So much for free speech...I can hear the liberals now...

[MonsterMark]

Come on liberals.

I want to hear all about freedom of speech and how Bush is taking away your rights.

When it comes right down to it, liberals always talk out of their rectums. Must come natural.

Let's see if they move to make TV, newspaper and magazines equally 'fair'.

What a freeking joke.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-preps-for-talk-radio-confrontation-2007-06-27.html

GOP preps for talk radio confrontation
By Alexander Bolton
June 27, 2007
House Republican lawmakers are preparing to fight anticipated Democratic efforts to regulate talk radio by reviving rules requiring stations to balance conservative hosts such as Rush Limbaugh with liberals such as Al Franken.

Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so drastically that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

They say radio stations would take a financial hit if forced to air balanced programming because liberal talk radio has not proved itself to be as profitable as conservative radio. Air America, the liberal counterpunch to conservative talk radio, filed for bankruptcy in October.

But Democratic leaders say that government has a compelling interest to ensure that listeners are properly informed. [snip]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the Demorats are really crying about is that they don't have a monopoly to lie on talk radio anymore. BooHoo.

 

[fossten]

Couple that story with the sandbag doubleteam Chrissy Matthews tried to do to Ann Coulter yesterday. Elizabeth Edwards tried to bully Ann into not speaking or writing books anymore.

 

[Marcus]

You won't get any satisfaction from me. I'm vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine in the first place. Because if it applies to radio, it can apply equally to other forms of media (television, internet, newspapers).

Besides, I think it's better to have dimwits like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Savage making fools of themselves for all to see.

Furthermore, as I've tried to stress again and again, it's naive and simplistic to assume that there are only two sides to an argument. Who decides who is qualified to present "the opposing view"?

However, I do support limits on the number of radio and TV stations and newspapers that one entity can own. That is a thousand times more dangerous to free speech.

 

[fossten]

You won't get any satisfaction from me. I'm vehemently opposed to the Fairness Doctrine in the first place. Because if it applies to radio, it can apply equally to other forms of media (television, internet, newspapers).

Besides, I think it's better to have dimwits like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Savage making fools of themselves for all to see.

Furthermore, as I've tried to stress again and again, it's naive and simplistic to assume that there are only two sides to an argument. Who decides who is qualified to present "the opposing view"?

However, I do support limits on the number of radio and TV stations and newspapers that one entity can own. That is a thousand times more dangerous to free speech.

LOL it's amusing to see you try to poke at Limbaugh, and yet while doing so reveal that you never listen to him. He does anything but make a fool of himself. You may disagree with him politically, but nobody who has listened to him for more than 3 weeks has ever rightly called him a dimwit.

28 million listeners indicates the man has intelligence to hand out by the shovelful.

 

[MAC1]

Since liberal talk radio can't compete with conservative talk radio, liberals want force Americans to listen to their views. Rush is right, liberals do think Americans are too stupid to think for themselves. If people won't listen to liberal radio, as demonstrated by Air America which was an abysmal failure, then why should radio stations be forced to air the same garbage that no one wants to listen to. Democrats claim to be the guardians of the Constitution and constitutional rights, yet when such rights stand in the way of their agenda they forget about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I tend to believe, if enacted, the so-called Fairness Doctrine will be challenged and be declared unconstitutional.

Apparently the Fairness Doctrine is what Nancy Pelosi had in mind when she said democrats would do great things and would restore integrity.

 

[Marcus]

LOL it's amusing to see you try to poke at Limbaugh, and yet while doing so reveal that you never listen to him. He does anything but make a fool of himself. You may disagree with him politically, but nobody who has listened to him for more than 3 weeks has ever rightly called him a dimwit.

28 million listeners indicates the man has intelligence to hand out by the shovelful.

I get 45 minutes of him every day on WLS in Chicago at lunch, so I'm indeed entitled to form my own opinion. Likewise, the fact that you agree with him doesn't make him "right" in any objective sense.

You're right though, dimwit was not the right word. There's no denying that he's intelligent and a talented debater. But he's also an unabashed propagandist. That's another opinion of mine which I see no need to waste my time "proving" to you guys, because you'll just disagree with me regardless.

O'Reilly, Savage, and Hannity, on the other hand, are dimwits. Where Rush (and Ann Coulter for that matter) knows perfectly well when he's spewing out BS, the other three are clueless robots.


As for liberal talk radio, I've never had any need for it. I don't know if it's something we're born with, but I've noticed that conservatives tend to need other people to validate and reinforce their opinions, whereas us "liberals" (i.e., anyone to the left of Newt Gingrich) tend to be more independent-minded, and don't need some blowhard to tell us that we're right. Hence the low ratings of liberal talk radio. You also have to factor in the number of liberals who listen to Rush, as I'm sure I'm not the only one. Twenty-eight million listeners does not mean 28 million people agree with him. For me, he's entertainment, nothing more.

I'm sure that'll cause you all to blow a gasket, but it's what I honestly believe. You guys love to label liberals as "sheep", but from my perspective it's conservatives who need authority figures to tell them what to do, say and think. I think it goes straight to the basic tenets of conservatism and liberalism: Conservatives tend to be authoritarians and liberals tend to be anti-authoritarian. Show me I'm wrong on that one.

Hell for that matter, I think that has a lot to do with the perceived "liberal bias" in the media. Because part of a reporter's job is to question authority, which group is naturally more inclined to make that a career?

My argument on the "liberal bias" issue has always been that, while liberals may make up the majority of the job sector, they don't strive to be deliberately biased, whereas some conservative reporters do. Of course there are exceptions on both sides.

Feel free to throw your insults my way and try to make your point, but neither of us are going to win the argument in the others' eyes.

 

[shagdrum]

O'Reilly, Savage, and Hannity, on the other hand, are dimwits.

O'Reilly; Has his brilliant moments (usually on the rare occasions when he can look past his ego) Though a lot of his stuff is just common sense...

Savage; entertaining at times, but somewhat of a dimwit...

Hannity; can be brilliant, but is usually just too self-righteous and takes himself to seriously to have a good debate with

Limbaugh; Intelligent and a gr8 debater; has a gr8 sense of humor and doesn't take himself to seriously

Coulter; same as Limbaugh, in addition to usually being the smartest person in any building she walks into - phenomenal sense of humor

 

[shagdrum]

conservatism and liberalism: Conservatives tend to be authoritarians and liberals tend to be anti-authoritarian. Show me I'm wrong on that one.

I would say more that Conservatives tend to be more "pro-establishment" while liberals tend to be "anti-establishment". I wouldn't say authoritarian and anti-autoritarian, as modern "egalitarian" liberalism is basically socialist-light (trying to change society and human nature); that always leads to athoritarian and totalitarian rule.
Conservatives want to preserve the traditions and establishments of this country. Just cause something can be changed doesn't mean it should be.
Liberals want to change anything they can for the greater good. In the process they let the perfect become the enemy of the good when good is achievible and perfection is not.

A good example is gun rights and how the two sides try to frame the debate;

Conservatives:it is a basic right in the Bill of Rights and allows people to defend themselves

Liberals:If guns are removed from the equation then they can't be used to hurt people so gun violence will be stopped

 

[Eliot_Ness_Ls]

An arguement on free speech...interesting

 

[fossten]

Conservatives tend to be authoritarians and liberals tend to be anti-authoritarian. Show me I'm wrong on that one.

Conservatives believe that people are smart enough and competent enough to make their own decisions and live their own lives without the government constantly interfering in their lives.

Liberals, on the other hand, personified by the Democrats in government, believe that the government is the solution to society's problems and must legislate constantly in order to demonstrate its effectiveness. Unfortunately, government is THE most inefficient use of money there is.

Show me legislation that takes away liberty (there are literally tens of thousands of examples of this) and I'll show you a liberal or liberals that enacted it.

So you are wrong on that one.

 

[Joeychgo]

This is one of the dumber things they've tried.

 

[MonsterMark]

Too bad guys like Johnny and Phil don't chime in on this. They were alwyas whining about Bush taking away their rights.

 

[Joeychgo]

Conservatives believe that people are smart enough and competent enough to make their own decisions and live their own lives without the government constantly interfering in their lives.

Tell that to gay people who want to be married to each other or a woman who is considering having an abortion. I think Guilani said it best. (paraphrased) Dont outlaw it, but try to prevent it through education and other means.

Show me legislation that takes away liberty (there are literally tens of thousands of examples of this) and I'll show you a liberal or liberals that enacted it.

just for starters - Patriot Act. --- We are trading liberties for security tools on that one.

My problem with the patriot act is this... They didnt include one line.

If information collected under this act is used in any manner, for any purpose not related to terrorism, then the information and anything derived from it is inadmissible in courts and those who used such information are liable for civil damages.

Or something like it. In addition, I dont like them going around the FISA court. Dont have time to get a FISA warrant? fine. But file the application which the Judge can review while the action is ongoing.

TO me its just about our way of life. Our privacy is a crucial right. I dont want to be standing on any slippery slopes.



Or something like it.

 

[fossten]

Don't start on the abortion issue again. You are totally ignoring the part in the Constitution about equal protection under the law. Explain to me how unborn babies have due process under our current abortion laws. They don't; they get murdered out of hand by anyone who views them to be an inconvenience. That means over 40 million human beings have been executed before birth in the last 35 years, without due process and without rights. Pretty sick.

As far as gay marriage, it's a societal issue whether or not gays want to live together. But for them to try to gain tax advantages by changing laws is to give them a special set of rights that they do not deserve, and they are doing that by attempting to redefine marriage.

As far as the PATRIOT Act, I agree with you. But then again, the people who crafted it were acting as liberals. It is not a conservative document.

So I stand by my previous statement.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Too bad guys like Johnny and Phil don't chime in on this. They were alwyas whining about Bush taking away their rights.

Nope, don't like this proposed restriction on free speech. I'd rather let the idiots speak up so we know where to aim. :shifty:

As far as gay marriage, it's a societal issue whether or not gays want to live together. But for them to try to gain tax advantages by changing laws is to give them a special set of rights that they do not deserve, and they are doing that by attempting to redefine marriage.

WRONG! It's the conservatives who are trying to "change laws" to put restrictions on those who can get married. If anyone is trying to "redefine" marriage, it's the DOM act the GOP/conservatives are pushing.

 

[fossten]

WRONG! It's the conservatives who are trying to "change laws" to put restrictions on those who can get married. If anyone is trying to "redefine" marriage, it's the DOM act the GOP/conservatives are pushing.

Wrong in principle and in the letter of the definition. Show me the laws on the books before this last decade that defined marriage as between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman.

*crickets*

Can't very well change a law that isn't already on the books. Ever read the polygamy and bigamy laws?

Swing and a miss.

Marriage has always BEEN defined as between a man and a woman, socially, traditionally, and legally. It's the radical left that is trying to change that, your futile attempt to rewrite history notwithstanding. The GOP with the DOM Act is trying to put what has ALWAYS BEEN in tradition and law into writing so it can't be CHANGED. Hence, the left is trying to CHANGE the definition of marriage to INCLUDE same-sex definitions.

Moreover, look at all the ballot initiatives in many states where the voters decided to KEEP marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The GOP with the DOM Act is trying to put what has ALWAYS BEEN in tradition and law into writing so it can't be CHANGED.

If it isn't already in writing, it is NOT PRESENTLY LAW.

DEE DEE DEE

The DOM is new "law" that excludes the right of legal marriage from certain groups. You've even said it yourself.

*owned*

 

[fossten]

Nope, don't like this proposed restriction on free speech. I'd rather let the idiots speak up so we know where to aim. :shifty:



WRONG! It's the conservatives who are trying to "change laws" to put restrictions on those who can get married. If anyone is trying to "redefine" marriage, it's the DOM act the GOP/conservatives are pushing.

By the way, it was your boy Bill Clinton that signed the DOMA into law.

*owned*

It IS law, and it's on the books, so quit whining about it like a big baby.

 

[Calabrio]

The DOM is new "law" that excludes the right of legal marriage from certain groups. You've even said it yourself.

*owned*

Using your language, it "excludes the rights of marriage" to siblings, children, polygamist, those who practice bestiality, and necrophiles.

Actually, the conventional definition of marriage EXTENDS to right of marriage to everyone. Anyone can marry someone, outside their immediate family, of the opposite sex, regardless how they define their sexuality.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

By the way, it was your boy Bill Clinton that signed the DOMA into law.

#1, he's not "my boy", and #2, he was a dumb arse to do it.

It IS law, and it's on the books, so quit whining about it like a big baby.

If that is the case, then why did you make this statement:

The GOP with the DOM Act is trying to put what has ALWAYS BEEN in tradition and law into writing so it can't be CHANGED.

You've contradicted yourself.

But I acknowledge now that the DOMA is ancient history (I had confused that w/ the current uproar). But it doesn't change the fact that, as you also acknowledged, that many states are considering LAW CHANGES that EXCLUDE legal same-sex marriage at the state level. And these current "initiatives" are being pushed by the GOP/conservitaves.

 

[fossten]

You've contradicted yourself.

But I acknowledge now that the DOMA is ancient history (I had confused that w/ the current uproar). But it doesn't change the fact that, as you also acknowledged, that many states are considering LAW CHANGES that EXCLUDE legal same-sex marriage at the state level. And these current "initiatives" are being pushed by the GOP/conservitaves.

The ONLY reason I contradicted myself is because I went along with your false premise, which you have now corrected. So your only point against me is moot, since it was based on your own error. My only error was accepting your premise as correct in the first place.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

The ONLY reason I contradicted myself is because I went along with your false premise, which you have now corrected. So your only point against me is moot, since it was based on your own error. My only error was accepting your premise as correct in the first place.

JESUS, who's crying like a baby now??

My only error was in this statement:

WRONG! It's the conservatives who are trying to "change laws" to put restrictions on those who can get married. If anyone is trying to "redefine" marriage, it's the DOM act the GOP/conservatives are pushing.

It should've said:

WRONG! It's the conservatives who HAVE INITIATED THE PUSH FOR CHANGES TO LAW to put restrictions on those who can get married. If anyone is trying to "redefine" marriage, it's the DOM act the GOP/conservatives HAVE PUSHED.

...in response to this falsehood:

Marriage has always BEEN defined as between a man and a woman, socially, traditionally, and legally.

and...

It's the radical left that is trying to change that, your futile attempt to rewrite history notwithstanding.

Laws have NOT ALWAYS defined marriage as between a man and woman. And it was the GOP-led congress that pushed the DOMA across Clinton's desk.

Thus, you have been *owned* so STFU and quit crying.

 

[fossten]

STFU blah blah blah personal attack...

Mr. Ahmadinejohnniecensorship,

You are too ignorant to understand the tone of my post. But that is your problem, not mine. Your inability to stick with the topic of the thread, coupled with your tendency to get your soiled pink panties in a wad over minutiae, is your problem, not mine. Your errors are your errors, and my errors are mine.

Telling me to STFU is not ever going to work, and only makes you look [even more] stupid.

Nice job of hijacking the thread with a bunch of [your usual] nonsense.

Boring.

I await your [usual personal attack(punctuated by CAPS)-filled] response. But if you don't bother wasting any more of our time, maybe we can all move on to something more productive.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Mr. Ahmadinejohnniecensorship,

You are too ignorant to understand the tone of my post. But that is your problem, not mine. Your inability to stick with the topic of the thread, coupled with your tendency to get your soiled pink panties in a wad over minutiae, is your problem, not mine. Your errors are your errors, and my errors are mine.

Telling me to STFU is not ever going to work, and only makes you look [even more] stupid.

Nice job of hijacking the thread with a bunch of [your usual] nonsense.

Boring.

I await your [usual personal attack(punctuated by CAPS)-filled] response. But if you don't bother wasting any more of our time, maybe we can all move on to something more productive.

So typical of you to resort to personal attacks when backed into a corner, just what I expected. And for you to complain that I'm wasting time and puncuating with CAPS??? :bowrofl: Check out this post of yours. What a waste of bandwidth.

And FOR THE RECORD, YOU were the one who started down the path of bitching about the "radical left" trying to "redefine marriage". Don't blame me for bitch-slapping you straight on that. :slap:

 

[fossten]

So typical of you to resort to personal attacks when backed into a corner, just what I expected.

Grow up and quit whining like a little baby. You got what you expected because it was what you were trying to provoke. Go cry me a river.

Obviously you are incapable of having a normal discussion without resorting to baiting and picking fights. As such, you will be ignored from now on.

"B-O-O H-O-O."

-- John Bender, The Breakfast Club