Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
PoliticalChic:
Contrary to what has been said, the money that supports talk radio, most of it conservative, is the advertising revenue based on the huge numbers of listeners. And this amendment will not curb opinion on the other side on TV, print media or any other publications. Only talk radio. Talk radio, there the dynamics are identical to what takes place on this board.
The amendment specifically states that it covers Broadcast TV and Radio?
Durbin said his proposal would encourage more women and minorities to apply for radio and TV ownership.
also:
To argue what I am putting here is a dramatic change in the law, is going to somehow muzzle Rush Limbaugh thats not the case, said Durbin during a floor debate with DeMint.
No one is suggesting that the law for the Federal Communications Commission says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative.
When we talk about diversity in media ownership it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature, Durbin said.
How do you envision this hurting Rush Limbaugh, do you know?
Politics is a blood sport, and Illinois politics is known to be bare knuckles, but what we are seeing here is a naked attempt to censor the voices on the right.
I disagree. What we are seeing is the attempt to get stations to give left wing radio a chance to compete.
It has been proven again and again that they can.
PoliticalChic:
Contrary to what has been said, the money that supports talk radio, most of it conservative, is the advertising revenue based on the huge numbers of listeners. And this amendment will not curb opinion on the other side on TV, print media or any other publications. Only talk radio. Talk radio, there the dynamics are identical to what takes place on this board.
The amendment specifically states that it covers Broadcast TV and Radio?
Durbin said his proposal would encourage more women and minorities to apply for radio and TV ownership.
also:
To argue what I am putting here is a dramatic change in the law, is going to somehow muzzle Rush Limbaugh thats not the case, said Durbin during a floor debate with DeMint.
No one is suggesting that the law for the Federal Communications Commission says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative.
When we talk about diversity in media ownership it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature, Durbin said.
How do you envision this hurting Rush Limbaugh, do you know?
The aim of the Durbin Amendment is a back-door attempt to institute censorship in the following way. The assumption is that "more women and minorities" would be more amenable to Democrat policy rather than Republican. The target is talk radio.
I'm surprised that I would have to explain that to you.
If there are more minority owned stations, the Durbin hope is that syndication of the major conservatives would be inhibited.
actually, you're the one who says you can't even listen to the music of someone who disagrees with you and you insult me in every single post you make to me, regardless of my response.
so i figured i'd speak truth. maybe if you'd try posting something not out of the coultergeist playbook, they might not be so readily disposed of.
sorry if that disturbs you. i thought you were all into the truth thing.
as for conservatives being for diversity...
RAFLMAO.
again.... there have always been controls on how many media outlets could be owned...
until your buddy baby bush got ahold of the FCC.
I can't figure it out either. The entire text of the amendment seems to be promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.once again, how do you envision this diversity law hurting rush limbaugh in real life scenario.... what happens, using this law, that inhibits the rush limbaugh show of today?
please explain
care
I can't figure it out either. The entire text of the amendment seems to be promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.once again, how do you envision this diversity law hurting rush limbaugh in real life scenario.... what happens, using this law, that inhibits the rush limbaugh show of today?
please explain
care
ALL the Republicans voted against it. Does this mean they are for communist style media control? Does it mean they realize Rush's broadcasts aren't in the public interest and fear he'll be thrown in the gulag?
The amendment specifically states that it covers Broadcast TV and Radio?
Durbin said his proposal would encourage more women and minorities to apply for radio and TV ownership.
also:
“To argue what I am putting here is a dramatic change in the law, is going to somehow muzzle Rush Limbaugh — that’s not the case,” said Durbin during a floor debate with DeMint.
“No one is suggesting that the law for the Federal Communications Commission says that you can give this license to a Republican and this one to a Democrat and this one to a liberal and this one to a conservative.
“When we talk about diversity in media ownership it relates primarily to gender, race and other characteristics of that nature,” Durbin said.
How do you envision this hurting Rush Limbaugh, do you know?
The aim of the Durbin Amendment is a back-door attempt to institute censorship in the following way. The assumption is that "more women and minorities" would be more amenable to Democrat policy rather than Republican. The target is talk radio.
I'm surprised that I would have to explain that to you.
If there are more minority owned stations, the Durbin hope is that syndication of the major conservatives would be inhibited.
once again, how do you envision this diversity law hurting rush limbaugh in real life scenario.... what happens, using this law, that inhibits the rush limbaugh show of today?
please explain
care
Politics is a blood sport, and Illinois politics is known to be bare knuckles, but what we are seeing here is a naked attempt to censor the voices on the right.
I disagree. What we are seeing is the attempt to get stations to give left wing radio a chance to compete.
It has been proven again and again that they can.
No one is going to stop Rush, Michelle or any other rightie.
actually, you're the one who says you can't even listen to the music of someone who disagrees with you and you insult me in every single post you make to me, regardless of my response.
so i figured i'd speak truth. maybe if you'd try posting something not out of the coultergeist playbook, they might not be so readily disposed of.
sorry if that disturbs you. i thought you were all into the truth thing.
as for conservatives being for diversity...
RAFLMAO.
again.... there have always been controls on how many media outlets could be owned...
until your buddy baby bush got ahold of the FCC.
Jillian, at the risk of exposing myself, I must admit to you that whenever we joust, I get that Chris Matthews "Thrill Going Up My Leg." Still think it disturbs me?
The warmth I feel is due to the memories that come flooding back, to my childhood, seeing that wooden Gypsy woman in the booth at the penny arcade: put in a nickel and out comes one's fortune.
In your case, post a message and out comes "BUSH-IDIOT-DOLT-STUPID-COULTERGEIST- or RUSHBOT."
Guessing by how often you use the RAFLMAO in place of an actual thought, your a** must be off by now.
BTW, how do you manage to get your Mini-Me in that booth with you? Doesn't she spill that green drink?
The aim of the Durbin Amendment is a back-door attempt to institute censorship in the following way. The assumption is that "more women and minorities" would be more amenable to Democrat policy rather than Republican. The target is talk radio.
I'm surprised that I would have to explain that to you.
If there are more minority owned stations, the Durbin hope is that syndication of the major conservatives would be inhibited.
once again, how do you envision this diversity law hurting rush limbaugh in real life scenario.... what happens, using this law, that inhibits the rush limbaugh show of today?
please explain
care
Do you know how syndication works?
What Durbin is attempting - and this has been in the works for a couple years now, is to use the concept of "localism" to hamper syndicated talk radio - an avenue by which conservatives dominate.
Stations will be beholden to localism boards that will monitor content, and fine those stations who fail to meet the criteria of "localism". If a station continues to fail this criteria, its license can be revoked by the FCC.
What this will do is greatly reduce the potential audience of conservative radio. It will also greatly hamper the free market of radio - stations will not be able to go with content that is most profitable, but rather content that meets the liberal definition of localism.
This is a highly aggressive move by the Democrats to reign in conservative talk radio - the only media outlet not already dominated by liberals.
Obama's declaration that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine is blatant political slight of hand. Localism will be promoted as DIVERSITY in radio, the mainstream media will celebrate it, and unless mainstream America stands up against it, this abomination against free thought and expression will in fact take place.
actually, you're the one who says you can't even listen to the music of someone who disagrees with you and you insult me in every single post you make to me, regardless of my response.
so i figured i'd speak truth. maybe if you'd try posting something not out of the coultergeist playbook, they might not be so readily disposed of.
sorry if that disturbs you. i thought you were all into the truth thing.
as for conservatives being for diversity...
RAFLMAO.
again.... there have always been controls on how many media outlets could be owned...
until your buddy baby bush got ahold of the FCC.
Jillian, at the risk of exposing myself, I must admit to you that whenever we joust, I get that Chris Matthews "Thrill Going Up My Leg." Still think it disturbs me?
The warmth I feel is due to the memories that come flooding back, to my childhood, seeing that wooden Gypsy woman in the booth at the penny arcade: put in a nickel and out comes one's fortune.
In your case, post a message and out comes "BUSH-IDIOT-DOLT-STUPID-COULTERGEIST- or RUSHBOT."
Guessing by how often you use the RAFLMAO in place of an actual thought, your a** must be off by now.
BTW, how do you manage to get your Mini-Me in that booth with you? Doesn't she spill that green drink?
people who post actual thoughts get actual responses. if you weren't a stereotype.... and a pretentious, self-satisfied, patronizing one at that, you might actually get some.
until then, i'll respond to your wingnuttiness as appropriate and as i feel like. cause sometimes i feel like a nut, sometimes I don't.
have a good day, dear.
Jillian, at the risk of exposing myself, I must admit to you that whenever we joust, I get that Chris Matthews "Thrill Going Up My Leg." Still think it disturbs me?
The warmth I feel is due to the memories that come flooding back, to my childhood, seeing that wooden Gypsy woman in the booth at the penny arcade: put in a nickel and out comes one's fortune.
In your case, post a message and out comes "BUSH-IDIOT-DOLT-STUPID-COULTERGEIST- or RUSHBOT."
Guessing by how often you use the RAFLMAO in place of an actual thought, your a** must be off by now.
BTW, how do you manage to get your Mini-Me in that booth with you? Doesn't she spill that green drink?
people who post actual thoughts get actual responses. if you weren't a stereotype.... and a pretentious, self-satisfied, patronizing one at that, you might actually get some.
until then, i'll respond to your wingnuttiness as appropriate and as i feel like. cause sometimes i feel like a nut, sometimes I don't.
have a good day, dear.
Wow, I actually got you to use big words!
Now, don't bother me: I'm getting my marching orders from RUSH!
people who post actual thoughts get actual responses. if you weren't a stereotype.... and a pretentious, self-satisfied, patronizing one at that, you might actually get some.
until then, i'll respond to your wingnuttiness as appropriate and as i feel like. cause sometimes i feel like a nut, sometimes I don't.
have a good day, dear.
Wow, I actually got you to use big words!
Now, don't bother me: I'm getting my marching orders from RUSH!
I use small words for the ignorant ... i'll try to make them even smaller next time, so you understand them.
now try not to melt down any further... it's really unbecoming.
*THAT'S* your comeback???
carry on.
The aim of the Durbin Amendment is a back-door attempt to institute censorship in the following way. The assumption is that "more women and minorities" would be more amenable to Democrat policy rather than Republican. The target is talk radio.
I'm surprised that I would have to explain that to you.
If there are more minority owned stations, the Durbin hope is that syndication of the major conservatives would be inhibited.
once again, how do you envision this diversity law hurting rush limbaugh in real life scenario.... what happens, using this law, that inhibits the rush limbaugh show of today?
please explain
care
Do you know how syndication works?
What Durbin is attempting - and this has been in the works for a couple years now, is to use the concept of "localism" to hamper syndicated talk radio - an avenue by which conservatives dominate.
Stations will be beholden to localism boards that will monitor content, and fine those stations who fail to meet the criteria of "localism". If a station continues to fail this criteria, its license can be revoked by the FCC.
What this will do is greatly reduce the potential audience of conservative radio. It will also greatly hamper the free market of radio - stations will not be able to go with content that is most profitable, but rather content that meets the liberal definition of localism.
This is a highly aggressive move by the Democrats to reign in conservative talk radio - the only media outlet not already dominated by liberals.
Obama's declaration that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine is blatant political sleight of hand. Localism will be promoted as DIVERSITY in radio, the mainstream media will celebrate it, and unless mainstream America stands up against it, this abomination against free thought and expression will in fact take place.
once again, how do you envision this diversity law hurting rush limbaugh in real life scenario.... what happens, using this law, that inhibits the rush limbaugh show of today?
please explain
care
Do you know how syndication works?
What Durbin is attempting - and this has been in the works for a couple years now, is to use the concept of "localism" to hamper syndicated talk radio - an avenue by which conservatives dominate.
Stations will be beholden to localism boards that will monitor content, and fine those stations who fail to meet the criteria of "localism". If a station continues to fail this criteria, its license can be revoked by the FCC.
What this will do is greatly reduce the potential audience of conservative radio. It will also greatly hamper the free market of radio - stations will not be able to go with content that is most profitable, but rather content that meets the liberal definition of localism.
This is a highly aggressive move by the Democrats to reign in conservative talk radio - the only media outlet not already dominated by liberals.
Obama's declaration that he does not support the Fairness Doctrine is blatant political slight of hand. Localism will be promoted as DIVERSITY in radio, the mainstream media will celebrate it, and unless mainstream America stands up against it, this abomination against free thought and expression will in fact take place.
what is this localism regulation already in place and how does it work?
how will it hurt the local people who own the airwaves to enforce this localism reg, or will it?
We suddenly need diversified ownership of media outlets because ? ......
because we always HAD diversified ownership of the PUBLIC airways.... until Bush's buddies were allowed a pass.
it's generally considered a good thing for INFORMATION to come from more than one source.
Ummm, it's much easier to find a liberal POV than a conservative one, regarding media outlets. So the left will not rest until THEY have a monopoly ? ....
