U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-16-2008, 04:54 PM
 
120 posts, read 204,551 times
Reputation: 160

Advertisements

well liberals and conservatives what do you see as the pros and cons of the fairness doctrin?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2008, 06:22 PM
 
211 posts, read 894,414 times
Reputation: 174
I honestly see no pro's to the Fairness Doctrine. I see it as another way to take away our rights. If people do not like what they hear, they have a choice . . . turn the dial.

I'm a strict Constitutionalist and firmly believe that our rights should never be inflicted upon due to political correctness or because someone doesn't agree with another. This is America. We need to be careful of our rights that are being taken away.

This goes beyond political partisanship. NO PARTY should privy to this act. This is something I have been very, very concerned about over the past decade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2008, 07:49 PM
 
5,273 posts, read 11,907,338 times
Reputation: 5745
So far as I understand the way the potential legislation is to be put forth, it is directly aimed at conservative talk radio as it's supposedly done the most "damage" to liberal causes. It's almost a bill of attainder- which is illegal.

However, I also agree that taking away anyone's freedom of speech (with the exception of public health or safety) is a sign of a very corrupt government. Anyone who supports a law that directly targets your opponents and seeks to take away their constitutional rights is one that should never happen in a free society.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 03:19 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717
Angry Brought to you by the lovable Chuck Schummer!

Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET View Post
It's almost a bill of attainder- which is illegal.... a sign of a very corrupt government. Anyone who supports a law that directly targets your opponents and seeks to take away their constitutional rights is... .
Corrupt. Arrogant. Impeachable.

But then Chuck Schummer has gotten consistent "positive" re-inforcement over the years from his "We Know Best" constituents, and in terms of his "mental genetics", he comes by it honestly from his equally egregious father. All waved on enthusiastically by Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Pelosi, Waters etc., etc.

On NPR recently, Schummer compared right-wing talk radio to something else that "the government should have complete control over: pornography".

Ahhh... Coming Soon: The People's Office of Official Properness, or "POOP" for short!

We get what we elect, BP. Often that's sad enough, but in this case, it's tragic. If he/they get away with this travesty, I wonder if we'll change the channel from Nascar coverage, put down our fifth KFC drumstick, grab our pitchforks and torches and hit the streets. Care to wager on that one?

Last edited by rifleman; 11-17-2008 at 03:21 AM.. Reason: typos
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 10:40 AM
 
Location: Michigan
528 posts, read 1,306,017 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitutionalist View Post
well liberals and conservatives what do you see as the pros and cons of the fairness doctrin?
I need to read more about it. On one hand, I did read that the doctrine ensures that all three major broadcasters show all sides of a particular issue. Haven't we complained recently that the media is biased? If it is, doesn't this help prevent that bias? Again, I do not (yet) know the complexities of this doctrine, so I ask this not as a loaded question, but to wonder if I'm right in my interpretation.

If I am right, I like the idea of this part of it. Many people are subject to what they hear - they watch tv and believe what they see/hear. For example, it might have changed the outcome of the election.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
1,740 posts, read 2,931,234 times
Reputation: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Corrupt. Arrogant. Impeachable.

But then Chuck Schummer has gotten consistent "positive" re-inforcement over the years from his "We Know Best" constituents, and in terms of his "mental genetics", he comes by it honestly from his equally egregious father. All waved on enthusiastically by Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Pelosi, Waters etc., etc.

On NPR recently, Schummer compared right-wing talk radio to something else that "the government should have complete control over: pornography".

Ahhh... Coming Soon: The People's Office of Official Properness, or "POOP" for short!


We get what we elect, BP. Often that's sad enough, but in this case, it's tragic. If he/they get away with this travesty, I wonder if we'll change the channel from Nascar coverage, put down our fifth KFC drumstick, grab our pitchforks and torches and hit the streets. Care to wager on that one?
I would be chuckling at your presentation, but the facts are that Schummer and his buddies have no regard whatsoever with what is right, let alone what is constitutional. The Democrat party does not wish to have open elections, so, in tandem with taking away the rights of free speech which can alert Americans to the crimes that our senators and representatives will be perpetrating, there will also be an end to the Second Amendment. This will enable a revision intended to model our government to any of several pseudo democracies run by despots.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Louisiana
1,740 posts, read 2,931,234 times
Reputation: 563
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoes4birds View Post
I need to read more about it. On one hand, I did read that the doctrine ensures that all three major broadcasters show all sides of a particular issue. Haven't we complained recently that the media is biased? If it is, doesn't this help prevent that bias? Again, I do not (yet) know the complexities of this doctrine, so I ask this not as a loaded question, but to wonder if I'm right in my interpretation.

If I am right, I like the idea of this part of it. Many people are subject to what they hear - they watch tv and believe what they see/hear. For example, it might have changed the outcome of the election.
Sorry, but your conceptions of what is wanted are entirely wrong. The idea is to silence those who would expose the unethical, improper or illegal activities of our elected officials.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 11:07 AM
 
Location: Michigan
528 posts, read 1,306,017 times
Reputation: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosinante View Post
Sorry, but your conceptions of what is wanted are entirely wrong. The idea is to silence those who would expose the unethical, improper or illegal activities of our elected officials.
What do you base this on (as in, can you provide a link to a reputable document)? I wouldn't doubt my conceptions are wrong since I know so little about it, but to say that the idea is to "silence those who would expose the unethical, improper or illegal activities of our elected officials" seems slightly over-the-top.

By the way, here's where I read that its premise (in part) is to show both sides of a situation: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0212-03.htm
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2008, 06:21 PM
 
Location: Fredericksburg, Va
5,119 posts, read 12,716,950 times
Reputation: 7215
Life isn't fair. Folks need to understand this. Lately, we're not teaching our kids this--we try to make them think they are all "winners", and that's not fair to them. I think we all need to get over ourselves, live and let live, and realize that we all have to work for what we want, but we may not get it! That's life!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-19-2008, 01:03 PM
 
Location: Orlando, Florida
43,858 posts, read 43,564,164 times
Reputation: 58603
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleveburg View Post
I honestly see no pro's to the Fairness Doctrine. I see it as another way to take away our rights. If people do not like what they hear, they have a choice . . . turn the dial.

I'm a strict Constitutionalist and firmly believe that our rights should never be inflicted upon due to political correctness or because someone doesn't agree with another. This is America. We need to be careful of our rights that are being taken away.

This goes beyond political partisanship. NO PARTY should privy to this act. This is something I have been very, very concerned about over the past decade.
This is such a great post cleveburg! If everyone lived by your opinion, the whole country wouldn't be in such an emotional wreck. I was seeing on another thread where someone wanted to go 'forum church bashing' as though these people somehow didn't have a right to share their opinion with each other. Then you get the group who wants to wipe porn off the internet. Truth is, true freedom is allowing everyone to be who they are and to express themselves accordingly.

It takes both liberals and conservatives to make a balance. At the end of the day, it is the strength of our country....not the downfall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top