional to be reasonable. Because subjective reason rules, the ideals of a society, for example democratic ideals, become dependent on the "interests" of the people instead of being dependent on objective truths.

Writing in 1946, Horkheimer was strongly influenced by the Nazi legacy in Germany. He outlined how the Nazis had been able to make their agenda appear "reasonable", but also issued a warning about the possibility of this happening again. Horkheimer believed that the ills of modern society are caused by misunderstanding of reason: if people use true reason to critique their societies, they will be able to identify and solve their problems.

"In Germany, they first came for the communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist," said the Rev. Martin Niemöller. "Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak up."

 

[Drixxx]

Liberals can rationalize anything. They live in Bizarro World where up is down, yes means no, government is good, and Obama is honest. It seems like most of them here have little or no real life experience. Many are stuck at the bottom rung of the ladder and either lack the education, work ethic, or emotional intelligence to lead productive lives. They're jealous of others' success and feel entitled to their "fair share," sucking at the teat of government. Of course, this is always someone else's fault.

Does your head hurt when you're that stupid or is it just kind of numb?

 

[Drixxx]

How many Go 'Bama threads is Drixxx going to post on the subject?






Barack wants the new Rushing title? WTF???

Obama is not a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[miles]

Does your head hurt when you're that stupid or is it just kind of numb?

Where did you get your immature Bizarro World sense of entitlement that government is good, corporations are bad, and everything must be "fair?" My description obviously struck a nerve. Or in your case, the bolt between your neck and head.

 

[miles]

Obama is not a proponent of the Fairness Doctrine.

He doesn't have to be...his henchmen in Congress will do it for him.

 

[jhuson]

Is there anything more dangerous than a stupid populace?

No shit. They elected Bush twice.

Now onto the "fairness" doctrine:

It's a fucking joke and shows how weak the Dems are at times.

I can't stand Rush Limbaugh. I don't think he's entertaining, intellectually honest or funny. That being said, if he can hoodwink 10 million retards to listen to him each day, that is his right. And if the Right buys up stations and finds advertisers to support him, that just means they are doing a better job than the left.

The Left needs to find better hosts (Lynn Samuels, Randi Rhoads, etc. are pretty weak...OK Samuels is unlistenable.). Thom Hartman is actually pretty knowledgeable but a bit soft on the "entertainment" side. I've listened to a couple of the others and they all are OK at best.

Clearly, the Left has more talent on its side (Jon Stewart and Colbert) but they need to find more talented people, acquire more media outlets and learn to properly brand their stations and market/promote their talent.

 

[off2bed]

Vetteman, don't you think you have a right to speak YOUR mind, in YOUR community, which YOU pay taxes, on the airwaves YOU own?

You have a right to speak, but no right to be heard. Using broadcast equipment to be heard is not a right. The Fairness Doctrine attempts to make it one. Your "public airwaves" argument is a red herring. The fact that the FD only applies to radio shows how poorly conceived it is. What's good for radio is good for TV, newspapers, and the internet, right?

Drixx, you couldn't possibly be this dumb, unless you're just trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you. The "you own it" mantra is shallow and naive, and does not constitute an argument in favor of mob rule dictating what gets on the radio.

It sounds like "you own it" is your way of saying, "If the majority of voters want Rush off the air, then he goes off the air." Nope, sorry. This isn't Cuba. Yet.

 

[RobDownSouth]

This thread shows how Obama can implement his agenda with a minimum of Republican fluff.

A grand total of 3 members of the Republican party (Stabenow, Pelosi, and Bill Clinton) think a return of the "Fairness Doctrine" would be a good thing. Despite such limited support, the mere mention of bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" causes the Republican establishment to void their collective bowels in paroxysms of fear.

Ergo, each piece of legislation introduced into Congress at the behest of the Obama administration should contain a provision to implement the "Fairness Doctrine" once again. Then the Dems can show their bi-partisanshipiminess by eventually "conceding" an amendment to remove it.

This gives Republicans political cover to convince their all-important base that they are somehow "protecting Amurica".

 

[Drixxx]

Where did you get your immature Bizarro World sense of entitlement that government is good, corporations are bad, and everything must be "fair?" My description obviously struck a nerve. Or in your case, the bolt between your neck and head.

The public airwaves belongs to taxpayers not corporations. Responsible owners set prices and terms of use of their property. It is the fiscally conservative thing to do. It has nothing to do with your government good, corporations bad notions.

 

[Drixxx]

You have a right to speak, but no right to be heard. Using broadcast equipment to be heard is not a right. The Fairness Doctrine attempts to make it one. Your "public airwaves" argument is a red herring. The fact that the FD only applies to radio shows how poorly conceived it is. What's good for radio is good for TV, newspapers, and the internet, right?

Drixx, you couldn't possibly be this dumb, unless you're just trying to shout down anyone who disagrees with you. The "you own it" mantra is shallow and naive, and does not constitute an argument in favor of mob rule dictating what gets on the radio.

It sounds like "you own it" is your way of saying, "If the majority of voters want Rush off the air, then he goes off the air." Nope, sorry. This isn't Cuba. Yet.

Shut the fuck up, Miles.

 

[Drixxx]

No shit. They elected Bush twice.

Now onto the "fairness" doctrine:

It's a fucking joke and shows how weak the Dems are at times.

I can't stand Rush Limbaugh. I don't think he's entertaining, intellectually honest or funny. That being said, if he can hoodwink 10 million retards to listen to him each day, that is his right. And if the Right buys up stations and finds advertisers to support him, that just means they are doing a better job than the left.

The Left needs to find better hosts (Lynn Samuels, Randi Rhoads, etc. are pretty weak...OK Samuels is unlistenable.). Thom Hartman is actually pretty knowledgeable but a bit soft on the "entertainment" side. I've listened to a couple of the others and they all are OK at best.

Clearly, the Left has more talent on its side (Jon Stewart and Colbert) but they need to find more talented people, acquire more media outlets and learn to properly brand their stations and market/promote their talent.

This is a fine argument for cable TV, XM radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. Not the taxpayer owned public airwaves. Just as taxpayers determine the use of national parks. We don't allow strip joints in Yellowstone and Yosemite. Why ? Because we own it and have decided we don't want that there.

 

[Powertone]

Typical lie from you miles. You are nothing if not completely predictable.

If anything the Fairness Doctrine would ensure that more voices are heard, not less. There isn't a single provision that would remove any radio personality from the air. Not one. El Rushbo "Oxycontin" Limbaugh would still be spewing his typical half truths. Michael "Savage" Weiner would still be waving his gay bashing flag. The stations would just have to allow a rebuttal to their arguments, not even equal time is required if I remember correctly.

Why is it that the "right" wants to keep all voices of opposition quiet?

We saw it throughout the Bush administration, any dissenting person was labeled unpatriotic, a traitor, or worse.

oh. never mind.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Bill Clinton supports anything that gets his name and picture in the papers or on TV.

The end.

 

[off2bed]

The public airwaves belongs to taxpayers not corporations. Responsible owners set prices and terms of use of their property. It is the fiscally conservative thing to do. It has nothing to do with your government good, corporations bad notions.

Ok, dipshit, since it's not getting through to you. Airwaves are a spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, like light from the sun. The FCC grants a license to a CORPORATION to buy (with their own money) electronic equipment to produce a signal at a certain frequency that contains programming you can "decode" with a radio. The FCC makes sure no one else is using that frequency so Station A doesn't jam Station B's signal.

Quit being such a fucking moron.