CDZ Net Insanity

[asaratis]

Not so. The liberals complain about conservative talk radio because they can't muster up a sufficient audience to support a decent liberal talk radio show. Air America and Al Franken failed miserably. Nobody really wants to listen to liberal gibberish.

Liberals aren't really worth listening to if you want to hear a radical left perspective; Air American, et al, failed because they suck from the same corporate tit as Fox News.

Progressives prefers programming that does not depend on corporate advertising.

For example:

KPFK 90.7 FM

Try it.

Maybe you'll learn why progressives aren't afraid to question the corporatist agenda or embrace the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine? You mean that ridiculous 'equal time' rule whereby a conservative view has to be countered with a liberal view? That's nothing but suppression of free speech.

It is no wonder the liberals do not really like free speech. It impedes their march toward complete dominance in America's government...a giant step toward socialism.

What's fair is to let stations broadcast what they please. God knows we've already got enough liberal media outlets that do not observe the so-called Fairness Doctrine.

Liberals maintain a puerile definition of 'fair' based on their inability to win in open competition. That's what free speech is all about...open competition.

Liberals can succeed only when the rules are changed in their favor.

 

[georgephillip]

The Fairness Doctrine? You mean that ridiculous 'equal time' rule whereby a conservative view has to be countered with a liberal view? That's nothing but suppression of free speech

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right? Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner? Scumbag Rush Limbaugh slanders "slut" and "prostitute" Sandra Fluke for publicly supporting insurance coverage for contraceptives, yet she isn't entitled to equal time on his show to debate the charges? Why do you sissy cons always bow low before gutless rich bitches, still swallowing that load about the divine right of kings?

 

[HenryBHough]

What liberal among us will be first to proclaim the brilliance of an internet tax?

Or are you all suddenly joining the Taxed Enough Already Party?

 

[Moonglow]

Some states do charge an internet tax.....

 

[asaratis]

The Fairness Doctrine? You mean that ridiculous 'equal time' rule whereby a conservative view has to be countered with a liberal view? That's nothing but suppression of free speech

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right? Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner? Scumbag Rush Limbaugh slanders "slut" and "prostitute" Sandra Fluke for publicly supporting insurance coverage for contraceptives, yet she isn't entitled to equal time on his show to debate the charges? Why do you sissy cons always bow low before gutless rich bitches, still swallowing that load about the divine right of kings?

Your scenario is ludicrous. Equitable and balanced? You seem to think that opponents in a debate should assist each other, that Side A should assist Side B though they oppose each other. Sandra Fluke could have made her rebuttal public in a number of ways.


Free speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Rush can say whatever he wants on his show. It's his show. It's his megaphone. If liberals want to counter what he says, they are free to do so...with their own megaphone.

Extend your stupid 'fairness doctrine' to controversial books and you'll have the publishers being required to provide printed rebuttals bound with each copy. Write your own books! Get your own radio show.

 

[HenryBHough]

Liberals had several goes at countering conservative talk radio with their own programmings.

It failed.

But I will give the liberal elite credit for realizing it wasn't working and pulling the financing before it could break them so bad they couldn't pay the lease on their Beamers.

 

[FA_Q2]

Good OP and I fully agree. Net 'neutrality' is anything but neutral.

 

[georgephillip]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

 

[jasonnfree]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

 

[georgephillip]

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

Free and open public media can't happen when programming depends on corporate commercials to pay its operating costs.

The only alternative I'm aware of is Pacifica:

Pacifica Foundation Radio

Pacifica has its own liabilties, namely several multi-week fundraisers every year that are the price paid for not having your attention span destroyed by commercials on a regular basis.

 

[asaratis]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

 

[Freemason9]

President Obama has factually done none of these things, nor does he appear to be inclined to do so. I'm certain you believe that stuff, though.

Dems target right-wing talk radio 8211 CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

Nancy Pelosi Wants To Limit Free Speech Of Conservatives - Say Anything

The democrats are trying to stop conservative radio should this be allowed

Dems move to limit talk radio. Look out Freedom !

^^^^Take your pick!

Democrats abhor free speech. It gives the Republicans a megaphone.

Your brain is apparently bruised. You had specifically accused President Obama of certain actions, but the links you provide have nothing whatever to do with President Obama. Do you attack him because he's black?

You are a fool if you think Pelosi and the rest of the liberals are not pushing for Obama's agenda.

If you believe Obama must actually DO SOMETHING to get credit or blame for it, you must not give him credit for ANYTHING our military has done overseas because he wasn't there. He didn't kill Osama. He didn't kill any terrorists. He didn't give us ObamaCare. He has done NOTHING. Congress has done it all!

Obama complained about conservative talk radio numerous times...during his 6 years of making campaign speeches since he took office. Wake up!

This is silliness. EVERYONE complains about political talk radio--it's insulting and juvenile.

Not so. The liberals complain about conservative talk radio because they can't muster up a sufficient audience to support a decent liberal talk radio show. Air America and Al Franken failed miserably. Nobody really wants to listen to liberal gibberish.

Since the liberals are unequipped to compete, they want the game banned.

Liberalism is a mental disease....just as is RADICAL ISLAM, a term that the WH refuses to recognize despite the rest of the world knowing that this is the root cause of terrorism today.

I can't speak for your infamous so-called "liberals," but most anti-Republicans I know have little interest in allowing politics to consume their lives. For the most part, ideologically obsessive behavior seems endemic with right wingers. I certainly have no interest in hearing some right-wing radio host with barely a high school education and NO military service jaw on about his opinions.

 

[jasonnfree]

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

Free and open public media can't happen when programming depends on corporate commercials to pay its operating costs.

The only alternative I'm aware of is Pacifica:

Pacifica Foundation Radio

Pacifica has its own liabilties, namely several multi-week fundraisers every year that are the price paid for not having your attention span destroyed by commercials on a regular basis.

True. I listen and donate to Pacifica because it's a legitimate news source that commercial news won't touch since most news media depends on corporate funding. For instance, there's pretty much a news blackout about the Transpacific Partnership. but KPFK in southern california has discussed it. Get some pretty good music you can't get anywhere else also. I listen to Rush also for entertainment. He's so full of crap it's comical, but millions vote according to what he says.

 

[jasonnfree]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

 

[Andylusion]

First, internet is not a basic 'right'. You have the right to life, liberty, and property. It might be popular to just declare everything you ever want in life, as a 'right', but that does not make it so.

Most of us, including the ACLU, believe free speech is a basic right, and freedom of expression isn't worth much if the forums where people actually use free speech aren't themselves free.

"Q. So what exactly is 'net neutrality,' and what would it do?

"A. Network neutrality means applying well-established "common carrier" rules to the Internet..."

"...in order to preserve its freedom and openness. Common carriage prohibits the owner of a network, that holds itself out to all-comers, from discriminating against information by halting, slowing, or otherwise tampering with the transfer of any data (except for legitimate network management purposes such as easing congestion or blocking spam).

"Important Fact: Common carriage is not a new concept – these rules have a centuries-old history.

"They have long been applied to facilities central to the public life and economy of our nation, including canal systems, railroads, public highways, and telegraph and telephone networks.

"In fact, common carrier rules have already been written into the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by Congress; they just need to be applied to broadband Internet communications by the FCC.

"Now, if — like the AOLs of yore — the broadband provider is also providing information, tools to access the Internet or various types of multi-media content itself, it has the First Amendment right to control that content. Just providing 'dumb' pipes meant to move data from user to user, however, is quintessential common carriage."

What Is Net Neutrality American Civil Liberties Union

"except for legitimate network purposes" which you are going to give to the government to define. Oh sorry, your website is 'spam', and we have to block it.

Yet in most of those examples listed, there are clear cases where exactly what we're talking about is clearly abridged.

Railroads. Are you suggesting there are not faster trains? Do shippers not pay a premium to have a direct shipment, rather than one which stops at numerous junctions? Yes they do.

Public highways. Are you suggesting that people don't pay a premium for toll highways, that are faster than using the back roads? Yes they do.

Tolls Passes and Permits - New York State Canals

Canals. Are you suggesting that people don't pay a premium to go through canals and locks in many areas of the US, and the world? Yes they do.

Fees-for-service is the bedrock of our economy, and always has been. And a higher fee, for better service, is the reason better service exists. Otherwise.... why provide it? Comcast logically asked the same question. Why build all this extra hardware support, if they were not to be paid for any of it? Answer..... Don't build it. Result? Bad performance for Netflix.

 

[Andylusion]

In a word - future taxation.
The internet will be taxed.

I suspect that Obama's main goal is to censor free speech by limiting what can be posted. For the same reason he wants to shutdown conservative talk radio with 'equal time' regulations and similar constraints. It's all about control and shutting down the opposition to his agenda.

President Obama has factually done none of these things, nor does he appear to be inclined to do so. I'm certain you believe that stuff, though.

"I suspect....."

"Obama has factually done...."

Can you not read? He never claimed that had already done it, only that he personally believed his future goal was to do it.

I agree with him. Just because someone has not done something yet, doesn't mean they don't intend to if given the chance. Everyone said Hitler wasn't going to try and take Austria. They swore up and down he wasn't. Ooops.... they were wrong.

 

[Andylusion]

The Fairness Doctrine? You mean that ridiculous 'equal time' rule whereby a conservative view has to be countered with a liberal view? That's nothing but suppression of free speech

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right? Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner? Scumbag Rush Limbaugh slanders "slut" and "prostitute" Sandra Fluke for publicly supporting insurance coverage for contraceptives, yet she isn't entitled to equal time on his show to debate the charges? Why do you sissy cons always bow low before gutless rich bitches, still swallowing that load about the divine right of kings?

But the same could be said of the left-wing too. Have you listened to Olberman? That's an equitable and balanced manor?

You do realize that everyone always presents the 'facts' from their own personal perspective, and that perspective, inherently has a bias. That's unavoidable.

That's why when you see a pundit of any type on the media, he's going to have a slant one way or the other, no matter who it is.

And by the way.... both sides, accuse the other side, of being bias, and ignoring the bias of their own side. That's also, unavoidable.

Because when you hear someone say something you already believe, you claim "that's not bias, that's fair and balanced reporting!". But those on the other side, are saying the exact same thing as you, for the same reason.

 

[Andylusion]

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

Free and open public media can't happen when programming depends on corporate commercials to pay its operating costs.

The only alternative I'm aware of is Pacifica:

Pacifica Foundation Radio

Pacifica has its own liabilties, namely several multi-week fundraisers every year that are the price paid for not having your attention span destroyed by commercials on a regular basis.

Never heard of it. Can't imagine why.

What you said, is my whole point. The whole reason we even have a mass media.... is because it's paid for by corporation commercials. And the only reason corporations are willing to pay, is because people are willing to watch.

The reason Rush Limbaugh, or whoever, has a show that has mass media appeal, is because of those two things. He built up an audience, and built up revenue from ad-sales, and used that money to afford more media.

TV stations that have programs people don't watch, end up going broke. Radio stations that air programs people don't listen to, end up going broke.

With those aspects, there would be no radio station. There would be no TV channels.

You are looking at an outcome you don't like, as if it's completely independent of the choices the public has made, under the typical left-wing delusion of "those evil corporations". The corporations had nothing to do with it. The corporations are only buying ads on specific shows, because people are actually watching/listening to those shows. Left-wing shows, tend to not do well. Usually because they are full of BS in my opinion.

 

[asaratis]

ee speech is free speech. (Period) If you want to broadcast your opinion, buy some time and talk away.

Free speech isn't free on corporate media. Conservative piggies line up like simplistic sows at the corporate trough knowing they can advocate whatever the rich want to hear without providing any opportunity for their views to be contested. Maybe they've forgotten who owns the airwaves; you obviously have.

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media? Because big money wouldn't support it. Let's have a free and open public media.

You seem to contradict yourself here. I guess there's no media at all then.

If liberals want to get their message on the air, they can do the same thing the the conservatives do. Their problem is coming up with messengers and messages that the general public will to listen to. Your perceived sense of unfairness in the open market of broadcasting is indicative of your admission of inadequacy.

How am I contradicting myself? You think big money will support a progressive agenda? There should be news from both sides even if government funds it. What have we heard about the TransPacific Partnership? There's a blackout about this now. I know, I know, Obama is pushing it. We'll hear about his golf game or what his wife is wearing but silence about the matters that really count.

If you can't figure that out from what I put in bold letters within my quote of you, we will have difficulty communicating hereafter.

Here are the sentences:

There's basically no liberal media so the conservative agenda gets broadcasted to millions. Why no conservative media?

If you say there's no liberal media, then ask why there is no conservative media, you imply that you think there is no media. Do you follow that?

...and your implication that big money will not support the liberal agenda is hogwash. Just say, "George Soros" or look at Obama's list of Hollywood Allstars supporters. The left is replete with big monied supporters.

 

[asaratis]

The Fairness Doctrine? You mean that ridiculous 'equal time' rule whereby a conservative view has to be countered with a liberal view? That's nothing but suppression of free speech

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right? Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner? Scumbag Rush Limbaugh slanders "slut" and "prostitute" Sandra Fluke for publicly supporting insurance coverage for contraceptives, yet she isn't entitled to equal time on his show to debate the charges? Why do you sissy cons always bow low before gutless rich bitches, still swallowing that load about the divine right of kings?

I'm replying only to the letters in bold. The rest of your post is bullshit.

Because conservatives know free speech has only one side, right?
Wrong! Free speech is currently available to both sides....unless in a House controlled by Nancy Pelosi types who think Republicans should have no say in writing laws.

When broadcasting to the nation of voters, there is no obligation whatsoever for conservatives to notify liberals ahead of time and offer free equal time immediately following the broadcast. This absence of such a stupid requirement applies to liberals as well.


Why are you people afraid to present controversial issues to the public in an equitable and balanced manner?
There is nothing about a conservative broadcast that precludes liberals from responding with a countering liberal broadcast.

What you liberals want is for conservatives to pay for the megaphone and hand it to you after their message is out. Buy your own megaphone. Come up with some magnetic, sensible talk show hosts that support the Constitution and separation of powers rather than secretive undermining of our capitalist system.

Do you ever listen to PBS radio? Try it some time. You'll hear very little conservatism and a shitload of liberalism...all financed by our government. Is that equitable and balanced? Shouldn't conservatives be asking for some of their tax money back?