These people just want what ever gets themselves and the RED TEAM ahead. They act like we should all vote on the right math answer? Why shouldn’t the guy you want to have a beer with run the country? Why not make the most popular high school students doctors instead of the smartest? Well math is math and evedence is evedence and some opinions (like most of Rush’s) are not based on facts act all, and should be opposed. If you can go to a court and say “Rush L. says that most small businesses will suffer if taxes are raised on those making over $250,000 and even conservative fact finding organizations say that less than 2% of small business owners make over $250,000, then channels that air his nonsense should have to air someone saying those facts! That is less than equal anyways as the sum of both statements made separatley is that half the people heard an opinion that is opposite of the truth (like Rush cares).

It’s like if I said “all republicans are child molestors and studies show that” and then the RNC got to say “most repulblicans are not child molesters”(which in fairness is more accurate) the damage is still done to some degree isn’t it?

Why would anyone be afraid of the fairness doctrine unless they are HUGE LIARS? I think the answer is evedent and I would be okay with a law that simply made them say on the half hour: “This is the Fox network and we oppose the fairness doctrine which has the goal of making broadcast’s content fair and accurate. We think any donkeys rear end should be entitled to say and dang thing they want regardless of it’s innaccuracies as this is America – Dang It”

I’d like to add “GROW UP”!

——————————-

I hate to break it to you, but imposing media-ownership caps, enforcing network neutrality, and increasing media minority ownership IS the Fairness Doctrine, but in a different form. Media ownership caps is an attempt to curtail the pervasiveness of conservative talk radio by limiting their success and making it easier for liberal networks to compete. Network neutrality is no different then applying fairness principles to broadcasters. The terminology is no different than the Fairness Doctrine. And minority ownership is a nicer way of saying “more liberal broadcasters” since most minority groups are liberal.

Liberals need to stop using the Federal Government to settle scores they ought to settle in the free market. If they can’t compete, therefore break the legs of conservative radio via legislation is cowardly and pathetic. The Fairness Doctrine will resurface just like it did under the Reagan, Bush senior, and Bush junior administrations. I have a hard time believing that Obama would veto the legislation when it passes both houses.

Supreme Court, here we come.

1) That we would’ve elected the most radical marxist in the US Senate.
2) That we’d be staring down the barrel of history, not only repeating other socialist states of the past who elected charismatic leaders (which I thought before last week, the US was immune to…) but WANTING more government intervention after Bush’s failures in this regard?