Pajamas Media

122 Comments

1. Rick:

We all must march to Comrade Obama’s tune.

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:13 am 2. Lance Morrison:

Can you imagine what the media would be saying if George Bush had pushed to equalize politicalcontent in music, television and movies? We’d be hearing about Hitler, etc. The deaf ear our media lends to these idiotice Fairness Doctrine comments by liberals is maddening.

http://www.conservativemusiconline.com

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:37 am 3. JB:

MSNBC: Olbermann and Matthews, CNN and Jane Fonda’s ex-husband, CBS’s owner, Stephanopolous posing as nonbiased, Soledad and her counting after the 2nd debate, Anderson 360 — rich liberal trust fund child, etc. You tell me they are balanced and fair? they are only LEFT. no call for these networks to have “right” shows on them. So why biasedness against talk radio?

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:54 am 4. David Thomson:

Barack Obama will relentlessly push for the so-called fairness doctrine—but not directly! He is seeking to accomplish his nefarious goal via the use of Orwelian language and deceitfully worded legislation. We must keep our guard up every minute while Obama still resides in the White House.

Feb 22, 2009 - 3:39 am 5. class clown:

Hmm, me wonders if we should have “fairness” in television broadcasts as well.

Feb 22, 2009 - 3:47 am 6. formwiz:

You say “1970s and ’80s”. Fairness has been around since FDR for the sole purpose of denying non-Leftist non-Democrats a share of the debate.

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:06 am 7. fear Obama:

If a given radio channel aired three hours of conservative talk radio, it had to balance those out with three hours of liberal talk radio.

Isn’t that the problem-
Having to listen to a liberal talk for 3- three hours?

Maybe if the Democrats issued Valium pills?

But then listening while driving would kill millions.

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:30 am 8. Bilgeman:

Oh my God…

It occurred to me that if this monstrosity passes, (and judging by how McCain-Feingold’s 1st Amendment abridgements have STILL not been declared the unConstitutional laws that they clearly are, I think “Fairness” WILL pass), we must then look to the example of…

Howard Stern.

And buy satellite radio receivers.

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:47 am 9. FD186:

Didn’t the Fascists, Communists and other Dictators have similar practices as the Fairness Doctrine? Where’s the ACLU on this threat to the First Amendment?

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:03 am 10. Brick:

Sen. Stabenow’s husband is one Tom Athans, cofounder of Democracy Radio, a progressive radio network. He later went on to become Executive VP of Programming at Air America, the failed liberal talk radio experiment. Just a small conflict of interest, in my opinion.

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:43 am 11. CFB:

Sorry to be so cold-blooded, but I am quite certain that Obama is waiting for Ginsburg to die before he comes out in favor of regulating talk radio out of existence. By then, he’ll have the votes on SCOTUS to quash the inevitable First Amendment lawsuits Limbaugh and others will immediately bring.

Bye-bye free speech. It was nice knowing ya.

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:55 am 12. Delia:

Liberal radio fails because:

A. Nobody wants to hear the disheartening rhetoric that deflates the mind and soul and HEARING Lib-Speak on the radio is DEPRESSING as hell.
B. Because of A. there aren’t sponsors.
C. Because of A. & B. Liberals FAIL at radio.
D. Bahahahahahaha!
F. That’s Lib radio’s grade. A big, fat “F”

Thanks for listening. I now return you to your regular scheduled program.

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:57 am 13. Delia:

5. class clown:

Hmm, me wonders if we should have “fairness” in television broadcasts as well.
~

Sorry, class clown but the main stream media can’t shuck and jive and shuffle and tap to that tune.

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:59 am 14. JB:

Two points:

1) If you define the range of media narrowly enough, you can find “unfairness” anywhere. What proponents of any version of the Fairness Doctrine won’t admit is that talk radio IS the balance. It exists because the ideas and voices that find a home within it aren’t found elsewhere. If there was a healthy expression of conservative ideas elsewhere in the media, talk radio might not be the refuge it is.

2) The whole idea rests on a premise that within every subject there is conservative view and a liberal view in opposition that must be represented. Must the opposing points of view to politically correct orthodoxies be presented? Must the shared ideas of western enlightenment be balanced with noxious anti-western notions? Where is the line drawn and who arbitrates?

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:00 am 15. Spinoneone:

Bilgeman, don’t be so sure. Some of the “fairness” ideas circulating in Washington include giving the FCC control of content on ALL media, including the internet, satellite broadcasting, cable networks, etc. This is a straight-up Soviet power grab.

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:06 am 16. SAF:

Its not about fairness its about silencing conservative points of view.

There is no freedom of speech if you must agree with the Democrat’s point of view.

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:08 am 17. Linguist:

H.R.226, S.34 were introduced last month to shut down debate over reinstating the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”. Write your Congressional representatives and tell them in no uncertain terms to support these bills NOW (both have been sent to Committee). Then tell everyone you know to do the same thing.

It will take an enormous and continuing outcry of the “little people” to their elected officials to accomplish anything in the days ahead. Those elected officials need to know exactly how their constituents feel – especially when they continue to go against the Constitution – so let ‘em have it.

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:47 am 18. chris in Toronto:

It’s interesting that conservatives dominate the only mass medium where ideas are presented without images. It’s been said a picture is worth a thousand words. In light of the fauxtography scandals in the entrenched media, what have those thousand words really been? Further, radio is a medium where only one voice can be heard at a time–any attempt to talk over someone results in an unintelligible mess and no one is heard.

On TV, on the other hand, it’s true that no voice can be heard when a row is happening, but the rowers are seen rowing, fighting for their ideas; liberals are seen as passionate defenders of their opinions and conservatives are seen as ogres. TV is about optics. Radio is about ideas and is tremendously more powerful as a result. And liberals know it, they know it as surely as they know their ideas don’t stand up to reason, they know it as surely as they know that listeners see through their shamefully ideologically “ideas”.

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:58 am 19. Sassenach:

Under such a scheme, who gets to decide what is a “liberal” or “conservative” viewpoint? What if a viewpoint is libertarian? Or Martian? What if a conservative show airs a government-defined liberal viewpoint? Does the liberal show then have to air a government-approved conservative viewpoint? Will everyone have to register in an approved category before participating as a caller? Will we have to take a test? Provide references? How will we ensure racial and gender diversity within each viewpoint?

Will there be criminal penalties for those who register as one viewpoint and then express another? Will they have to register as political viewpoint offenders? Perform community service? Attend responsible political expression classes? If a conservative marries a liberal, what will their children be? What if they have an odd number of children? Will the book “Heather Has Parents With Two Viewpoints” be banned from libraries? If a liberal punches a conservative, will that be a hate crime?

Tell me again, who gets to decide what the approved position descriptions are — another white house czar? Or, an entirely new bureaucracy, complete with a political appointee at the helm?

Feb 22, 2009 - 7:11 am 20. savage24:

You do not understand, it’s not what you want to listen to, it’s what the liberals demand you listen to. We are getting closer to the police state every minute.

Feb 22, 2009 - 7:25 am 21. William:

The liberals are duplicitous at best, outright traitors at worst. We must scream loudly and often so that they understand we will not back down on this one. Like Hawkins, I’ll abide by a fairness doctrine when liberals in congress will. Until then, I’ll stand my ground.

Feb 22, 2009 - 8:03 am 22. ked5:

these are all people who can’t abide by the captilalist system. They want socliaism for radio as well.

they should remember what happens in countries where free expression of ideas is suppresed. Those very ideas go underground – and they GET around. They are also given MORE credence by those who hear them, becasue of the dictatorial hand suppressing them. some have even done masterful jobs of fomenting revolution in underground communique’s.

Feb 22, 2009 - 8:20 am 23. Big Red:

The original intent of the Fairness Doctrine goes back to the 30s and the early days of radio. There were very few stations at the time and many areas may have had access to only one station. Stations were required to make equal time availible for all political candidates as an owner could refuse ads from those he was opposed to, thereby denying the other side the ability to get their message in front of the larger audience. Typical of leftists to use a guarantee of free politic debate as a weapon to silence political debate.

“Barack Obams ist der Sieg”

Feb 22, 2009 - 8:46 am 24. one of your own:

I’m all for the Fairness Doctrine. I love the idea of reducing the influence of talk radio, which is more effective than i would like in obstructing the agenda of liberal America.

Lots of people whine about free speech, the same way they whine about the 2nd Amendment. There are limits on both. We all know them. No one can stand on pure principle, all we can do is choose where to draw the line. I’m wiling to move that line if it serves my personal interests, which i believe are also the interests of the country.

Far as i can see, nobody here is doing anything different than what I’m doing.

Feb 22, 2009 - 9:36 am 25. Bilgeman:

#15 Spinoneone:
“Bilgeman, don’t be so sure. Some of the “fairness” ideas circulating in Washington include giving the FCC control of content on ALL media, including the internet, satellite broadcasting, cable networks, etc.”

Yeah, so we’ll think up some other way to get the message out…maritime’s Flag of Convenience nations were one of the first “end-runs” around issues of national sovereignty.
So Vanuatu and Liberia get into the communications satellite business.

And Rush et al get to broadcast, like Wolfman Jack in the late 1950’s, from Mexican radio stations but nowadays with gigawatt and terawatt transmitters…

By the time the Democrats can capture the Fed.gov again to regulate those forms of technology,(in about 40 years), we’ll have dental implants to direct neural networks or something.

“This is a straight-up Soviet power grab.”

Aye…that’s the truth of it. And like the Soviets, our own faux-Marxist Statists will have to learn that you cannot squeeze pne end of the balloon, without the other expanding.

Feb 22, 2009 - 9:40 am 26. Comrade Tovya:

I think most Liberals want their rep to vote for its revival for a really good reason.

After all, the word “fairness” is in it… and doesn’t that sound nice?

Seriously though, Liberals don’t listen to talk radio for one reason–they want to be told what the “truth” is without having to listen to facts and dialogue.

If Liberals listened to talk radio, there would be TONS of nationally syndicated Liberal radio shows… but there is not, because Liberals don’t tune in.

The best part of todays media is that there are so many options. They couldn’t censor the Conservative media if they wanted to. There’s radio, TV, blogs, internet news, internet radio, internet TV, newpapers, magazines, etc etc.

There is just too many options today to censor the Conservative voice. And I think Obama knows that, so he’ll keep away from this issue.

Feb 22, 2009 - 9:51 am 27. james wilson:

The evidence is in: there are no circumstances in which liberals will listenn to liberal talk radio.
So their object is to make conservatives listen to it, or listen to nothing, when the solution is to force liberals to listen to liberal talk radio.

Feb 22, 2009 - 9:57 am 28. Whitehall:

Actually, FDR wanted to deny airtime to critics on both the Left and the Right when he came up with the Fairness Doctrine.

The latest proposal is to require “local community boards” to determine each licensee’s content. Those will certainly be packed with activists and others who don’t have a real job. The boards will be subject to take-over by the determined Left. Some have called them “soviets.” The “Progressive” non-commercial stations already have something like this so wouldn’t see much change.

As to choice, a good AM/FM radio could get 50 FM stations and over 100 AM stations although few markets support that many. Add in two types of satellite radio (over 100 each) prior to the Sirius/XM merger and you’ve got more choices than one can reasonably sort through. Add cable TV and satellite TV, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet, and people have plenty of choices.

Feb 22, 2009 - 10:07 am 29. Zhombre:

The Fairness Doctrine is censorship for people who would bristle with indignation if accused of censorship. Its imposition would allow liberals to silence their critics while maintaining they were acting on the principal of fairness and moderation, like good pharisees the whiteness of the monument disguises the bones within. Keeping your hands clean, no matter what dirt you dish out, is after all a prime directive for good liberals.

Feb 22, 2009 - 10:09 am 30. Delia:

24. one of your own,

Maybe the Liberal stations should use Morse Code to get sponsors and ratings. BIG improvement! HUGE!

Feb 22, 2009 - 10:49 am 31. Yes We Did:

The days of hate radio are numbered. Freedom of speech is fine, but we had an election last November. The American people have spoken. Now the racist hatemongers must shut up and get with the program.

The American people love and support our new Leader.

The dark days of BushHitler and his minions are gone, never to return. President Obama is our ruler now.

Feb 22, 2009 - 11:29 am 32. one of your own:

#30 . . . Delia: I’m just speaking the truth. I have an agenda. I believe my agenda is better than your agenda.

But if you insist on being a . . . what’s the word? . . . it was in the news not long ago . . . something McCain said about dear Cindy . . . never mind, it’s not important. Anyway . . . You keep talk radio and Fox News, we’ll keep the networks and the internet.

Good luck with that.

Feb 22, 2009 - 11:33 am 33. CapitalistForChange:

I suppose that this “fairness doctrine” hysteria is good for the perpetual self-promotion of talk radio…I can see that the far right has unified to this issue with great energy…As an Independent (in thought and Party affiliation), I would surmise that the quickest way for this President to lose popularity, would be to spend more than 5 minutes thinking about this issue..Obama has asked the nation to “put away childish things”..I can think of nothing more childish than spending time on something that has very little impact when he’s already under water in the REAL substanitive issues that he’s faced with right now. The “fairness doctrine” should remain right where it is…in the den of those who “entertain” from the “childish” branch of political chatter.

Feb 22, 2009 - 11:33 am 34. A.M. Mallett:

We are getting close to “lock and load”.

Feb 22, 2009 - 11:43 am 35. one of your own:

34. A.M. Mallett: . . . We are getting close to “lock and load.”

More mindless bravado from a chickenhawk wingnut. You talk big, but when you’re staring down the barrel of a National Guard rifle, but you won’t do much more than piss yourself. That’s right, we got the guns now. You want ‘em? Come and take ‘em.

Feb 22, 2009 - 12:20 pm 36. The One:

35: What makes you think that the National Guard would point the barrel at A.M. — since most of the Nat’l Guard is defintely NOT of your political persuasion. Hey, if blowing people up was OK for Bill and his Weathermen, wouldn’t be OK now… in the intersts of fairness of course.

Feb 22, 2009 - 12:40 pm 37. ked5:

amazing. we have some children (i.e. ooyo and ywd) on this thread. Don’t you boys have homework due tomorrow that you should be working on? Then again, you both are prime examples of the poor quality of the current public education system.

so boys, keep it up. You’re doing a fabulous job of reinforcing our ill opinion of our public indoctrination system.

Feb 22, 2009 - 12:49 pm 38. ked5:

@33
The “fairness doctrine” should remain right where it is…in the den of those who “entertain” from the “childish” branch of political chatter.

~~~~~

did you read the article?

(quote) Recently, liberal icon Bill Press, Democratic Senators Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, and former President Bill Clinton have all pushed for the “Fairness Doctrine” to be reinstated. (unquote)

So, you want the democrats to treat the entire idea as childish? Are you holding your breath?

Feb 22, 2009 - 12:54 pm 39. Bilgeman:

#35 NOT one of your own:

“You talk big, but when you’re staring down the barrel of a National Guard rifle, ”

Are you QUITE sure that the National Guard wouldn’t be aiming their rifles the other way?

Guardsmen are all state-based, and I think you are smoking something if you really believe that they’ are going to shoot the people that they’ve lived among for years on the orders of some alleged Hawaiian in Washington DC.

In fact, I think here’s how THAT scenario would go down.

The Guard would muster at their armories, draw their weapons, ammo and kit, and then promptly desert to the State and Local forces.

That’s one of the ways it was done in the War for Southern Independence.

Feb 22, 2009 - 1:07 pm 40. jw:

The proposed “Fairness Doctrine” and the similar proposals for “local control” all violate the U.S. Constitution: Amendment I to the U.S. Constitution, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, of abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” The radio is part of the press.
But President Obama has little respect for the Constitution. Article I says that Congress has charge of the Census. “The actual enumeration shall be made within three years of the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. (Congress has directed the Department of Commerce to be in charge of the census.)” So for President Obama to make himself as President in charge of the census is a violation of the Constitution, as well as of law.

Feb 22, 2009 - 1:17 pm 41. Delia:

35. one of your own,

“That’s right, we got the guns now. You want ‘em? Come and take ‘em.”
~

Funny you say that because gun sales went through the roof before Zero took office, honey chile.

Child, look around you. You come here to spew to people as if you think you’re going to make one inkling of a difference. Why are you so desperate? Sore winner much? A much too much! ;p

Feb 22, 2009 - 1:21 pm 42. one of your own:

#36 The One . . . because A.M. is promoting sedition. Next?

#37. Kfed5 . . . I went to a private Catholic school. Next?

#39 Bilgeman . . . writes, “That’s one of the ways it was done in the War for Southern Independence.”

How’d that turn out? Next?

#41 Delia . . . Tell me what Obama has said about repealing the 2nd Amendment. The only reason gun sales wen through the roof is because the NRA knows how gullible you paranoids are. Next?

Feb 22, 2009 - 1:38 pm 43. Heh:

“one of your own” is a communist. communists don’t care for contrary opinion. their concept of “freedom” is very particular. As Orwell would say, for these 1984-crowd “slavery is freedom”, and therefore “fairness” is censorship.

That is also why leftists don’t understand the concept of “free market”, because they don’t understand the concept of freedom. People shouldn’t choose, the leftist government knows what’s best for you, honey.

Feb 22, 2009 - 1:49 pm 44. Will:

Those with common sense will listen to coservative radio,not liberal radio.Therefore the reason liberals need the fairness doctrine to spread their lies and deceit.

Feb 22, 2009 - 1:54 pm 45. eric:

I’m not worried about the Fairness Doctrine. I think if Obama’s dumb enough to reinstate it he’ll accomplish little in doing so, and suffer greatly for it in the long run. The Fairness Doctrine would be the most egregious abuse of power since Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, and unlike Lincoln, Obama’s act would be seen as completely unjustified. He would be judged more as a tyrant than a reformer by history. I also think it would cause conservative anger, bubbling now for years at the mendacity of their liberal opponents, to completely boil over, and cause extreme civil discord and possibly violence. It could also backfire grossly, as the precedent it would set would allow the GOP to intimidate its critics in the rest of the news and entertainment media.

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:04 pm 46. Rachel Peepers:

Permit me to try to explain why so many of you are feeling the way you are. Writing the things you do. Things like A.M. Mallet’s number 34 just above. “Lock and Load.”

Unfortunately, some of it is out of desperation.

A lot of you conservative Republican types are sounding like you feel the Barack administration is attacking you from so many sides that you have this strong sense you’re being pushed into an economic, political and psychological corner that requires you to fight for the very existence of America.

You sound like you feel Barack and his boys don’t care if they trample on every constitutional right you ever thought you had if it helps to advance their socialist (anti-capitalist) march across the U.S.

Well, much to my dismay, I’ve got to tell you that I believe your concerns are justified.

Like Civil War General Bill Sherman’s march to the sea; the scortched earth policy he followed, the Barack administration is taking every step so that, not to soon from now, the old America you remember will be almost unrecognizable to anyone who graduated from high school in the 1990’s or before. It’s like he’s putting your perceptions of what America is and stands for through a paper shredder.

The latest example is Barack’s head fake that he’s against the reestablishment of the “Fairness Doctrine.”

What Barack says and what he wants in this case are not the same.

The Democratic leadership is shutting its ears to any sensible opposition to the Fairness Doctrine and will be shoving it down Rush’s, Hannity’s and other conservative voices within six months.

To avoid being blamed when conservatives are pulled off the air, Barack is putting himself on record as being opposed to it. When have niggardly Nancy (who’s on record as being for it) and Barack ever been openly at odds over anything? Never.

But this is different. It’s just window dressing to give Barack political cover so he keeps his approval ratings up.

On a much grander scale, I’m afraid you’re also witnessing the killing of capitalism. First banks. Then the car companies will be nationalized with government owning controlling interests. Then health care.

But the cherry on the socialist Sundae for Barack and his merry band of wealth redistributionists are the drug companies.

Once some ingenious Democratic-lawyer-thought-up subterfuge is unveiled as a justification to act, the drug companies will virtually be nationalized, too. Hey, even Germany had an excuse to act on September 1, 1939 when they invaded Poland.

In case you’re wondering, this is why for the last few years, Democrats have been painting the drug companies as evil.

Like PaC-Man, once they’re swallowed up by Barack and his henchmen, the Democratic Party will have financial and social leverage like no one could imagine.

And all this power at their disposal quickly turns into votes when they start giving the downscale Democratic constituiency cost breaks on everything from Ambien to Chevy Monte Carlos to zoology courses. Democrats want the slacker citizenry (their voter base) to think of government as their personal sugar daddy.

This, my friends, is the end game. And what Obamabot wouldn’t re-elect the sugar daddy party everytime election time came around?

Incidentally, that’s why Democrats sabotaged the economy by forcing Fanny and Freddie to make a country full of huge loans to hugely credit-challenged, cretin deadbeats who wanted to buy a home but never understood the concept of having a regular job, getting to work on time or making timely monthly payments.

This was the blow to the economy they needed. The excuse to lynch capitalism.

Why do you think our new attorney general feels so cocky as to call us all cowards?

It’s because Eric the terrible knows what’s coming. And he thinks he has nothing to fear from future voters.

Granted, I’m only your lil’ ole’, dirty blond college coed, Rachel Peepers, but I don’t think I’m quite ready to yell Uncle just because my Uncle Sam is in a bit of a pickle.

They’ll have to pry my stiff cold fingers off my typwriter keys, and my lil’ ole’ 1943 issue mint German P-38 before I’ll let go of my country.
Have a nice day,
Rachel

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:08 pm 47. one of your own:

#43 heh . . . You better go back reread 1984 like I did last month. The concept of endless war and newspeak and centralizing power and demoralizing people though meaningless jobs is what we just lived through for the last 8 years. Does the name Cheney ring a bell? Does the phrase “thought crime” mean anything to you? Well it means plenty to the Beardstown Ladies Investment Club. Clearly a threat to national security, the FBI , CIA, the NSA, and Bush’s barber jumped into action to defend democracy and freedom. If you folks aren’t willing to shake off the smear of entitlement, we’re just gonna have to leave you behind while we build a new American life that revives the spirit of independence and common purpose.

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:09 pm 48. David S:

AWR knows he is not being honest in this piece.

Radio spectrum is a limited public resource, and corporations have an interest in promoting their political agenda using the medium. It is not unreasonable to seek some degree of balance on our public airwaves. Most left-wing radio provides a balanced perspective, because leftists are willing to debate their opponents directly. Right-wing radio tends to eschew this type of debate because it points out how ludicrous the GOP platform really is.

I wish that the Fairness Doctrine were not needed – if corporate radio owners were responsible and did not abuse their monopoly on radio spectrum, it would not be – but given the abuse of our public resources by these moneyed interests, I would not be opposed to some form of fairness being mandated.

This is not a matter of freedom of the press, so much as it is a matter of how the public square has been defiled by one-sided corporate control of radio. Comparisons to non-broadcast media are fallacious.

Particularly idiotic is AWR’s attempt to liken radio spectrum to political power in Washington. We already have a system for ensuring fairness in government, which is our right to vote. Radio spectrum is not allocated on the same basis, so making such a comparison is just plain stupid. Broadcasters who fulfill their obligation to the public would not feel any impact from these regulations.

Peace.

DS

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:10 pm 49. Delia:

46. Rachel,

I’m fast becoming your ‘fan-boy er girl’. Or maybe we have a mutual admiration society thing goin’ on?! Heh!

“Democrats want the slacker citizenry (their voter base) to think of government as their personal sugar daddy.”

Yep. The more lazy, suckling pigs keep sucking on the societal gravy teat the better and of COURSE they’ll vote Democrat/Welfare/Handout/Illegal-Immigrant-Amnesty every time.
~
“This, my friends, is the end game. And what Obamabot wouldn’t re-elect the sugar daddy party everytime election time came around?”

Exactly right, girlfriend. One of Zero’s many backassward plans include pretty much decimating the welfare reform that Bill Clinton and the Repub Senate championed. Welfare slavery is the new black don’tchya know? Throw in a few more Octomoms and it’s downright peachy! Don’t you just get a warm feelin’ way down in the cockle region when you think of the soon-to-be welfare babies, crack ho-in’, job-avoiding, baby mama, non-English speakin’ masses that will surely benefit from the all knowing, all seeing ONE and Vote D.?
~
“Incidentally, that’s why Democrats sabotaged the economy by forcing Fanny and Freddie to make a country full of huge loans to hugely credit-challenged, cretin deadbeats who wanted to buy a home but never understood the concept of having a regular job, getting to work on time or making timely monthly payments.”

The welfare loan system was a SCAM from the start. Who in their RIGHT FREAKING mind would lend to someone without MEANS? Oh yeah. DEMOCRATS! The incentive to just GIVE loans away by Fannie/Freddie had banks re-inventing the wheel into a flat tire. No longer did you have to account for a job. Check. No longer did you have to have a good credit record. Check. No longer did you have to have to show good standing with other outstanding loans. Check.

2009 and time to reward the slackers for…well…BEING SLACKERS! YAYYYYYYYYYY!

-And, SCREW YOU, Mr. & Mrs. Responsible citizen. SCREW YOU, Mister & MRS. HONEST TAX PAYER, Screw YOU people who have lived within your means.

Time for some reparations and spreadin’ O’ da wealth!

Fifty dolla to make you holla!

Boo Yah!

Hey! It’s a Festivus for the rest of us!

Feb 22, 2009 - 2:58 pm 50. deguello:

What stalinist hole in the ground did you emerge from? where you voted most likely to succeed through lying in your school yearbook? IF THUGS LIKE YOU TRY TO SUPPRESS THE FIRST AMENDMENT PATRIOTS WILL RESORT TO THE SECOND TO WIN IT BACK;AT THAT POINT YOU HAD BETTER EMIGRATE TO CUBA!

Feb 22, 2009 - 3:14 pm 51. AlexinCT:

David S @ 48 says:

Radio spectrum is a limited public resource, and corporations have an interest in promoting their political agenda using the medium. It is not unreasonable to seek some degree of balance on our public airwaves.

Here you are pushing equality of outcome again David. This fight is not about balance any kind of balance anyway. If there was a demand for liberal shows, then these stations would be scrambling to put them on. They make their money attracting customers that then can be advertised to (unlike NPR).The reason conservative talk radio is so successful is because conservatives have been forced to this medium as the left’s message is dominant practically everywhere else. And that is obvious because these other mediums have completely given up any attempt to appear objective and unbiased, basically parroting the left’s talking points, while always accusing any conservatives they allow on of bad motives, these days.

Democrats are not asking for any kind of fairness. And anyone that champions this as being about fairness is nothing but a liar. If this was about fairness, wouldn’t it behoove them to mandate conservative programming in these other mediums saturated with the DNC propaganda, too? But no, the only place democrats see an imbalance and unfairness happens to be the one medium where conservatives actually go to get past the DNC propaganda elsewhere.

In a totalitarian state nothing is as important as control of information. Leftists are pushing this “fairness doctrine”, not to bring any kind of balance, but to control what the people get. First they will demand equal hours for both view points. Then, when it becomes obvious that the lefty talk shows are just bombing, they will demand these shows get the same amount of listeners as the other side gets driving the conservative radio into oblivion. What we are seeing here is a pure and simple attempt to mask one political party taking control of their opponents’ main information outlets, under the guise of giving everyone balance. It is nothing short of indoctrination. And it is done by the people you claim champion liberty, freedom, and equality! Heh.

Feb 22, 2009 - 3:24 pm 52. T.riggs:

What if the radio stations
pre-empt this groin strike at free speech and offer the same amount of time to any who would claim right to use it for the same price the Station recieved for that preceeding
time slot.
Rush’s 3 hours following for the same amount he paid//made the company.
We HOPE the government wants to pay this amount and we will simply CHANGE to a sister station that has adjusted its timetable to feature Hannity for example. Nothing wrong (in some 1/4s) with offering the same amount of time for the same amount of money.
The CHICAGO way PAY FOR PLAY!!

GOD forgive those who sat this last one out because of
ME CAIN.

Feb 22, 2009 - 3:25 pm 53. deguello:

NOT ONE OF MY OWN RE#35 Don’t project your cowardice on others;having lived under communism,I’d rather die fighting for freedom,than live under an obama version of Cuba,and so will many other americans.BTW:I very much doubt than in the coming civil war,the military will fire on patriots,It’s leftwing slime like you they detest.YOU ARE NOT ONE OF OUR OWN;WE DON”T HAVE SYPHILLIS.IF you really read 1984, you would not be supporting talk radio censorship;another lib liar.The only America you want to build is a a third rate marxist republic, run by thugs on the backs of the productive for the benefit of an entitled welfare dependent rabble. I dare you to try and build such an America;you’ll hear the liberating sound of locked and loaded rifles throughout the USA, probably the last sound you’ll ever hear.

Feb 22, 2009 - 3:28 pm 54. Delia:

53. deguello,

Amen, brother. *tear*

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:01 pm 55. bear:

It is arrogant on Clinton’s part to claim only two points of view anyway…how inclusive do we have to be with this…and if the shows are independently run, wiil they be government owned to ensure profitability?

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:04 pm 56. Dave:

Proof positive that fascism in the 21st century is an institution of the left. This whole concept of state control of what political opinions can be and must be presented on any given medium is so clearly the opposite of the freedom that this country was founded on and made it great. Not to mention it is completely contrary to the 1st Amendment.

The backlash against the extremists that are now in control of our Government is growing and they are afraid. Hopefully the adults will be back in charge soon enough.

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:42 pm 57. Gabriel Gonzalez:

If there were any chance that the Fairness Doctrine would be applied to bring greater “balance” to the political content of views express in the mass media, the political left would be against it, since mass media, like academia, is at present clearly dominated by the political left of the baby boom generation. Greater balance in the media, if fairly implemented, would operate to increase the presence of conservative and libertarian views.

However, this is not how the left sees it. Implicit in progressive ideology is the notion that mass media organizations, and the content of what is disseminated in mass media, reflects the right wing ideology of corporations and capitalists, which is why they refer to mass media as the “corporate” media. According to this view, even (and perhaps especially) the New York Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, CNN, etc,. already reflect the agenda of capitalists and right wingers, who prevent the masses from learning the Truth as known and propounded by left wing ideologues. Government-mandated regulation of speech is therefore required to ensure a true balance of views by limiting the illegitimate influence of “corporate” media. Another central feature of left wing progressive ideology is that their voices of dissent are being repressed and that they, the left, are the brave souls speaking truth to power.

The Fairness Doctrine aims merely to level the playing field by allowing more progressive voices to be heard in mass media available to the general public. It will not be required to balance any left leaning views with right leaning counter views, since the left wing views are merely the objective opinions of the reality-based community and, by definition, are not in need of any balance. That is how it is intended that the Fairness Doctrine would be applied.

The premises behind the left’s view of mass media underlying their support of the Fairness Doctrine can be seen to be false on empirical grounds alone. The content of media is more obviously determined by the biases of journalists and the supply and demand for ideological content in media, increasingly in a global market, and sometimes in ways that cannot be easily labeled as “left” or “right”. In addition, media sources are increasingly web-based and diversified, making the Fairness Doctrine all the more moot.

The Fairness Doctrine is intended as a means of mandating “reality-based” speech content in media and must be opposed as a dangerous assault on free speech.

Feb 22, 2009 - 4:53 pm 58. Wapiti:

Rachel, I think I love you.

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:09 pm 59. fred:

Guys, let’s chill here. Posters like “one of your own” are operatives who are given the task of inserting themselves into conservative blogs to annoy, disrupt, and demoralize. They are generally young – and of limited knowledge about our Constitution and history. Never, ever get in a pissing contest with these types, because they only revel in destruction and deflection.

Committed Marxists like that will never hesitate to co-opt the language of patriots in order to cloak collectivist aims. “Equality before the law” has been transmogrified into “equality of outcome.” Yes, “one of your own” I too am a product of 12 years of Catholic education, 3 years in the Army (1973-76), after my university education three years as a Jesuit seminarian and grad student (M.A. Philosophy, Loyola of Chicago), and then an M.B.A. from Boston College after I left the Society. Into the bargain, I was a Marxist from 1977-87.

Very funny how you attempt to twist 1984 into a critique of capitalism and conservative, traditional America. We didn’t read the same book. But I know how the followers of Antonio Gramsci have infiltrated education and media in this country. I was a part of that movement, albeit only a minor academic part of it. I was a Democrat most of my life and changed parties in 2002.

As a veteran and as a man who knows many military veterans and officers currently serving, you truly do not know their minds if you think most of them would go against their own people and the Constitution. Some surely would, no doubt. But I think most would come over to our side, because they know what’s up. They aren’t dumb. However, that’s hypothetical. The reality is that all political options must be exhausted or we are forced into civil war before this fratricide were to occur. I hope it doesn’t come to that. But if it does, you best be ready and know how to shoot. Cause we sure know how.

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:15 pm 60. David S:

@51. AlexinCT:
David S @ 48 says:

Radio spectrum is a limited public resource, and corporations have an interest in promoting their political agenda using the medium. It is not unreasonable to seek some degree of balance on our public airwaves.

Here you are pushing equality of outcome again David. This fight is not about balance any kind of balance anyway. If there was a demand for liberal shows, then these stations would be scrambling to put them on.

Not true. There is a demand for liberal shows, but not from the same audience that tunes in for hard right talk from Rush. The problem is that there are a limited number of available licenses, and they are mostly serving the right-wing crowd at the moment.

The reason conservative talk radio is so successful is because conservatives have been forced to this medium as the left’s message is dominant practically everywhere else.

The left’s message is hardly dominant anywhere. Television is dominated by corporate interests, as are our newspapers. The only place the left can really share its message is online – in all other media, the right is the dominant force.

Democrats are not asking for any kind of fairness. And anyone that champions this as being about fairness is nothing but a liar. If this was about fairness, wouldn’t it behoove them to mandate conservative programming in these other mediums saturated with the DNC propaganda, too?

TV is hardly a bastion for the left. Right wing politics get more airtime, even though the politics of the nation have shifted notably to the left. You would be hard-pressed to find a single leftist network that is eschewing balance, yet you claim the whole industry is biased. That’s laughable, but I agree – if there is a fairness doctrine, it should apply to all media that use the public airwaves.

In a totalitarian state nothing is as important as control of information.

That’s why allowing the right to completely saturate the radio airwaves is intolerable. Democracy demands an open exchange of ideas – and this must be protected from encroachment by any party, particularly when our public airwaves are the medium. The fairness doctrine simply makes it possible for the people to prevent such an abuse. Broadcasters have a responsibility to the people of our nation, who provide them the spectrum for their transmitters.

It’s not hard to be fair – but it does make it harder to push an agenda, and prevents either party from dominating the public discourse. The public has an interest in the flow of information that is being thwarted by corporate interests – the public interest always trumps, as it should.

Peace.

DS

Feb 22, 2009 - 5:28 pm 61. Rachel Peepers:

Dalia,

Don’t forget. Everything you say goes double for me.

Rachel

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:05 pm 62. Publius:

Hey “one of your own.” Perhaps you may not be aware of the newest Google technology that makes it possible to back-track internet use to a physical address. Maybe they aren’t the only ones that have that ability. Maybe there are those of us who are True Patriots have been working on just such capabilities ,so that when the time comes, we can send some of our folks over to pay you a visit. Now why don’t you just take your sorry little tail back on over to Daily Kos, and chat with your comrads there. It probably would be in your own best interests in the long run. Get it?

Feb 22, 2009 - 6:50 pm 63. HLH:

Where is David S. coming from? Radio is a capitalistic enterprise, the years since the end of the fairness doctrine (1987) have proven so. Hawkins is right on this, and he’s also correct in asserting that the liberals push rules for us which they will not abide for themselves.

Feb 22, 2009 - 7:08 pm 64. Bilgeman:

#42 NOT one of your own:

“#39 Bilgeman . . . writes, “That’s one of the ways it was done in the War for Southern Independence.”

How’d that turn out? Next?”

A bloodbath, and one that was enabled by the flippant remarks of supremely over-confident buffoons like yourself.

You think that “you’ve got the guns”?

You’ve got NOTHING.

One can have all the guns in the world, but without the will to use them, they do you no good at all.

And you’ve not got the will. Your own words indict you…you wrote of the National Guard as though it is your personal agent, there to do violence on your personal behalf.

This may be news to you, but those Guardsmen get a vote in whom they choose to shoot. And they might decide that they’re a lot MORE like the people that you want shot than they are like you…

If you want it done right, ace, do it yourself.

We, the only global hyperpower, have spent 6 long years in dealing with an insurrection in Iraq that consists of, at most…on a payday, 100,000 participants.

Imagine what kind of war it would be with at least a half-million American insurgents, fighting on their own ground. And without a formal command structure to attack.

Your mind simply isn’t big enough to comprehend the enormity of what you so cavalierly dismiss.

Feb 22, 2009 - 7:45 pm 65. fred:

Slowly the nation is coming to realize that the election results of 2006 and 2008 are going to be a real disaster for the nation. People have been in a fog of the steady drumbeat of Bush hatred for eight years and they were primed by the MSM to vote the way they did. Now they are starting to realize that they were deceived, and Rush Limbaugh and all the others are pointing out the facts of the Porkulus Bill and other policy changes. This is beginning to worry the Democrats, as they know the truth of things but are too afraid to admit that they know their agenda will not be as popular as they once thought it would be.

Shutting down the only place where conservatives have a voice will backfire on the Democrats. One more example of how over reach is going to piss people off. At this point I think they will keep on pushing the envelope hard Left. But in the end, it will blow up in their faces. We will still find venues and ways to get the word out.

Let us not forget that we are the insurgency. We need to strap on the armor and stay in the fight.

Feb 22, 2009 - 10:13 pm 66. Joe the Bumbler:

David S,

Take your “Peace” and shove it.

Feb 22, 2009 - 11:22 pm 67. David S:

@64. Bilgeman:

Imagine what kind of war it would be with at least a half-million American insurgents, fighting on their own ground. And without a formal command structure to attack.

I envision a traitorous ditto-head army being picked off like the fleas they are. Assuming that some portion of armed law enforcement officers defect, it should still be no contest once the citizenry steps in.

You might want to keep your white flag handy.

Peace.

DS

Feb 23, 2009 - 12:56 am 68. one of your own:

#64 Bilgeman . . . bring it on you grizzled old has been. Life isn’t a rerun of Walker Texas Ranger. You’re all smoke – too old to survive the energy and commitment of a world that has passed you by. Honestly, you’re the perfect example that age doesn’t guarantee wisdom. Too often, it guarantees a gnawing and desperate regret of a life misspent. Wasted. Don’t be bitter about people who have learned and embraced more than you were able to do in your seven decades too swiftly gone. Not everyone has the capacity to see beyond the TV Guide. Go with what you know . . . PBR and a pack of Camels. Leave the rest to people who have higher IQs and lower demands on the American myth.

As for you. Publius, don’t threaten me you candy-ass half-a-man MfFer. I’d like nothing better than for you to show up at my door, where I could introduce you to some of my homeys. You know, the kind of guys that when you see them you lock your doors and then ask your girlfriend about her day because you don’t want her thinking about us. So, go get your get-er done guys and come on over. We’ll be happy to reveal your cowardly punch-the-clock life of sad and desperate victimhood. Or better yet, just offer your address. You won’t have to wait to come to my place. I’ll come straight over to yours. How about that? Didn’t think so. Typical Internet tough guy.

Feb 23, 2009 - 12:59 am 69. Rachel Peepers:

In my experience, I’ve noticed that Democrats are often on the obese side. Which, in theory, I’ve always found beneficial. Because you don’t have to lead them as much.

Feb 23, 2009 - 1:12 am 70. Bilgeman:

#68 Not OOYO:
” . . . bring it on you grizzled old has been.”

Hey, careful with that testosterone, sonny, wouldn’t want you to overdose.

If you recall, YOU were the clown talking about the National Guard pointing their rifles at someone.

Your over-reaction here tells me that you never, ever, considered that you might NOT have a force willing to do your bidding after all.

And when you’re told that you’ll probably have to do your own dirty work, you give a perfect example of a passive-aggressive coward on a testosterone high.

“Honestly, you’re the perfect example that age doesn’t guarantee wisdom”

Wisdom, huh? Do you hold yorself to be WISE, little man?

That’s a red-herring.
The discussion at hand was about the moral courage to do your own dirty work, since you can’t count on others to do it for you.

Feb 23, 2009 - 3:40 am 71. Bilgeman:

#68 NOT OOYO:

“I’d like nothing better than for you to show up at my door, where I could introduce you to some of my homeys.” -to Publius

Note here again, how OOYO isn’t acting on his own behalf, but expects that his “homeys” are going to do whatever it is thst he’d like done to Publius.

“You know, the kind of guys that when you see them you lock your doors and then ask your girlfriend about her day because you don’t want her thinking about us.”

Now he’s pumping up his “homeys” as if he basks in their “reflected manliness” or something.

Interesting little peek there about a hypothetical girlfriend…

…had someone mentioned romantic partners in this conversation before OOYO decided to toss that in?

I detect a whiff of pain and hurt at some personal loss behind that remark.

Maybe OOYO just needs a “group-hug” from his “homeys”.

“We’ll be happy to reveal your cowardly punch-the-clock life of sad and desperate victimhood. ”

There it is again…”We’ll”…

But then something peculiar occurs:

“Or better yet, just offer your address. You won’t have to wait to come to my place. I’ll come straight over to yours. How about that? Didn’t think so. ”

What happened to all the plural pronouns?

I thought he had “people” for that sort of thing. I guess he’s maybe coming around to the realization that he really IS all alone.

” Typical Internet tough guy.”

Ah-yup.
What a small and scared little man he is.

Feb 23, 2009 - 5:10 am 72. David S:

@65. fred:

Let us not forget that we are the insurgency. We need to strap on the armor and stay in the fight.

Sounds like terrorism to me.

Peace.

DS

Feb 23, 2009 - 7:00 am 73. Peter the Bubblehead:

35. one of your own wrote:
That’s right, we got the guns now. You want ‘em? Come and take ‘em.

Peter points out: The oath every member of the military takes is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United states from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC. (Emphasis mine.)

What, ooyo, makes you think the military would not be the first to defend free speech instead of fighting against the citizens of this (once) great nation?

And I, btw, still abide by my oath, even though I have been out of active service for several years, and I know of many others who post on this site who feel the same as I do.

Feb 23, 2009 - 7:25 am 74. Peter the Bubblehead:

48. David S wrote:
Most left-wing radio provides a balanced perspective, because leftists are willing to debate their opponents directly.

Peter writes: THAT is the biggest load of BS I have read in a LONG time!

When was the last time ANYONE here saw a liberal-sided program that invited a conservative commentator and allowed him/her to freely express his opinion?

When was the last time a liberal actually showed up on a conservative show when invited and conducted in civilized debate instead of trying to out-shout his/her host?

Never!

Feb 23, 2009 - 7:30 am 75. ACJ:

The only way that I can listen to Air America is on XM radio. Air America is the opposite of conservative radio. I happen to get NPR, which is mild liberal. All of the local radio stations are religion and conservative voices. You are what you eat and you are what you listen too. And I also think that if you are going to be fat dumb and eat burgers you won’t eat sushi.

Feb 23, 2009 - 7:43 am 76. Peter the Bubblehead:

57. Gabriel Gonzalez wrote:
If there were any chance that the Fairness Doctrine would be applied to bring greater “balance” to the political content of views express in the mass media, the political left would be against it, since mass media, like academia, is at present clearly dominated by the political left of the baby boom generation.

Peter asks: Has anyone else here realized the irony of the fact that it is the offspring of the ‘Greatest Generation,’ the ones that put their lives on hold and sacrificed EVERYTHING to save this world from Fascism and worse, that became the do-nothing, me-first, nothing is worth war hippie generation that now holds sway over academia, media and the government?

Feb 23, 2009 - 7:47 am 77. Bilgeman:

#67 David S:
“I envision a traitorous ditto-head army being picked off like the fleas they are.”

The Union Army thought the exact same way during their parade in DC on their way out to a place called Manassas…

“Assuming that some portion of armed law enforcement officers defect”

Just out of curiousity, what portion of the Po-leece do you think might defect, and of those that don’t, where are their families going to live?

I ask because I live not far from a city that changed hands 72 times during the War of Secession.

Civil wars are notably…”uncivil”.

“it should still be no contest once the citizenry steps in.”

Hate to break this to you, but there are over 60 million gun owners in the United States.
So if even one half of one percent decide to join the Resistance, that’s 300,000 insurgents.

Now, of the Armed Forces that remain as servants of the Fed, you can write off the Air Force and the Navy, since strategic bombing and naval action don’t account for much against an insurgency.
(And there goes a LOT of “Force Multipliers”)

So what you’ve really got is the portion of those forces that would be ready to shoot other Americans on the orders of a career politician in DC.

That rump of the ground combat forces would be further hampered by the US’s enormous “logistical tail”, which is something like 10 or 15:1 , (as in 10 support troops to every actual combat arms “grunt”). These support troops are the Achilles’ Heel and the favorite target of insurgents and guerrillas.

And they have to be fed,paid, hospitalized and/or buried.
Just like wounded and dead grunts, tankers and artillerists.

The numbers don’t really look all that good, frankly.

I suppose you could augment them by drafting people, but that poses a whole ‘nuther set of headaches.

What would likely happen is what nearly happened last time around.
War fatigue on the part of those loyal to the Feds, and a new President and Congress with new policies that would moot the issues in question.

IOTW, your side would get sold out.

Which, save for the Emancipation, was the price the USA paid for keeping the Southern States in the Union without continuing to militarily occupy them.

This is why the Jim Crow Era lasted from the end of “Reconstruction” to 1965, and the reverberations continue politically to this day.

To keep what “peace” it might have fashioned, the Feds agreed to keep their hands off the States’ internal affairs.

After WW2, the Feds were in a position, politically, economically and militarily, to revise the agreement that was forged between Appomatox and the end of “Reconstruction”, and did so. In fact, they needed to, since the external enemy, the Commies, were VERY KEEN on exploiting American Civil Rights issues for their own ends.

That’s why Brown v. Topeka was handed down in an ear where the likes of Markos Moulitsas and Medea Benjamin would have lived in fear of a subpoena to come and spill their guts to the HUAC or McCarthy’s Internal Security Committee.

But those were a fleeting few moments of Federal hegemony, and coupled with the real abuses that Federalism has made possible, I foresee yet another round of revisions.

You HAVE been paying attention to the various resolutions making the rounds in the stae legislatures about the 9th and 10th Amendments, right?

Feb 23, 2009 - 7:51 am 78. Svend:

I would think that if the ‘Fairness Doctrine’ is implemented under a new contrived name and set of rules, that a march on Washington and the FCC would make the ‘Million Man March’ look like a meeting of the local PTA. I have never marched for anything, but this power grab by the Neo-socialist wing of the Democrat party will have me on the road in a flash.

#45 Eric,

Obama will never soil his hands with the ‘Fairness Doctrine”. He’ll do it Chicago style with his low level lackies and hit men. Still I do agree that some of this will rub off on him, but it is probably worth the gamble in his mind. If it starts to go south, he can step in as the great teleprompter reader and call no fair and once again snatch the trophy out of the hands of defeat.

Can’t remember who said it, but this idea of Soros hating the U.S. and wanting it’s destruction is very interesting (He has managed to create a rather large group of people who agree with him here and elsewhere around the world). I am not into conspiracy theory, but this sounds like something worth exploring. Any links on this from anyone level headed?

#60 David S.
What media planet are you from. All of NPR, Olberman, Curic, Matthews, MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, Campbell Brown, Soledad, the list is endless. Not to mention, Slate, Solon, Moveon, the list is endless with the names of so-called ‘news reporters’ and media who are totally in the bag for the left and sadly not just the moderate left, but the wingnut far left who thinks being the new France is a real good idea. I don’t think so and I do like France, I just think their government stinks.

Which brings me to my last point. A liberal friend of mine recently said “The E.U. type of socialism isn’t so bad, you have to admit that?” I retorted “Well to an extent if you like high unemployment, low personal incentive, bankrupt welfare governments, a Germany cowering before the Russian bear, because they are defenseless, citizens dependent for their day to day needs, an elite corp of bureaucrats at the top dictating how it all should work and their power getting into fewer and fewer hands, then to that extent it is OK”. BUT I said “You do know that Marx said that Socialism is the mid-point between Capitalism and Marxism.” My liberal friend responded “Oh dear un-god you aren’t trying to tell me that the E.U. is Marxist are you?” I said “No I’m not, but they aren’t done yet.”

Thanks.

Feb 23, 2009 - 8:19 am 79. milton rosenberg:

They can wipe conservative talk off the AM dial without reinstitutig the “Fairness Doctrine.” Community group surveillance of radio stations PLUS the reduction of the licensing period from eight years to a mere two is all that will be needed. Appeal to the Supreme Court is likely to be of no avail once Cass Sunstein or someone of similar disposition is appointed to the court.

The intimidation strategy required to change talk radio has as its target not the broadcasters but, of course, the managers of local stations–or of whole networks–who are likely to yield at the mere hint of license revocation.

Milt Rosenberg
WGN Radio, Chicago

Feb 23, 2009 - 8:39 am 80. Delia:

Good lordy. Just ignore the Sh*t stirrer. I firmly believe you-know-who is a fat, acne ridden 28 year old WHITE boy dwelling in his mom’s basement. Don’t engage. Not worth the carpal tunnel.

Feb 23, 2009 - 9:32 am 81. deguello:

David S (S STANDS FOR STALINIST)You know what terrorism really is David?It’s a pack of democrat thugs,and their lickspittles(you) suppressing free speech through governmant repression,and the use of Brown shirts like ACORN. Your post implies that few in the militarty will defend totalitarianism,and you state that the “citizenry” will somehow defeat conservative freedom fighters. A few correctives to your fantasy:The average Obama voter wouldn’t know the muzzle of a rifle from the stock,couldn’t read a rifle manual,and would be too drugged out, drunk, or too busy listening to rap,hugging a tree, or engaged in pedophilia,or in selling bad mortgages, to train. In short: they are not citizens,but a virulent lumpen rabble fit only to serve as reactive targets. Fleas indded! Keep dreaming you stalinist manure pile!

Feb 23, 2009 - 10:33 am 82. Rachel Peepers:

Wapiti,

Which means you never have to say you’re sorry.

Love,
Rachel

Feb 23, 2009 - 10:48 am 83. one of your own:

Bilgmean . . . i think you need to start your own country. How about we tear off a little chunk of Nova Scotia for you and your platoon of glory-dayers. You can appoint Peter the Bubblehead Secretary of the Navy – he’ll be responsible for handing out rain slickers to the crossing guards and gassing up the Boston Whaler. Publius can be your Director of Secret Spying Stuff – “Wood Chuck to Grey Squirrel . . . Wood Chuck to Grey Squirrel”. AlexinCT can be Dean of the Liberty University and Bingo Grange – first order of business, teach everybody how to spell BINGO. Moongoose will be the town crazy, wandering the back alleys with a dollar bill taped to his forehead. Cybergeezer, you can be Finance Director, responsible for investing all the money the town earns from “Whittling Days.” And of course, Delia and Rachel and Sara for America can go along as breeders . . . at least when they’re not busy at the diner preparing the specialty . . . Government CheeseSteaks.

Quite a vision . . . all of you up there, isolated, alone, in a world made up of people only like you. No contrasting opinions. No nagging compromises. None of “them” to accommodate. Just an orgy of self-righteous bigotry. In other words, a little piece of Heaven. Oh, almost forgot, you’re gonna need a preacher, a man of GAWD to look after your souls. Tell you what, I’ll swing by once a month or so with some saltines and a bottle of Night Train. That oughta keep things proper. No, no, no need to thank me. I consider it an honor. Of course statistics show that one of you is gay, so you’ll need to deal with that first thing at the town hall meeting, right after the donuts.

Feb 23, 2009 - 10:51 am 84. Will:

The first thing liberal thinkers will do is shut us up,then disarm us.What will be left to do in order to run every aspect of our lives? WAKE UP AMERICA!

Feb 23, 2009 - 11:26 am 85. Pat J:

The Fairness Doctrine will never be reinstated. It cannot exist in these times. The better idea is to roll back ownership rules, especially cross ownership. Break up some of these media giants. More diversity of ownership will lead to more diversity of programming.

Feb 23, 2009 - 2:15 pm 86. deguello:

OOYO:RE#83 And you can be in charge of testing new VD medications;they might cure you;then again they might not,and you’d have to settle for national village idiot(in exchange for your welfare check,of course: a role for which you seem eminently qualified.

Feb 23, 2009 - 2:51 pm 87. deguello:

Will:They can only do this if we let them.

Feb 23, 2009 - 2:52 pm 88. Dr. T:

Unfortunately they can do a lot in spite of us letting them or not. The fairness doctrine like so many other constitutional rights are being conveniently disregarded right now. The democrats and the President have, for instance, already snuck legislation into the Stimulus Bill designed to pave the way for Nationalized Healthcare without even allowing a fair discussion of whether or not that is in the best interest of the country or its people.

The idea of a fairness Doctrine is the euphemism for the suppression of the press. Even if they claimed they would allow the conservatives time on stations that have “liberal” talk shows or programs, the definition would change or the enforcement would not necessarily be even. I fear that it will require a march of many millions on Washington to try and correct the abuses that our current democratic party majority are exerting on the people of the United States. In fact, it may alredy be too late.

Feb 23, 2009 - 3:54 pm 89. Bilgeman:

#83 NOT ooyo:

“Bilgmean . . . i think you need to start your own country. How about we tear off a little chunk of Nova Scotia for you and your platoon of glory-dayers.”

There’s that “we” of yours again…are you French yes-man, or is that a common practice among YOUR platoon of glory-holers, to refer to your singular selves in the plural?

“You can appoint…”

Sigh…just like a Leftist, ain’t he?

He “gives” me my own country, and expects that he’ll get to staff it for me too.

I’ll play your little game, chummie. Just for a moment.

I’ll accept all the worthies you nominated, but you will NOT be the travelling itinerant preacher, (since you seem to think that faith is some kind of stand-up comedy routine fodder).

No…in the Enlightened Socialist Republic of Bilgeman, YOU will get to play the role of Lumpenproletaxpayeriat…

That’s right, I’m sentencing you to a fate WORSE than death.

YOU, my lad, will man the only customer service window at the only Division of Motor Vehicles/ Motor Vehicle Administration in the entire ESRofB.

Uh-oh…here come them there budget cuts again!

Feb 23, 2009 - 4:05 pm 90. one of your own:

#86 deguello . . . Good one! How DO you do it? Just when I think I’ve taken you folks to the wood shed, you come back and put me in my place. Ouch! Sorry . . . wow . . . I won’t try that again.

Feb 23, 2009 - 4:06 pm 91. one of your own:

#88 Bilgeman . . . Please, have mercy! I took enough of a beating from deguello. But before I crawl back into my liberal vacation home, I hope you’ll indulge me with a little perspective.

What is that “glory-holer” thing you mention? I said glory-dayers. I’m not sure what you’re referring to. You seem to have some experience with this . . . issue. Is it French?

Delia? Rachel? Sara? Anybody?

Feb 23, 2009 - 4:19 pm 92. fred:

“Sounds like terrorism to me.

Peace.

DS” posted by “David S” at #72

That was a cheap shot. Furthermore, you flunk English lit for not recognizing the non-literal dimensions of my meaning.

So far I have not heard any substantive defense of any variant of the euphemism called “Fairness” Doctrine. It violates the 1st Amendment. The government may claim ownership of the airwaves, but who gave it ownership of the businesses that buy that infrastructure and the programs and opinions which take place within it? This is heavy handedness. It’s thuggish!

We have never called for silencing the venues and domination of the collectivists in the mainstream media. We comment on it, gripe about it, and point out where it is all traceable to, but we never demand that they be shut down. We only demand measures be taken when classified material is leaked and the act is an assault on the national security needs of the nation.

There’s a reason why I broke with socialism back in ‘87. At some point the stack in one’s mental inbox of “Cognitive dissonance” becomes so obstreperously heavy that you cannot move forward intellectually and emotionally until you square yourself with reality. Only the collectivists speak of shutting people up, seizing their weapons, confiscating their property, and redistributing their wealth.

These kids think they are going to use the military to slam their boots in our faces? Utterly clueless…

Feb 23, 2009 - 6:09 pm 93. Kevin MacLean:

#79 Dear Milt,

President Obama’s public comments against Rush Limbaugh were the first shots to reach my ears. I’m awake now! Will you be addressing this in your WGN Extension 720 program? I am very interested in understanding this better and I’m sure many in this audience would listen.

KM

Feb 23, 2009 - 8:15 pm 94. Marc Malone:

When that Million-Man march happens, make sure to go armed. Obey all the laws along the way. Lock it up in your trunk, etc. Pull them out when you get to… I’m thinking VA.

Feb 24, 2009 - 1:54 am 95. one of your own:

94. Malone . .. Here’s a better idea. Maybe you could just drill a hole in the trunk lid, crawl in there, and shoot people from inside the trunk. That sounds more like your speed. Hey, now that I think about it, “Malone” is pretty close to “Malvo”. Ah, the genetics of courage – stunning to witness.

Feb 24, 2009 - 6:28 am 96. deguello:

FRED: your noble attempts to educate David S are unfortunately, a waste of your time.The “S” in his name stands for Stalinist,albeit a disingenous one,trying to pass himself off as interested in dialogue,while secretly trying to shut it down.

Feb 24, 2009 - 6:52 am 97. Michael:

The voices calling for the end of free speech are in full voice now. They should realize that they may not be in power forever. Their turn may come if they flub their subversion of the Constitution. After all many of us have sworn to support and defend the Constitution form all enemies, foriegn and DOMESTIC.

Feb 24, 2009 - 6:57 am 98. one of your own:

#97 Michael . . . Maybe Cheney shouldn’t have expanded all those presidential powers. But they DIDN’T “realize that they may not be in power forever.”

Feb 24, 2009 - 7:16 am 99. America Forever:

Rachael You are a peach!!! If I was only single. YOu think correctly. Something I dont see very often from young college people. A.M. Mallet, I have one thing to say to you. When you lock and load look to your immediately to you left. I will be there loaded for bear.

Feb 24, 2009 - 8:18 am 100. newton:

It’s obvious to me here that civil war is coming.

It won’t be North vs. South, though. It will be more like urban warfare.

“Fairness Doctrine” is anything but. It’s just part of Political Correctness, which is actually the Dictatorship of Thought. Those who resist it will eventually be rounded up and left to rot in some damp jail or far-away “re-education camp.” Unfortunately, that is the future of this country.

Heaven help us.

I better get my passport issued. Soon.

Feb 24, 2009 - 10:00 am 101. David S:

@92. fred:

That was a cheap shot. Furthermore, you flunk English lit for not recognizing the non-literal dimensions of my meaning.

I recognized your meaning – just pointing out the foolishness of calling the GOP insurgents after declaring a “war on terror”. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot…

So far I have not heard any substantive defense of any variant of the euphemism called “Fairness” Doctrine.

Take a look at my comment @#48 for starters.

We have never called for silencing the venues and domination of the collectivists in the mainstream media.

The domination you allude to exists only in your imagination. Moneyed private interests own the MSM.

There’s a reason why I broke with socialism back in ‘87. At some point the stack in one’s mental inbox of “Cognitive dissonance” becomes so obstreperously heavy that you cannot move forward intellectually and emotionally until you square yourself with reality. Only the collectivists speak of shutting people up, seizing their weapons, confiscating their property, and redistributing their wealth.

Really? I think the people of Iraq might disagree…

These kids think they are going to use the military to slam their boots in our faces? Utterly clueless…

You can avoid the boot to the head by not attacking your fellow citizens.

Peace.

DS

Feb 24, 2009 - 10:08 am 102. Steve P.:

It’s really funny that every week a new “BEWARE THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE!!!” article appears on this site every week to freak out you moonbats. I don’t know what’s funnier: that everyone here is getting so riled up over a totally fabricated issue, or that few of nayone here really has an understanding of what the Fairness Doctrine is, and why Obama continues ot be opposed to it.

And who fabricated this story? Rush Limbaugh, of course, the same way he fabricates a million other stories that he knows will fire up his listeners and get himself some ratings. And Limbaugh is especially hysterical, having grown to such an unbirdled level of vanity that he truly believes that he is so important as an opposition “leader” for the right that he, personally, would be targeted by the administration. As if the Democratic administration, fully engaged in the cleanup of the big Republican crapfest that was the last 8 years, has free time to engage in a war against some fat, deluded, pill-popping idiot. Get real.

Feb 24, 2009 - 10:14 am 103. Peter the Bubblehead:

Hey, Steve P, maybe you need to keep up with current events;

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) is the latest Democrat to publicly state support for re-imposing the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ as Politico’s Michael Calderone reports:

Well today, Sen. Tom Harkin appeared on Press’s show and came out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine.

BILL PRESS: And, thanks for your leadership, thanks for your good work, it’s great to have you there Senator. And, great to have you on the show. Appreciate it.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Well, anytime – just let me know Bill. I love being with you, and thanks again for all you do to get the truth and the facts out there. By the way, I read your Op-Ed in the Washington Post the other day. I ripped it out, I took it into my office and said ‘there you go, we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.’

BILL PRESS: Alright, well good for you. You know, we gotta work on that, because they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another. All we want is, you know, some balance on the airwaves, that’s all. You know, we’re not going to take any of the conservative voices off the airwaves, but just make sure that there are a few progressives and liberals out there, right?

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Exactly, and that’s why we need the fair — that’s why we need the Fairness Doctrine back.

BILL PRESS: We’ll work on that together. Hey, thanks, Senator! Always good to talk to you.

SENATOR TOM HARKIN (D-IA): Thanks Bill, see you, bye.

Calderone notes in the same post, Senator Debbie Stabenow has backed off her calls for Congressional hearings on bringing the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’ back.

Feb 24, 2009 - 10:25 am 104. Peter the Bubblehead:

BTW, that interview was 11 February 2009.

Feb 24, 2009 - 10:25 am 105. Pat J:

Fairness Doctrine. Yeesh! It just gives you people something else to hate when you’ve got nothing better to do. The Fairness Doctrine had its day. It worked fine when there was a concern that the then three major TV networks might want to set some sort of biased public agenda. The FD also never applied toward radio personalities other than the “Red Lion” case. So Limpballs and company are safe to keep entertaining and you’re more than welcome to lick it up.

@ 104. Peter the Bubblehead:

“As the President stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” a White House spokesman said Feb. 18.

Apparently Bobblehead, you’re not keeping up with current events either.

Feb 24, 2009 - 12:47 pm 106. Cybergeezer:

You pathetic liberals hate it here so much and you hate us conservatives so much, why don’t you go to some place more to your liking? There are too many places to list here for you to go. And the cost of living is cheaper.
You can cry, scream, and write whatever you want, but the Anglo-Saxon ethic shall overcome. We know you do not want to mature and complement our society. You would feel so much better in a world of parasites of a like kind.

Feb 24, 2009 - 12:52 pm 107. Paul -Indiana:

re #41. Not just gun sales, but we produced a very large number of applications for ‘concealed carry’. In some counties in central Indiana the police processed 100 applications in a single day. I am still waiting for mine to arrive after 8 weeks.

Feb 24, 2009 - 1:01 pm 108. Marc Malone:

#95 one of your own – Malone is a traditional Irish name. It is not close to Malvo. Actually, it was my wife’s name. I took it, because I was tired of people not being able to spell or pronounce my birth name. I am actually 1/4 Apache and 1/4 Norwegian. I am directly descended from Geronimo and from some Nowegian kinglet. It doesn’t mean much, unless you believe in genetics as you attest. Then it means I’ll take your head and take your scalp. Gotta love your assumptions.

To the moderators – This guy is getting out of hand with all his personal attacks. Everything ends up off-topic. How about moderating his comments a bit more, please? Thank you.

Feb 24, 2009 - 1:22 pm 109. Peter the Bubblehead:

105. Pat J wrote:
Apparently Bobblehead, you’re not keeping up with current events either.

Peter suggests: Pat J should READ the posts before he makes stupid comments about them.

Steve P claimed the only people saying anything about an imposition of a new fairness doctrine were conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. I just proved him wrong (like I am doing to you here) by showing him that a vast majority of Dumbocrats are the ones pushing for it.

Feb 24, 2009 - 1:35 pm 110. fred:

David S,

For your snarky insults and cheap shots in @101, here’s my reply: take your “Peace” and shove it on a sharp, exrement stained punji stick up your anus. You had better hope that the nation never goes down the road of fratricide, because it’s people like me that won’t hesitate to give you the long dirt nap you deserve.

Stop closing your posts with “Peace.” Because it’s phony, sarcastic, and insulting.

Feb 24, 2009 - 1:58 pm 111. fred:

Moderator,

This thread has been completely contaminated by these insolent, young Leftist rascals who come on over here to PJM, hijack threads, cause mayhem, sidetrack the discussions, and in general just make trouble. We could never get away with those tactics if we tried to do the same over at Kos, DU, HuffPost, and Moveon. Our posts would be removed and we would be banned. I know this for a fact because I know a couple of guys who are conservative like me and they have had their posts removed and their participation banned – all for a lot less than what we have to put up with here.

The only way things are going to improve is if we ban trolls like “Dave S” and “one of your own.” Or, we all agree to ignore them and not respond to the crap they dish out here. This is only the second time on PJM I’ve lost my temper like this and had to respond as I did in my above post. If those two guys were sons of mine (well, they would never be because I’ve raised my two girls to be better people)they would never get away with the kind of hauteur they unleash on people.

I feel sorry for my kids and their children. This country is going in the crapper precisely because our education system is turning out people like those two malfeasants.

Feb 24, 2009 - 2:08 pm 112. Peter the Bubblehead:

111. fred wrote:
The only way things are going to improve is if we ban trolls like “Dave S” and “one of your own.” Or, we all agree to ignore them and not respond to the crap they dish out here.

Peter writes: That is what I do most of the time, fred. Once I realize the general attitude of some of the trolls on this site I usually just go right over their posts without a glance.

The only problem is when they change their posting name and you have to learn all over again that this is the same person you learned to ignore on another thread.

Feb 24, 2009 - 5:49 pm 113. one of your own:

Well, well, well . . . I’ve heard Obama, the future of America. And I’ve heard Jindal, the future of the Republican party. I need say nothing more.

On behalf of mister man, hot and right, high as a kite, and our fearless leader Sambo Hux, I leave you to yourselves.

Feb 24, 2009 - 7:53 pm 114. Kirly:

As of March 6, 2009, the FCC will once again have the authority to enforce the socalled Fairness doctrine if it so chooses. The amendment to continue to disallow the FCC from doing so was defeated in committee. That’s it. Expect rules on “localism”. It won’t matter. The Rush Limbaughs will simply “broadcast” over the internet for a small fee / year. I’ll pay it.

Feb 24, 2009 - 8:49 pm 115. deguello:

#102:Steve P: Speaking of fabrications, who fabricated you? A pair of maggotty,syphilitic SDS stalinists, stoned out of their minds, during Woodstck?

Feb 25, 2009 - 8:08 am 116. Cybergeezer:

83. one of your own:
“I feel pretty, oh so pretty, oh so pretty, and witty, and gay; A committee should be ordered to honor me”.

Feb 25, 2009 - 9:16 am 117. Pat J:

109. Peter the Butthead:
—————————
Oh. So you must be a expert on media law? Either that or a water carrier for Rush. Maybe you should start calling yourself “Peter the Dittohead.”

I like Tom Harkin. I’m sure he favors the Fairness Doctrine not just because there are too many conservative voices on talk radio, but because some of these “voices” tend to lie, incite and border on hate speech. That, and they seem to be water carriers for the Republicans.

As a person with several years in the media industry, I appreciate the spirit of the Fairness Doctrine. But it will not work in today’s consolidated media environment. A more sensible plan is to roll back ownership rules. Allow more diversity of ownership and, if possible, more localized content. Either that, or open the door to more Low Power FM stations.

Feb 25, 2009 - 9:30 am 118. Pat J:

111. fred:
———–
Now Fred. I’d like to think the moderators of this blog site believe in the First Amendment. Don’t you?

Peace

Feb 25, 2009 - 9:33 am 119. David S:

@92. fred:

you flunk English lit for not recognizing the non-literal dimensions of my meaning.
…
Only the collectivists speak of shutting people up…

Really? Then why did you ask the moderators to block posts from leftists? Are you a collectivist?

110. fred:

…here’s my reply: take your “Peace” and shove it on a sharp, exrement stained punji stick up your anus. You had better hope that the nation never goes down the road of fratricide, because it’s people like me that won’t hesitate to give you the long dirt nap you deserve.

Stop closing your posts with “Peace.” Because it’s phony, sarcastic, and insulting.

You reply with this, and then have the gall to say that I am contaminating the thread?

111. fred:

This thread has been completely contaminated by these insolent, young Leftist rascals who come on over here to PJM, hijack threads, cause mayhem, sidetrack the discussions, and in general just make trouble.
…
The only way things are going to improve is if we ban trolls like “Dave S” and “one of your own.” Or, we all agree to ignore them and not respond to the crap they dish out here.

I would humbly suggest that you should learn to ignore me, or you should respond in a reasonable and thoughtful manner. Take a deep breath and imagine that I am an actual human being before you press “submit”.

Peace.

DS

Feb 28, 2009 - 8:50 am 120. deguello:

David S: If condescending BS were money,you’d be a billionaire. Excrement, Deguello

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:38 pm 121. deguello:

Pat J what media industry did you work in? Cuba’s? One doesn’t need to be an expert in communications law to read and understand the first amendment. I would consider carrying water for Rush an honor;he is a freedom fighter against stalinists like harkin, whose water you don’t seem to mind carrying. You are totalitarian human garbage .

Mar 2, 2009 - 12:43 pm 122. Pat J:

@121. deguello:
—————–
Watch out. Those damn kids are on your lawn again!

Mar 17, 2009 - 1:06 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: