Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bullypulpit, Jan 17, 2007.
How about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine"? Sounds reasonable to me.
Course it does. they arent trying to silence you with it.
How about capitalism? The people choose who stays in business by who they support and who they don't? How about the libs try competing with a product the people will buy?
The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than socialism in disguise. It guarantees equal time for the side that hasn't earned it.
Actually, it ensures that broadcasters never air controversial opinions to begin with. If you were a radio or tv station, and you knew you had to give free time for whomever disagreed with something you aired, would you air it? Of course not, youd go bankrupt.
Either way, it amounts to the same thing. The Fed government interfering with free enterprise with some affirmative action plan.
Nothing wrong with capitalism at all. History has show us, however, that unregulated, <i>laissez-faire</i> capitalism is unsustainable, presupposing as it does a rational society, which we clearly lack.
actually laissez-faire capitalism is easily sustainable. You don't have to do anything.
Granted, it might not be the most ideal situation sometimes.
eeeeewwww. Said doctrine needs to be re-named at the very least. Possibly the "equal time doctrine" or something like that or the "objectivity doctrine" or my personal favorite, the "no-one-seems-to-be-buying-our-ideas-in-the-free-market-so-we're-gonna-make-the-government-cram-them-down-your-throat doctrine"
Here's my compromise. Many other nations have state sponsored television and radio, surprisingly we do not. I'm all for it, it's just another choice of something to watch or listen to. The government then could be in charge of making sure its balanced (oh wouldn't that be fun).
I don't think this is what Kucinch and is ilk are envisioning though. I would be all for a single program that offered that debated the pros and cons with experts on both sides of certain topics. We get some of this already in things like Hannity & Colmes. But think what would happen if this was in effect. Hannity couldn't right a book unless Colmes agreed to write one. Hannity couldn't have a radio program as well unless Colmes was on it or had is own as well. It's rediculous. Why make everyone do it? Why eliminate consumer choice and thus freedom.
And let's look at what the libs are trying to gain here. More liberal votes and thus a more liberal nation. If that's the way the country as a whole chooses to swing, so be it. But, it's silly to think that will happen by trying to cut everything up 50-50. The libs had to see that liberal politcal TV and radio wasn't being consumed as much as liberal stuff so they came up with this. Wether right or wrong when given a choice most people choose conservative. Deal with it. If this goes into effect what do you think the libs will see then. I'll tell you. A bunch of radio dials and TV channels being flipped when the lib comes on. So what then? They gonna come up with a law that says I must listen to that also?
Well, 1/2 of us anyway (liberals).
Why don't we ship him off to France to serve jail time there?
Separate names with a comma.