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.
We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't. Simple, really.Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.
How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment? "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media? The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute? How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services? The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
Love the Constitution? laughable. Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
Wrong. I suggest you breeze by Wikipedia and look at the history of the senate from 2000 forward.Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!
Constitutional Whitewash
What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.
What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine
How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?
Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.
The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub. The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.
My previous points stand. Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.
You do realize they exempted network TV from this, and Newspapers, right?Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.
How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment? "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media? The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute? How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services? The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?
Love the Constitution? laughable. Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.
Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.
Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness". Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.
When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now. What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda. Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing. Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't. Simple, really.Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.
Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
Wrong. I suggest you breeze by Wikipedia and look at the history of the senate from 2000 forward.Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.
The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub. The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.
My previous points stand. Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.
You may have forgotten about the "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords incident, but we haven't. How about Tom Daschle's control for I believe it was 2 years, plus the years it was a 50/50 split.
Nice try, lousy lie.
You do realize they exempted network TV from this, and Newspapers, right?Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.
You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.
Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
My error.....I should have put "broadcast" before MEDIA. As this explains:
FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications
How about we turn half the ABC news hours over to the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge, Coulter and the like? At least then the news on all networks but Fox will become more balanced. Fox at least would remain pretty much the same. How about some real conservatives on MSNBS doing editorial work?
How about you stop acting silly.....the Fairness Doctrine allowed for some portion of broadcasting to reflect contrary views. The neocon clowns you mention all congregate on 77WABC Talk Radio.....why don't you have at least one hour of Amy Goodman or Tom Hartmann there?
To say Fox is balanced is a joke Media Matters and Fair.org consistently use their own broadcast transcripts and compares them to documented facts to show their bias.....YOU need to understand how bias in broadcasting is achieved. Case in point: I can get information on subjects from WBAI Pacifica Broadcasting that ABC NEWS WON'T cover. Case in point: journalist Lora Flanders, Mark Levine, and Amy Goodman were WAY ahead of ABC, NBC and CBS regarding reporting on 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq invasion...but RARELY given credit.
Fire Krugman off the NYTimes editorial page and put in David Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher or G. Gordon Liddy instead with out editorial softening.
You make the error of confusing the editorial page with the hard news content. Big difference. The NY Times was the darling of the neocon parrots and pundits when they were carrying Judith Miller's Shrub friendly WMD lies and the vendetta on Valerie Plame. THAT was biased and bad news....but guys like YOU Fitz had NO PROBLEM...until the truth comes out and then the NY Times becomes liberal evil. Give me a fucking break, will ya Fitz?
You claim the fairness doctrine is for broadening access, when really it's targetted to only shut down your philosophical contrarians.
Who's reality are you referring to? Certainly not mine, nor the world when the Fairness Doctrine was active. I strongly suggest YOU read the link I provided.In the marketplace of ideas, socialism loses every time.
Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness". Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.
Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.
We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.
Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
Puh-leeze! Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness. How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft? They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.
The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't. Simple, really.Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.
Only a really simple minded person would call an attempt to give air time to alternative political and social views a "crutch".
Anyone who believes that socialism invariably follows progressivism is, simply put, a fucking idiot.
Progressivism is a political process that introduces reform to society, culture, economics, and politics. The process can be conservative (anti prostitution, temperance, anti pornography, pro life) and can be liberal (liberalized drug laws, pro life, stricter gun laws).
Fitz is a homer, no more, a simple revisionist.
There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness". Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.
Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.
No, back then, all we had were insane blatherings from the OTHER side.
Good of you to show us what great defenders of the First Amendment liberals REALLY are by yearning for the days when the whole annoying freedom of speech thing was suppressed, and you and your kind could bask in the luxury of never having to hear anyone you disagree with.
Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.
Puh-leeze! Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness. How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft? They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.
So what you're telling us is that the "journalistic greats" weren't great enough to be able to "hone their craft" in a world where they didn't have government censoring viewpoints?
Sorry, but anyone who can't exist in a media that's open to all viewpoints is neither great nor deserving of said existence, and should go whine and pule to someone who gives a damn.
