What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Plan to Silence Conservatives

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
How about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine"? Sounds reasonable to me.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
How about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine"? Sounds reasonable to me.

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.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
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.
 

Gunny

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2004
Messages
44,689
Reaction score
6,854
Points
198
Location
The Republic of Texas
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.
 
OP
Bullypulpit

Bullypulpit

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
5,849
Reaction score
382
Points
48
Location
Columbus, OH
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.

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.
 

Avatar4321

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2004
Messages
82,283
Reaction score
10,128
Points
2,070
Location
Minnesota
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.
 

Bern80

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2004
Messages
8,094
Reaction score
722
Points
138
How about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine"? Sounds reasonable to me.

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?
 

glockmail

VIP Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2006
Messages
7,700
Reaction score
436
Points
83
Location
The beautiful Yadkin Valley
Sponsored by Free Press, a Massachusetts-based organization that is generously subsidized by pro-Democratic Party billionaire George Soros, the "National Conference on Media Reform" featured Bill Moyers and Jesse Jackson and Hollywood celebrities such as Danny Glover, Geena Davis and Jane Fonda.

Soros, portrayed by the major media and "progressives" funded by him as a humanitarian and philanthropist, has made billions of dollars through international financial manipulations conducted through secretive off-shore hedge funds. He was convicted of insider trading in France, one of many countries to have borne the brunt of his global financial schemes.

Why don't we ship him off to France to serve jail time there?
 

insein

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2004
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
358
Points
48
Location
Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
How about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine"? Sounds reasonable to me.

I'm suprised at you bully being the staunch defender of the Constitution that you are and all. :rolleyes:

The fairness doctrine takes the First ammendment, rolls it up in a wad and wipes its proverbial ass after a nice steamy, dripping dump that it took on the country. It lets the government tell you and me what we are to listen to even if what they want us to listen to is something that NO one wants to listen to. So whose gonna pay for all that programming that will have zero advertising revenue? The American people of course.
 

Emmett

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
557
Reaction score
101
Points
28
Location
Murrayville, Ga
If liberal radio was interesting it wouldn't have the problem it has!

State sponsored radio is illegal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then, so are the taxes I pay!

Alan Colmes does actually have a radio show, none listens to it though. His audience is busy with greenpeace meetings, going to school and marrying the same sex.


Fairness Doctrine, ROFLMAO.............................................still laughing....................................................choking,,,,,,.............................................................coughing.....................laughing again!


Still laughing!
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$145.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top