Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• 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.
  
  “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
  
  The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html

Interesting tactic for House Republicans to try to get conservative talk radio all riled up by making it sound as if the Fairness Doctrine issue is all about them.

Weren't there talk radio shows back in the day of the Fairness Doctrine? Didn't they tend conservative?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• 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.
  
  “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
  
  The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html

Don't look at me. I'm fine letting Rush direct the viewpoints of people whose cars don't have FM.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• 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.
  
  “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
  
  The Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC discarded in 1985, required broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial political issues. Prior to 1985, government regulations called for broadcasters to “make reasonable judgments in good faith” on how to present multiple viewpoints on controversial issues.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html

Classic Democrat thinking. Run to Mommy to fix the fact that life, or the marketplace, isn't giving you what you think you deserve.

What does it mean? Time to buy Sirius stock.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Classic Democrat thinking. Run to Mommy to fix the fact that life, or the marketplace, isn't giving you what you think you deserve.

What does it mean? Time to buy Sirius stock.

Actually, I think Trent Lott has been the biggest critic of talk radio lately.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Interesting tactic for House Republicans to try to get conservative talk radio all riled up by making it sound as if the Fairness Doctrine issue is all about them.

Weren't there talk radio shows back in the day of the Fairness Doctrine? Didn't they tend conservative?

The problem is, liberals on the radio just aren't very funny or very interesting. I'd love it if they gave John Waters a talk show, but instead of finding a funny liberal they always put on these serious shitbags like Garafalo and Franken, who are as annoying as Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but not nearly as funny as O'Reilly or Limbaugh. You can laugh at and with conservative talk radio hosts. The liberals... they're too worried about offending people to be very amusing.

We need more Libertarian hosts who are unpredictable. people who believe deeply in movements of any sort tend to be very dull.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Classic Democrat thinking. Run to Mommy to fix the fact that life, or the marketplace, isn't giving you what you think you deserve.

What does it mean? Time to buy Sirius stock.

Of course, if you read the article, you learn no proposal is yet on the table. This is just the Rs trying to rouse the troops, and since Americans generally agree with the Ds on all the bills on the floor, they're making one up.

'Cause everyone's sick of them attacking George McGovern yet again, and every time someone says "Iraq" they lose more votes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Interesting tactic for House Republicans to try to get conservative talk radio all riled up by making it sound as if the Fairness Doctrine issue is all about them.

Weren't there talk radio shows back in the day of the Fairness Doctrine? Didn't they tend conservative?

I'm pretty sure no one here was listening to talk radio before 1985. it sounds like you tapped into some source though.

can you link to the blog that will inform your opinion on this debate?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Actually, I think Trent Lott has been the biggest critic of talk radio lately.

My guess is Trent is mad about Opie and Anthony, not Rush.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My guess is Trent is mad about Opie and Anthony, not Rush.

Check out his comments on the immigration bill.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Of course, if you read the article, you learn no proposal is yet on the table. This is just the Rs trying to rouse the troops, and since Americans generally agree with the Ds on all the bills on the floor, they're making one up.

'Cause everyone's sick of them attacking George McGovern yet again, and every time someone says "Iraq" they lose more votes.

So that quote from Durbin was made up by Republicans?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Check out his comments on the immigration bill.

I trust you... What did he say?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I trust you... What did he say?

• RUSH: What are we going to do about Mississippi Senator Trent Lott? What are we going to do about Senator Lott? You remember when he got into trouble with the Strom Thurmond comment? We're out there defending the guy. The White House threw him overboard. All kinds of Republicans were throwing him overboard. Talk radio came to his defense. Trent Lott is now one of the engineers of the Senate immigration bill, the amnesty bill, and they're trying to bring this thing back. The amendments are being kept under wraps. By the way, I understand Lindsey Grahamnesty, senator from South Carolina, is going to propose an amendment to build the border fence. (Laughing.) $4.4 billion! The government spends that much on rubber bands every year. Well, maybe not that much, but you get the point. Senator Lott is out there saying, "The problem with this is talk radio, and it's a problem that's going to have be dealt with." Now, what does that mean? When I hear a United States senator say that what I do for a living is a "problem" that the government has to "deal with," you can interpret it any number of ways. He's either saying, "Well, we're going to have to come up with our own ways to overcome them," or, "We're going to just have to wipe them out." What does it mean? The real question is: How are we going to deal with Trent Lott? What are we going to do about him?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

• RUSH: What are we going to do about Mississippi Senator Trent Lott? What are we going to do about Senator Lott? You remember when he got into trouble with the Strom Thurmond comment? We're out there defending the guy. The White House threw him overboard. All kinds of Republicans were throwing him overboard. Talk radio came to his defense. Trent Lott is now one of the engineers of the Senate immigration bill, the amnesty bill, and they're trying to bring this thing back. The amendments are being kept under wraps. By the way, I understand Lindsey Grahamnesty, senator from South Carolina, is going to propose an amendment to build the border fence. (Laughing.) $4.4 billion! The government spends that much on rubber bands every year. Well, maybe not that much, but you get the point. Senator Lott is out there saying, "The problem with this is talk radio, and it's a problem that's going to have be dealt with." Now, what does that mean? When I hear a United States senator say that what I do for a living is a "problem" that the government has to "deal with," you can interpret it any number of ways. He's either saying, "Well, we're going to have to come up with our own ways to overcome them," or, "We're going to just have to wipe them out." What does it mean? The real question is: How are we going to deal with Trent Lott? What are we going to do about him?

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...106.guest.html

It sounds like Rush is struggling to find out what Trent means/is threatening, which for the first time in my life puts me on the same page with Rush.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
So that quote from Durbin was made up by Republicans?

He said he wanted to reinstitute the fairness doctrine, he didn't put forward a bill. There's a world of difference. But then, the Rs believe in preemptive strikes based on inadequate intelligence, right?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
It sounds like Rush is struggling to find out what Trent means/is threatening, which for the first time in my life puts me on the same page with Rush.

I sort of admired Lott on this. The Republicans would be better off if they took the party back from Rush Limbaugh.