Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
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?

A very small world.

They should hang people who support anything like the fairness doctrine.

For the record, I felt the same way about Bush stuffing the FCC with religious nuts and giving right wingers control over public broadcasting. But it goes without saying he ought to be hanged.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A very small world.

They should hang people who support anything like the fairness doctrine.

For the record, I felt the same way about Bush stuffing the FCC with religious nuts and giving right wingers control over public broadcasting. But it goes without saying he ought to be hanged.

I tend to agree with Sebby on this, but not with Rush. Fuck Rush.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

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

Rush may think he owns the Republikin Party, but Ruppert Murdoch really does.

And, soon, Ruppert will own the last remaining voice of the decaying old fiscal conservative wing of the party.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Rush may think he owns the Republikin Party, but Ruppert Murdoch really does.

And, soon, Ruppert will own the last remaining voice of the decaying old fiscal conservative wing of the party.

Fiscal conservative are not decaying. That party is decaying. Fiscal conservativism is the future, whether people like it or not.

Vote Dem, vote GOP, vote LaRouche. WE're going to be a fiscally consrvative country and people are NOT going to get a New New Deal and we're going to be filled with Mexicans those of whom want to work hard and steal jobs from lazy Americans and build better lives for themselves I wholeheartedly welcome.

There is never going to be enough money for the GOP or Dems to spend like Hillary wants to or this moron we presently have in office has. Which to me is a rosy future.

Now if we could just get a whole lot of Americans to start jumping fences for other locales we'd be on to something...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Fiscal conservative are not decaying. That party is decaying. Fiscal conservativism is the future, whether people like it or not.

Vote Dem, vote GOP, vote LaRouche. WE're going to be a fiscally consrvative country and people are NOT going to get a New New Deal and we're going to be filled with Mexicans those of whom want to work hard and steal jobs from lazy Americans and build better lives for themselves I wholeheartedly welcome.

There is never going to be enough money for the GOP or Dems to spend like Hillary wants to or this moron we presently have in office has. Which to me is a rosy future.

Now if we could just get a whole lot of Americans to start jumping fences for other locales we'd be on to something...

There is a healthy fiscally conservative wing of the Democratic Party, but the fiscally conservative wing of the Republican Party is, indeed, decaying. The Republicans are now just the party that looks for never-ending Red State subsidies and conservative Christian social-engineering. Oh, and they all hate Hilary, too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

You're being played like a sucker. The reporter couldn't find a Democrat who says that. All they say is that they want to look at the Fairness Doctrine again. (Which one can debate, of course.) But they did get a GOP Senator (noted hack Jim Inhofe) to say that he heard Democrats talking about what they want to do in an elevator. If that's not convincing, what is?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

Back in the day I used to listen to Larry King and Jim Bohannon. That was talk radio.

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

Pretty funny, Hank.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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

Read it again. He didn't say anything about talk radio.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Read it again. He didn't say anything about talk radio.

Oh, I understand. He was talking about ham radio enthusiasts. Indeed a dangerous and loathsomely narrow minded group.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're being played like a sucker. The reporter couldn't find a Democrat who says that. All they say is that they want to look at the Fairness Doctrine again. (Which one can debate, of course.) But they did get a GOP Senator (noted hack Jim Inhofe) to say that he heard Democrats talking about what they want to do in an elevator. If that's not convincing, what is?

Looking at the Doctrine at all is appalling. That is was enacted is appalling.

I've also read about this issue elsewhere. It's been brewing for a while, and though there are GOP forces fanning the debate, the debate is spurred by Dems trying to find a govt fix to get around the horrible lack of market share they have in radio.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Back in the day I used to listen to Larry King and Jim Bohannon. That was talk radio.



Pretty funny, Hank.

What do you consider Howard and Opie & Anthony?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Looking at the Doctrine at all is appalling. That is was enacted is appalling.

Which do you suppose leads to a more robust marketplace of ideas?

a) People hear what's cheapest to produce and sells the most ads.

b) People hear a variety of views.

[T]he debate is spurred by Dems trying to find a govt fix to get around the horrible lack of market share they have in radio.

If there's a credible source for this -- by which I do not mean Sen. Inhofe talking about what he heard someone saying in an elevator -- then I'd like to hear it, because any Dems thinking that are pathetic.

eta: Note that The Hill's reporter didn't find Dems saying this, though this could just be a function of the market forces which impel him to run stories handed to him by official sources (read: Republican Congressmen) instead of doing actual reporting.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Which do you suppose leads to a more robust marketplace of ideas?

a) People hear what's cheapest to produce and sells the most ads.

b) People hear a variety of views.

Eh, different media, different voices. There are more liberal voices on the internet according to the last numbers I heard (I think it was NPR last week, talking about the recent organization of the left wing; yes, it was here).

I try, I really do, to listen to Democracy Now! on Pacifica every now and then. A friend of mine calls it the Doom and Gloom Network. I can't disagree with him. Let them have talk radio. Ours is useless.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Eh, different media, different voices. There are more liberal voices on the internet according to the last numbers I heard (I think it was NPR last week, talking about the recent organization of the left wing; yes, it was here).

I try, I really do, to listen to Democracy Now! on Pacifica every now and then. A friend of mine calls it the Doom and Gloom Network. I can't disagree with him. Let them have talk radio. Ours is useless.

I don't care about talk radio at all. I don't listen to it, and I don't want to. I'd be surprised if many Dems do. I thought the Fairness Doctrine was more of an issue in local elections and smaller media markets where the opposition of a single TV or radio station can go a long way to preventing people from getting their views out.

eta: Here's Dianne Feinstein on the issue:

• With conservative talk radio blasting Republicans and Democrats for their support of immigration reform, Feinstein said she is exploring whether to revisit the "fairness doctrine," which, before being abolished in 1987, required that broadcasters present controversial issues in a balanced manner.
  
  "I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way," Feinstein said. "I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious, correct reporting to people."

link

Let me just say, I've never liked her.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Eh, different media, different voices. There are more liberal voices on the internet according to the last numbers I heard (I think it was NPR last week, talking about the recent organization of the left wing; yes, it was here).

I try, I really do, to listen to Democracy Now! on Pacifica every now and then. A friend of mine calls it the Doom and Gloom Network. I can't disagree with him. Let them have talk radio. Ours is useless.

I know of 1 person who actually listens to Rush. I suspect he is basically the flip side of the DU crowd.