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.
I would support a "Fairness Doctrine"... as long as it is applied to ALL media: TV, Newspapers, movies, etc., as well as talk radio.
For every anti-Bush or pro-Obama screed Chris Matthews gives, there has to be a matching delivery from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc.
For every appearance by George Stephanopolous on CNN, there has to be equal time for Glenn Beck, whom they must now re-hire and pay as much as they pay GS.
For every "news article" that praises a liberal Obama plan in the New York Times, LA Time etc., ther must be an equally long article, as prominently displayed, by Thomas Sowell or George Will etc.
For every movie showing company executives as evil or heartless, there must be a movie produced of equal length showing a company (like Wal-Mart for example) moving into a neighborhood, providing new jobs to people who didn't have them, providing lower prices and greater selection, etc., and people's lives improving as a result (which is actually the way it usually works).
For every rant by Rosie O'Donnell on The View, she must shut up and sit still without interrupting while Elizabeth Hasselbeck (or Phyllis Schlafly or Ann Coulter) delivers an equally-lengthy speech.
Etc. etc., you get the idea.
I can hardly wait for the leftists to praise this plan, as much as they praise the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for radio only.
-----------------------------------
Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.
I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.
I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.
Actually, a mechanism that does just this already exists. It's called the market! Free people will listen to what they want and will reward those ideas with profits. There is a reason liberal-babble doesn't attract widespread media markets and profits. Most people don't want to hear that their country sucks on an ongoing basis. It's likely that they will begin to tire of hearing this ongoing drone from Obama himself in the near future.
Actually, on second thought, I don't think I want Government to have the authority to examine everyone's speech, decide what is liberal or conservative, and decide who will be allowed to speak and who won't be, based on what has been said in the past.
I've changed my mind. There is NO version of the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" I can support.
Never mind.
Excellent conclusion.
Fair is a four letter liberal word meaning stacked deck.
Obama is going to use the machine to rename "the Fairness Doctrine", or have the thugs in Acorn scream for local regulation.
A lot of us are on to your ilk and your Fearless Leader. A lot more are going to be on to you and your Comrades in the weeks to come as Barry reveals himself.
Obama is going to use the machine to rename "the Fairness Doctrine", or have the thugs in Acorn scream for local regulation.
A lot of us are on to your ilk and your Fearless Leader. A lot more are going to be on to you and your Comrades in the weeks to come as Barry reveals himself.
I dont support Obama with his socialism. I am a Mod democrat that voted McCain
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.