Read the commenting rules carefully because they will be enforced!
Thanks for the thorough background and information on the un-Fairness Doctrine. Do you think Americans will actually tolerate this?
"Fairness" We certainly didn't have fairness during the election period and that was without the doctorine!!
So even though I feel fairness should have been upheld "by major media outlets" during the presidential election. This doctorine is no more and no less than a plan for, government dictatorship!
Which is the very reason our NOW government or a dem government would even suggest such! The very purpose of our Constituion is to LIMIT GOVERNMENT in an all out effort by our founding Fore Fathers to protect our rights and liberties against an unrestrained government or in this instance .. a Barack Obama government!
"According to Obama if the Constitution "didn
’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and [the] Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties." http://www.time.com/time/magazin...?
internalid=ACA
I think the dems are so far into Oba'lala land they will except anything this man and his chosen ones in government proposes to do all in the name of "CHANGE"
gosh marilyn m(usgrave?) certainly is spicey today!
i wouldn't worry about any of this stuff too much. palin's future is in t.v. she'll never be taken seriously again -- except by die-hard social conservos who need their spoonfeeding of hate and fear on a daily basis. they'll find it somewhere -- this silly site included.
what makes me happiest: the republicans are too busy pointing fingers at anything and everyone but themselves for getting spanked good and hard in the election. acorn did it! 8 million more obama robots voted than god-fearing patriots! now they're gonna take away our beloved rush! the media was in the tank! boo frickin' hoo!
looks like a split in your ranks: the gay-bashers and right to lifers follow palin to the ends of the earth, the rest try to annoint a newcomer, any newcomer, the next reagan. in short, the monopoly is broken. ding dong, the witch is dead!
Marilyn M
GOOD JOB!!!!!! So proud you came on this board! We appreciate your input on making our points here! You are exactly what lefties stand for as they spew their vile ingenious thoughts! All the while calling Conservatives "hatemongers" Surely you could have been more ORIGNAL in your chant and support! You are completely laughable!! hahahahahahahaha
doberman,
You are the very cancer to this country. We will soon find a cure for it, don't you worry!
BTW, did you see those babies die today as they were sucked into pieces right out of the womb by your support?
Or hey how bout being born all but the head while an instrument is pushed into the brain because of your support for partial birth abortion? Hmm I doubt not! You are the type that if you don't see it, it isnt so! Go put your your panties back on!
You've got nothing of interest for us here!
I believe you're conflating two different things. The "fairness doctrine" is not the same as the equal time requirement for political candidates during an election. It only ever meant that you couldn't use the public airwaves to propegandize relentlessly for one side of a controversial issue and never allow time for anyone to express an opposing view. Not equal time necessarily, but at least a reasonable opportunity for people with opposing or different views to respond if they wished. I'm old enough to remember those two-minute editorials in front of a fixed-position camera by members of the local community, typically aired at 3am in the morning. Those were one of the main scary, terrible results of the fairness doctrine. And I remind you that Ronald Reagan was elected with the fairness doctrine in full force.
Anyway, even if your worst fears came true and a station that aired three hours of Rush had to follow him up with Ed Schultz or Thom Hartmann, in practice all you'd have to do is change over to a different station that was airing three hours of some other right-wing idiot and then back again to the first station three hours later for more of the same, and so on and so on throughout the day. And of course Air America listeners would be put to the same inconvenience, as their schedule presumably would have to be half-filled with the likes of Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly.
But here's an even better idea. Why not put both conservative and liberal talk show hosts on every station simultaneously and have them talk over each other?
I guess some men can't wrap their heads around an attractive woman with a brain who wants to make a positive difference in our country and NOT dance on a pole for them to oggle! Lying about Sarah Palin and her qualifications is the same as the media lying about Obama and his - he lacked them, but the giddy, fall for anything because we stand for nothing liberals couldn't see it. Shame on you!
The ONLY reason anyone supports squashing conservative THINKING and talk is they're afraid the hypnotic effects will wear off the obamabots and they might actually HEAR the facts and become aware of the TRUTH.
Have you seen the commercial "if firefighters ran the World".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V...h?
v=VO6DORwBzuA
-------------------------------------
Here is their fairness doctrine:
Change the channel or switch stations.
I have to laugh when I read comments that the only "inspired" voter was for Obama! Just goes to prove the onesided audacity that Palin bashers have!
Three of my friends decided to vote for the very first time this yr and I was so very proud of them no matter WHO they were going to vote for!! You know WHY they decided to vote this year? The two lady friends wanted Sarah as VP and they FEARED Obama!!! The gentleman friend wanted McCain because of his experience in dealing with terrorists and keeping our country safe.
Of course I quickly provided that Obama had PLENTY of experience at dealing with terrorists! Just maybe lacking in the safe area as I thought about Ayers.
I am possitive that not all your newly inspired voters, voted for Obama! Actually alot of voters rose from their grave to put in their vote though! Along with homeless, illegal aliens and fictional voters as well. Too bad Obama couldn't have won just on his merit! But if there is one thing we all know .. cheaters always loose in the end!
balderdumb, let me know when you finish middle school, okay? Your thoughts and comments reveal a mentality that hasn't evolved beyond that level, and the adults are trying to talk here, okay? So run along...
In case you haven't been paying attention to the FACTS - which you haven't - the numbers show that 97% of blacks voted for O. So they were inspired to vote for the most QUALIFIED candidate, or did they vote for the blackest candidate?
Another truth you need to wrap your head around, just because people were INSPIRED to vote doesn't mean they were capable of making an INTELLIGENT or INFORMED choice. I say we make people take a competency test before all elections in which they must show a passing knowledge and awareness of what they're voting for. A kindergardner can fill in a bubble or pull a knob, but it sure as heck doesn't mean he knows what he's voting for!
I'm not sure I feel confident with a candidate who can "INSPIRE" so many uninformed people to vote (note for you slower readers, I didn't say they were ALL uninformed, so take a breath a re-read the sentence). And yet, he votes "present" when asked to make a decision. Maybe uninformed voters should be given the "present" option if they fail the competency test I suggested?
To: Kim R
-------------------------------------
Black Vote for Democrat Candidate
2004
88% of all blacks who were 11% of all votes.
2008
95% of all blacks who were 13% of all votes.
So you have more black voting with a higher percentage voting for Obama. Still, mathematically this accounts for a little less than half of Obama's winning margin.
vcsmith: what is your point? My point is that within that group, regardless of their percentage in overall voting numbers, they overwhelming voted it what appears to be a racial preferrence (not necessarily for the most qualified candidate).
My other point was that of ALL the people who voted, regardless of race, how many of them were actual INFORMED voters, and how many were inspired yet woefully uninformed voters? I care WAY, WAY more about a person's opinion when they can show they actually have working knowledge of the topic on which they're speaking than if they're just talking to prove they can make noise.
Doberman aka (I leave turds everywhere I go)
Ignorance can be cured Stupid is forever!
If we want any shit out of you we'll squeeze your head.
VC, I HAVE seen that election and like it a lot! Here's what I see--YES people have the choice to switch stations, regardless of the medium--TV, radio, newspapers, etc. And that's a good thing because it is our CHOICE. But when it becomes MANDATED, it's no longer our freedom or our choice and thus infringes where it shouldn't. That's my issue with this so-called "fairness" doctrine--it takes away my personal freedom and my choice.
Maggie thanks for further information on the Fairness Doctrine.
Didn’t anyone teach Democrats that life wasn’t fair? 
It seems to be a pre-meditated attack on the freedom of speech to fit an agenda.
Next thing you know the civilian army and the truth squad will be created and lurk behind your bushes every night!
To: Miss Beth
----------------------------------------
I'm with you 100%. This movement for a restored "Fairness Doctrine" is simply censorship. I am still trying to figure out how Schumer gets elected.
To: Kim R
---------------------------------------
What you see is that blacks always vote democrat. Jews vote democrat. Union people vote democrat. Oklahomans vote republican. It doesn't have to be anything other than shared interests.
Commenting by HaloScan
