Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Cry baby liberals want to destroy conservative talk radio in the name of "fairness".

Macho perfectly lays it out better then I can. Obama said he wasn't in favor of reinstating the fairness doctrine, but the devil is in the details. Obama can order the Chairman of the Federal Communications Committee to reinstate the doctrine at anytime. He knows they're would be a political price to pay if he was foolish enough to do it "on the front end". What Obama is going to do is let congress create a bill that does what the Fairness Doctrine did, but it's going to be called something completely different. For example, the bill could be called the "Equal Time Act" or something similar. I believe these deceptive trolls will try and pass a similar bill before next year's midterm election, because they don't want to chance risking a golden opportunity to silence free opposition speech.


11 Comments:

Blogger JMK said...

They don't have to legislate "equal time" as the Fairness Doctrine does, in fact THAT would come with more risk, the GOP could and certainly WOULD look to expand that "equal time" to PBS, NPR, and the mainstream televised media.

With radio they could simply require "local emphasis," claiming that local concerns are being ignored by the plethora of large, nationally syndicated radio shows.

Same with gun control...two things being discussed are bringing ALL highways under the National Parks Service which would make carrying a gun on any highway a federal felony and reuiring a $1 MILLION insurance policy for each registered gun one owns - at the present time, no insurance company will write such a policy.

10:49 AM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

jmk "With radio they could simply require "local emphasis," claiming that local concerns are being ignored by the plethora of large, nationally syndicated radio shows."

I don't see how that could fly jmk. Even if they were to go that route, it's still the federal government trying to dictate the format and content being aired. Talk radio stations can make a factual argument that

"they're is no "barrier" preventing the entry into the local radio market of a station that wants to broadcast soley "local content"."

Taking that position, I don't see how the FCC or congress could muster a valid counter argument to that jmk.

jmk "Same with gun control...two things being discussed are bringing ALL highways under the National Parks Service which would make carrying a gun on any highway a federal felony and reuiring a $1 MILLION insurance policy for each registered gun one owns - at the present time, no insurance company will write such a policy.

That sounds completely unconstitutional jmk. It's like an overreach in power. State troopers aren't under the authority of the Federal Government. So how would the National Park Service enforce their "policy"? Furthermore, the whole notion sounds like a complete violation by the federal government by not allowing a state's law enforcement agency to conduct it's business.

11:14 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sharpton is still after The Post is there ANYONE that can stop this man?

6:50 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

A soul glo overdose can do him in,lol. They say that the good die young, that explains why Sharpton is still around.

7:47 PM  
Blogger JMK said...

I agree that BOTH are overreaches Tyrone, but I've heard that both have been discussed as "back-doors" to those goals....we'll see.

11:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Conservative Brother, do you think Murdock is going to have to pay Al to get him to go away? I mean its been over a week and Al's going to the FCC today.SOMEONE needs to stand up to him. Don't u think?

7:41 AM  
Anonymous Evicopti said...

Rasmussen Poll last year found that a majority of likely voters -- 47 percent to 39 percent --supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary.

Reagan obliterated 'fairness' regulations. He was in charge, that goes with the territory.

Obama won a landslide victory in November, he says he is NOT in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine to pre-Reagan levels, and The Party of No is STILL complaining.

The people spoke. You lost. So shut up. Thank you.

1:42 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Evictopi "Rasmussen Poll last year found that a majority of likely voters -- 47 percent to 39 percent --supported a government requirement that broadcasters offer equal amounts of liberal and conservative commentary."

Silly kid, sit down for a moment. In the Rasmussen Poll, it didn't mention the break down for support of the a new fairness doctrine along party lines. I hope you were able to comprehend what I just said. Did you bother to research what was the break down in "
likely voters" among Republicans, Independents and Democrats"? Of course you didn't silly kid. You talk about "47 percent to 39" percent of "likely voters" supporting a new fairness doctrine. So are you saying that 53 to 61% of likely voters are AGAINST THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. Reread you're own numbers of support for it little one.

Evictopi "Reagan obliterated 'fairness' regulations. He was in charge, that goes with the territory."

You understand the power of a president, I'm almost impressed.

Evictopi "Obama won a landslide victory in November, he says he is NOT in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine to pre-Reagan levels, and The Party of No is STILL complaining."

Obama is a pathological liar and has proven himself to be one. Open you're eyes to the lies he has already told, and you just might be able to see. I doubt it though.

Evictopi "The people spoke. You lost. So shut up. Thank you."

I thought you liberals claim to believe in FREE SPEECH yet you are telling me "SHUT UP"?hmmm As for the people speaking, what exactly is you're point? When Republicans controlled the white house for 20 out of 28 years from 1980 to 2008, or 20 out of 28 years, the people spoke. When Carter won in 1976, the people spoke, just four years later they spoke, and he was gone just as fast. Focusing on reading instead of speaking.

4:51 PM  
Blogger Zabeth said...

"Obama won a landslide victory in November, he says he is NOT in favor of reviving the Fairness Doctrine to pre-Reagan levels, and The Party of No is STILL complaining."

Obama did not win by a landslide. Why do people keep saying this? YES he won big in the elctoral college. He won the popular vote by about 7%. Not landslide territory.

10:24 PM  
Blogger conservative brother said...

Zabeth "Obama did not win by a landslide. Why do people keep saying this? YES he won big in the elctoral college. He won the popular vote by about 7%. Not landslide territory."

After the 2000 election, liberals wanted to do away with the whole electoral college. Now they can't stop referring to it because of Obama. These people are so two faced its pathetic.

10:46 PM  
Anonymous Big Dave said...

>>>>Obama did not win by a landslide. Why do people keep saying this? YES he won big in the elctoral college. He won the popular vote by about 7%. Not landslide territory.<<<<

When Democrats say more Americans wanted Gore to be president in 2000 because he had more popular votes than Bush, Republicans say, no, that's not true, look at the Electoral score.

Now when Democrats correctly say Obama stomped McCain in a landslide because he whipped him in the Electoral count, the Republicans say, no he didn't, look at the popular vote.

So which is it?

Is the president decided by A) Electoral calculations or B) the popular vote?

I guess it's A, right?

Therefore, Obama won in a LANDSLIDE.

You dummies.

4:18 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home