the Fairness Doctrine
-
Chuck the only reason you see the right wing blaring about this subject is because the left has no desire to continue freedom and liberty, and why would they want to uphold the constitution???? THEY DONT, the right at least knows that the premise of this bill is the beginning of stripping the freedom of speech away, no shit they are gonna bitch about it, at least they care.....
-
-
Grr;260835 wrote:
Chuck the only reason you see the right wing blaring about this subject is because the left has no desire to continue freedom and liberty, and why would they want to uphold the constitution???? THEY DONT, the right at least knows that the premise of this bill is the beginning of stripping the freedom of speech away, no shit they are gonna bitch about it, at least they care.....I think it is working against them honestly. I think by making it an issue they are adding fuel to the fire and putting people on the spot to make a choice. Do I want equal coverage from both sides? Sure...but I don't want it mandated.
The fairness doctrine (which I am not a fan of) was designed to allow a rebuttal to a statement from the opposite side. There was/is nothing requiring equal air time, the radio stations could keep their same programming lineup so long as (for example now) Limbaugh/Schultz made a statement based on half truths or exaggerations, then the opposing side would be able to file for a rebuttal and would have to allow the rebuttal to be played over their airwaves. I'd say that talk radio ALWAYS has that happening already by people calling in and challenging the opinion of the host, others argue that if you have call screeners you never get the full story of the other side as the radio host only takes those calls that he can easily debunk. The one thing I can say about Schultz is that his call screening is as follows: "What is your name and where are you calling from". Limbaugh's is a BITCH to get through...I've tried on multiple occasions, with zero luck, I've been told "not enough time"; "Mr. Limbaugh doesn't want to discuss that matter"; and other "blow-off" lines that I think are in part because he doesn't want someone to have an intelligent counterpoint to him. I still don't want the Fairness Doctrine though.
-
Trafik Jamz;260847 wrote:
Limbaugh's is a BITCH to get through...I've tried on multiple occasions, with zero luck, I've been told "not enough time"; "Mr. Limbaugh doesn't want to discuss that matter"; and other "blow-off" lines that I think are in part because he doesn't want someone to have an intelligent counterpoint to him. I still don't want the Fairness Doctrine though.Thats because the Limbaugh show isn't about the callers views, it's about his.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Oh, and if you want to talk about upholding the constitution, I'd say the republicans have done a good job of dismantling it as well (Patriot Act).
/off topic we go...
I think it's funny that people think that one of the bills in the bill of rights is greater than another. 2nd Amendment people FREAK over anything that even slightly challenges this right (justifiably so), yet are perfectly ok with the fact that the gov't is basically recording every phone conversation that takes place in this country (patriot act); are illegally detaining citizens without a trial in places like Guantanamo Bay; routinely break international treaties on the treatment of military detainees (waterboarding); and a whole host of other ideas that have come to light under the Bush years that are either unconstitutional or illegal according to US or international law.
Here are just a few great examples of that:
1st Amendment: > * First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Opinion/Speak_out__but_at_you.shtml
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html4th Amendment: > * Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060929-7867.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm5th Amendment:> * due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/03/terror/main1462748.shtml6th Amendment: > * Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13951prs20040629.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html9th Amendment:> * Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
(now I'm not for gay marriage necessarily, but if they want to be miserable like the rest of us, I say let them....)
10th Amendment: > * Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. -
This post is deleted!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login