Another Socialist/Marxist Idea being pushed by the Dems

[jamesd1628]

The "Fairness" Doctrine: Pelosi on the Fairness Doctrine

The U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .

Democrats: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless we don't agree with the political content of that speech . . . .

Again I'll ask, does anyone care to argue that Democrats aren't Socialists/Marxists?

 

[myrobbins7]

Pelosi is a tool, that's all...

 

[lawgator1]

No one is seriously considering doing this, not even Pelosi or the Dems in Congress. They are just making a point about all of the conservative radio shows during drive time. Just a rant, pure and simple.

 

[jamesd1628]

No one is seriously considering doing this, not even Pelosi or the Dems in Congress. They are just making a point about all of the conservative radio shows during drive time. Just a rant, pure and simple.

The author of the article says that he asked her point-blank:

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation

If you don't think they'll try to bring it back as soon as they have a Democrat president, you're crazy. They only reason they haven't already tried is because Bush would veto it (we presume).

 

[lawgator1]

The author of the article says that he asked her point-blank:

“Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?’” I asked.

“Yes,” the speaker replied, without hesitation

If you don't think they'll try to bring it back as soon as they have a Democrat president, you're crazy. They only reason they haven't already tried is because Bush would veto it (we presume).

They are just in a rhetorical war with the Limbuagh's Ingraham's, Savage's, Beck's, and Hannity's of the world. When they make these comments about the fairness doctrine, it sends these shrill talk show people off and they whine about it for weeks, reminding the audience all the while that there is no effective alternative for talk radio than right wing hosts.

Let's be honest. There's a lot of money in these shows.

 

[jamesd1628]

They are just in a rhetorical war with the Limbuagh's Ingraham's, Savage's, Beck's, and Hannity's of the world. When they make these comments about the fairness doctrine, it sends these shrill talk show people off and they whine about it for weeks, reminding the audience all the while that there is no effective alternative for talk radio than right wing hosts.

Let's be honest. There's a lot of money in these shows.

I don't understand your point here at all. So you're saying that the Democrats response to the enormous success of the right-wing radio shows is to threaten to enact legislation that violates free speech principles, with no intent to act on that threat? Making such a threat would be bad enough, but let's not forget that the so-called Fairness Doctrine actually used to be in effect. Reagan got rid of it, and Rush Limbaugh and all of his progeny were born shortly thereafter. I think Pelosi's comments are more than an idle threat. We'll find out if Obama becomes the POTUS.

As for the money comment, again, what's your point? Yes, there is a lot of money in conservative radio because the audience is so enormous. That's why the Dems hate it, because it exposes them for what they really are, and it is very successful in doing so.

 

[emainvol]

The "Fairness" Doctrine: Pelosi on the Fairness Doctrine

The U.S. Constitution: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . . .

Democrats: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless we don't agree with the political content of that speech . . . .

Again I'll ask, does anyone care to argue that Democrats aren't Socialists/Marxists?

Please don't look at Nancy Pelosi and her lapdog Harry Reid as indicative of the entire Democratic party, there are many of us that think that they are both entirely worthless.

 

[emainvol]

As for the money comment, again, what's your point? Yes, there is a lot of money in conservative radio because the audience is so enormous. That's why the Dems hate it, because it exposes them for what they really are, and it is very successful in doing so.

I think you are alright most of the time, and you even make some decent points, but this is an absolute crock.

 

[jamesd1628]

Originally Posted by jamesd1628

As for the money comment, again, what's your point? Yes, there is a lot of money in conservative radio because the audience is so enormous. That's why the Dems hate it, because it exposes them for what they really are, and it is very successful in doing so.

I think you are alright most of the time, and you even make some decent points, but this is an absolute crock.

In what sense is it a crock? My points were:

- There is a lot of money in conservative radio. That's a fact, and I was merely agreeing with LG on this.

- The audience is enormous. Also a fact.

- The Dems hate it. Surely you don't think they like it.

- It successfully exposes the Dems for what they really are. I must conclude that this is the point you are objecting to, and that you assume I mean "what they really are" in a derogatory sense. The point of conservative radio is to promote conservative ideas and expose those who do not conform to those ideas. In that sense, conservative radio does expose Democrats for what they are, that being non-conservatives, and they are very successful in doing just that.

So in what sense was my post a crock?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Please don't look at Nancy Pelosi and her lapdog Harry Reid as indicative of the entire Democratic party, there are many of us that think that they are both entirely worthless.

they are THE appointed congressional leaders of the Dem party. How else are we supposed to view them?

 

[utvolpj]

I think you are alright most of the time, and you even make some decent points, but this is an absolute crock.

if there was no money or influence would the Dems still be pushing the un-Fairness doctrine? If the tables were turned would the Dems be pushing the FD? The fact is there is very little talent on the left to put out a show worth listening to and they are angry, free speech be damned

 

[emainvol]

In what sense is it a crock? My points were:

- There is a lot of money in conservative radio. That's a fact, and I was merely agreeing with LG on this.

- The audience is enormous. Also a fact.

- The Dems hate it. Surely you don't think they like it.

- It successfully exposes the Dems for what they really are. I must conclude that this is the point you are objecting to, and that you assume I mean "what they really are" in a derogatory sense. The point of conservative radio is to promote conservative ideas and expose those who do not conform to those ideas. In that sense, conservative radio does expose Democrats for what they are, that being non-conservatives, and they are very successful in doing just that.

So in what sense was my post a crock?

If that's what you meant, then I concede. That is certainly not what I gathered.

 

[emainvol]

they are THE appointed congressional leaders of the Dem party. How else are we supposed to view them?

I think that if the democratic voters were allowed to choose, both of them would be out in a heartbeat. I didn't really like either one of them to begin with, but since they have been the Speaker and the Majority Leader, they have been unbearable.

 

[emainvol]

if there was no money or influence would the Dems still be pushing the un-Fairness doctrine? If the tables were turned would the Dems be pushing the FD? The fact is there is very little talent on the left to put out a show worth listening to and they are angry, free speech be damned

I don't agree with it, and I think that if Pelosi tries to bring it up in session she is going to look like an idiot when her own party shelves it.

 

[utvolpj]

I don't agree with it, and I think that if Pelosi tries to bring it up in session she is going to look like an idiot when her own party shelves it.

it's not that she's pushing it so much as she's not allowing discussion or voting on it. Put it out there, vote and see what happens. That's supposed to be why those people are in DC in the first place right?

The speaker of the House made it clear to me and more than forty of my colleagues yesterday that a bill by Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) to outlaw the “Fairness Doctrine” ... would not see the light of day in Congress during ’08.

 

[joevol320]

only democrats/libs use their power to shut up any speach that goes against their agenda. people are not forced to listed to talk radio, they chose to do so. If people listened to air America, then they would not have folded up. it's as simple as that. this is just another reason why liberals should be tried for treason.

 

[lawgator1]

In what sense is it a crock? My points were:

- There is a lot of money in conservative radio. That's a fact, and I was merely agreeing with LG on this.

- The audience is enormous. Also a fact.

- The Dems hate it. Surely you don't think they like it.

- It successfully exposes the Dems for what they really are. I must conclude that this is the point you are objecting to, and that you assume I mean "what they really are" in a derogatory sense. The point of conservative radio is to promote conservative ideas and expose those who do not conform to those ideas. In that sense, conservative radio does expose Democrats for what they are, that being non-conservatives, and they are very successful in doing just that.

So in what sense was my post a crock?

As an aside, it still mystifies me that the left is unable to put toghether a credible and entertaining alternative to conservative talk radio.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

As an aside, it still mystifies me that the left is unable to put toghether a credible and entertaining alternative to conservative talk radio.

Most just talk about the Hannity's of the world which is completely tiresome.

I did have a love for Air America because of their callers!

Springer's show was priceless!

 

[volinbham]

As an aside, it still mystifies me that the left is unable to put toghether a credible and entertaining alternative to conservative talk radio.

They are kings of the blogoshpere. Different media, same basic domination. This is another reason the Fairness Doctrine is dumb and dangerous.

 

[MG1968]

if conservative talk radio was so influential, as the democrats now claim, why are the democrats looking at a veto proof majority in the senate?

 

[emainvol]

only democrats/libs use their power to shut up any speach that goes against their agenda. people are not forced to listed to talk radio, they chose to do so. If people listened to air America, then they would not have folded up. it's as simple as that. this is just another reason why liberals should be tried for treason.

do you really believe some of the crap you spew?

 

[allvol123]

Obamaniacs will defend their guy no matter what!

 

[BigPapaVol]

As an aside, it still mystifies me that the left is unable to put toghether a credible and entertaining alternative to conservative talk radio.

what is the message? who is the audience? how much do they listen to talk radio?

whining just gets old so it's tough to do the liberal message long-term on radio, where you can't plaster loads of tear jerking photos.

 

[MG1968]

As an aside, it still mystifies me that the left is unable to put toghether a credible and entertaining alternative to conservative talk radio.

democrats and the left don't have any real appreciation for capitalism. they think they know what the people want and try to force feed them. Air America was doomed to failure because it wasn't consumer driven.

 

[volsforever27]

There's only so many different ways you can say "Bush sucks" on a radio show. After that's done, what else do you do if you're a lib?