See other Editorial Articles
Title: BLOOD IN THE WATER; Right-wing talk shows next...
Source:
Neal Boortz
URL Source: http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html
Published: Apr 12, 2007
Author: Neal Boortz
Post Date: 2007-04-12 13:59:49 by Brian S
Keywords: None
Views: 2977
Comments: 338
Liberals see this whole Imus situation as a way to rid themselves of the problem of talk radio. Now that they've succeeded in getting MSNBC to pull Imus' program, they'll concentrate on CBS .. trying to get the radio show cancelled. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they succeed. Then they will turn their attention to the rest of us. The tape recorders will be running. There is not one single significant right-of-center radio talk show out there that is not going to come under fire. Liberals know -- they've proven it to themselves -- that they simply cannot succeed in talk radio. So, it's all very simple. If they can't succeed, destroy the genre. Their original plan was to wait until Democrats control the congress and the White House and then murder talk radio with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine." Now that they're on the verge of having a talk radio scalp on their belts as retribution for a bad and mean-spirited joke, they see that they may not have to wait for the electorate to give them the power. In the meantime... while the race industry is calling for the head of Don Imus, we have Crystal Gail Mangum of North Carolina. Who is she? She is the woman who falsely accused three members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Her unsubstantiated charges resulted in a media firestorm against Duke University and these lacrosse players. Would you like to spend a few moments comparing the effect of Mangum's charges on the Duke lacrosse team and Imus' words on the Rutgers woman's basketball team? Sure! Why not! Now, let's see ...... The remainder of the Duke lacrosse season was cancelled. They were nationally ranked, and had to forfeit the rest of their games. The coach, Mike Pressler, resigned. "Mug shots" of the lacrosse players were posted on campus. Mark Anthony Neal, an African Studies professor on the campus said that this was "a case of racialized sexual violence." A Durham, N.C. resident called it "racial terrorism." In the middle of all of this we had a district attorney, Michael Nifong, who was running for reelection in a majority-black jurisdiction. There were suggestions that he wanted to be the mayor one day. Jesse Jackson had plenty to say about this case also. In his column on http://Blacknews.com Jackson said "Predictably, the right-wing media machine has kicked in, prompting mean-spirited attacks upon the accuser's character." Later he offered to pay Mangum's tuition for a college education if her story proved true. Later he amended his promise. In January he said that the Rainbow/Push Coalition would pay her college tuition even if it turns out she completely fabricated her story! Now isn't that special? Hey sisters! How would you like to get a college scholarship from Jesse Jackson? Apparently all you have to do is lodge a false rape accusation against an all-white college sports team! Get out your checkbook, Jesse. Now we have learned that it was a hoax. No truth. The North Carolina Attorney General's office has declared the accused players to be innocent. A State Bar investigation of Nifong continues. And thus far Jesse Jackson has not come forward to offer any comfort to the lacrosse players falsely accused by Ms. Mangum. Now ... why even bring all of this up? Well, we have two college teams in the mix. A Rutgers women's basketball team that is largely black, and a Duke men's lacrosse team that is almost (save for one player) exclusively white. A white man insulted the Rutgers team with a mean-spirited quip. No season cancelled. No coach fired. No arrests. Nobody on the basketball team had to spend tens of thousands of dollars on defense attorneys. They were insulted. The were the targets of a stupid racially charged remark ... but that's pretty much it. But how about Duke? The Duke team members were accused of a crime. Attorneys were hired. Coaches fired. Seasons cancelled. Reputations damaged. DNA swabs were taken. Charges were filed. The district attorney was out there saying that a rape most definitely had occurred. Now we find that they were completely innocent. In the meantime the white man who made the stupid remark about the Rutgers basketball team is being attacked and vilified as if he was a mass murderer. The black woman who made the false charges of rape against the lacrosse team is going to walk. In fact, you can fully expect the civil rights establishment --- the same civil rights establishment that is united in their efforts to destroy Don Imus -- circle the wagons around Crystal Gail Mangum and protect her at all costs. Oprah is going to have the Rutgers woman's basketball team on her show. How many of you would like to make book on when Oprah invites the Duke lacrosse team to be on her show? When pigs fly. Back to talk radio. The mainstream media in this country doesn't merely dislike talk radio, they hate it. Hate it with a blinding passion. How dare these "disc jockeys" get on those radio stations and spout opinions on matters of governance and public policy? Don't they know that this is a job to be left to the professionals at the New York Times and the Washington Post plus the major broadcast TV networks? What's worse, how dare the great unwashed of the general population get on these radio shows, especially the syndicated ones, and spout their ill-advised and uneducated opinions? Think about this. You have a liberal columnist like Maureen Dowd or the insipid Tom Teepen write a column spouting some leftist dogma. That column gets published in newspapers across the country. Then you have some mechanic from Memphis get on the air with Limbaugh or Hannity to offer a differing point of view. The column may be read by a million people -- at the most. The Memphis mechanic is heard by perhaps five times that many. It just ain't right! For years now the left has employed various tactics to marginalize talk radio. The favorite tactic is the tired "hate radio" accusation. The general idea here is that anything said on a talk radio show that is at variance with liberal dogma is "hate speech." This tactic hasn't worked ... and talk radio continues to grow. Well .. now there's a new game plan. Use the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of this world to attack these hosts on the basis of race. That's right .. this whole Imus affair isn't really about race! The TV networks and the liberal mainstream media haven't been hammering this Imus thing day after day after day because they really care about the racial aspects of the story. If they were that concerned about the racial angle they would be playing up the Duke case to a similar extent. Race is the means, not the reason. Right now the mainstream press sees race as the key to destroying talk radio. Focus on the hosts ... wait until they say something that can be racially exploited, and then launch the relentless attack. Go after networks, stations and advertisers. Concentrate on them -- one at a time -- like hyenas looking for a meal. Select prey that looks vulnerable. Isolate that prey and go in for the kill. I don't know how many hosts there are out there who have not made comments about black politicians, celebrities or culture that could be used as the basis for a full force attack. I know I have. Have I gone overboard? You bet! Hell .. 37 years in the business, how can you not have screwed up from time to time? I've apologized in the past -- and probably will one day say something else that merits an apology. Apologies aren't enough, however. The Christian concept of forgiveness and tolerance means nothing to the "reverends" Jackson and Sharpton. They're sharks .. and there's blood in the water. By the way ... my guess? Now that MSNBC has dumped Imus, CBS is sure to follow. Look at it this way .... NBC has canned him. How in the hell can CBS stand up to the this racially charged onslaught? "Hey, CBS! NBC did the right thing? How about you?"
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
Boortz Issues apology over McKinney smears Summary: Neal Boortz issued an apology for his remarks that Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) looks like "a ghetto slut," saying, "I've known Cynthia McKinney for a long time, and there is no way in the world that that word should be used to describe her or her hairdo or any woman." On the April 3 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Neal Boortz issued an apology for his remarks about Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), stating, "I've known Cynthia McKinney for a long time, and there is no way in the world that that word should be used to describe her or her hairdo or any woman." As Media Matters for America noted, Boortz said that McKinney, "looks like a ghetto slut" during the March 31 broadcast of his radio program, and later added that he didn't "blame them [Capitol police] for stopping" McKinney during a March 29 incident at the Capitol because she had a "ghetto trash" haircut and "looked like a welfare drag queen [that] was trying to sneak into the Longworth House Office Building." In issuing the apology, Boortz added that it "won't mean anything to people who consider any negative comment or criticism of any type at any time about anybody who is not white to be racism."
Boo-rtz has zero credibility.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I think reviving the fairness doctrine is a great idea. I would love to hear some well informed person come on after Limbaugh and point out the lies and spin. It would keep These propaganda spewers honest. And that's what is scaring this guy.
.
Oh no, Neil...I don't want you and hannity and the hypocrite pillboy to be shut down because of a new version of the "fairness" doctrine. I want you all on the air when some marxist cunt like Hitlery gets control of all that extra-constitutional power you fucks cheerleaded over the past five years. Then the first time you say something on air that displeases her, you end up being labeled as aiding terrorists and hauled off to Club Gitmo. There won't be any Roy Black or other million dollar lawyer to get you out of it...you'll just be gone, getting the business end of the police state you had to have.
"First I'm gonna bother everybody I meet, and then I'll probably go home and get drunk." Tipi Turtle: 1985
Regardless, Boortz is correct in pointing out the Modern Inquisition and issuing a warning.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
They were just trying to keep you safe from Terrah-ists and Islamofascists. What, you don't like being safe? You liberals are all the same. Y'all have risky sex lives, all of y'all, but you can't put us all at risk from terrah-ists and Islamofascists.
They can stop doing me favors anytime.
"First I'm gonna bother everybody I meet, and then I'll probably go home and get drunk." Tipi Turtle: 1985
There's no reason Boortz and his ilk should not be held to the same standard as a newspaper or magazine. They slander and libel people all the time and get away with it. They're operatives for one political party, but never disclose their affiliations. I love how afraid of giving equal time he is. If you're going to take one position all the time, call your opponents traitors, fulminate for stupid, murderous wars, and rant and rave dishonestly, there should be some mechanism to show your audience you're a liar. Talk radio has not added a single positive thing to this country, unlike newspapers and the Internet, where opposing opinions are readily available. These disinformationists always want to hide behind "I'm just an entertainer." If so, they won't mind having someone fact-check what they say. There's no linkage between entertainment and lying.
What standard is that? There are none. Flushing Korans down a toilet? Ever try that? It doesn't work. If you want to try it, I'll send you one. PM me if you want to give it a whirl. Jayson Blair? He got away with "inventing" news for years and then it was quietly swept under the rug. There are no standards in journalism these days. There is no journalism in the MSM nowadays. It is ALL about 'shaping opinions' and not about providing genuine news. Its the same in education. What education? Its about shaping opinions as opposed to teaching facts and figures. How can anyone say "standards" in journalism nowadays when there are none? Calling for the "fairness doctrine" means that one hates freedom. Air America can't make it commercially. Why should private industry be forced to subsidize left-wing commentary? So tell me, why do you hate the First Amendment and freedom of choice so much?
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
Lefties playing hardball with scum like Boortz, Hannity, Limpdick and Coulter. Who'd have thought they had it in them. Oh, the horror! The horror! This from the guys who've apologized for torture camps and extraordinary renditions for the last four years. You wanna play nice now? Why? Oh. 'Cause you're losing.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Effing brilliant post, Od. Brilliant!
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Modern inquisition? I didn't see no State Actors at work here. No torture, no renditions, no dungeons, no hangings... Just an ass who ran afoul of public opinion, and by extension, his sponsors. His mistake, not theirs. Pepsi knows damn well when a spokesperson is damaged goods.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
I don't want "equal time" mandated. I've got satellite, and I listen to Talk Left all the time (as you can imagine), and half of them just plain suck shit. Like Alex Bennett and Lynn Samuels. Just used up radio people with no where else to deliver their idiotic schtick. Bennett and Samuels are no more "liberals" or even political than the Back Street Boys.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Censorhip sucks - but the guy has zero cred on the issue - they won't be after the right wing talk show hosts - unless it can be proven that the talk show hosts were given money to push an agenda. We have circumstantial evidence of such a program.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
They shouldn't. But why should a right wing propaganda engine be given exclusive use of MY airwaves? If they want to spew one sided bile, let them go on cable or sirrus.
.
Standard reichwing blather conspiracy nonesense about nebulous "liberals." No "liberals" undid Imus Niel. He did it to himself. What "conservative" is going to stand up and defend those words? He was fired by a huge corporate entity that is more or less an arm of the Federal government whose wars and overall policies you generally support for offending the designated "leaders" of a minotiry group. You are free to spew your anti Moslem non sense all day long- cheer for wars you would never fight yourself if it was your neck and just your dime. You are free to, like you do here, to make spurious connections and infer vast liberal "conspiracies" all about you- like connecting Imus being fired to the Duke Lacross team to some sort of conspiracy to get your state loving ass of the air. Niel- you and all the other reichwinger hate mongers are safe. You know it- I know it- stop playing the victim. All you have to do is NOT pick on black people. That's it. Stay away from making disparging generalized remarks about black people Niel. Can you do that? Sure you can. You can call Mexicans "dirty wetbacks" like Jay Severin does everyday in Boston on his program. You can equate Moslems to rats and vermin- like a Nazi would a Jew- and get away with it. You can- at the soccer practice driving hour in the middle of the day call for murdering half the planet with nuclear holocaust or praise the murderer of civilians by the "hero" troops all you want Niel. Just shy away from saying things like "nappy headed ho's." Oh- and don't mention Building Seven, the NORAD standdown, why OBL hasn't been captured, or the fact that AQ doesn't exist. But you knew that already Niel- didn't you? I might have some respect for these reichwingers if they didn't call not merely for the banning of a broad spectrum of opinion and topics they don't like from the airwaves but for the exectution of their political foes. Hell- didn't Niel write something about how any cable company that aired Al Jazeera would be a traitor? What a clown and a bore.
Anyone can start up a radio station or buy one. If you have a problem with the programming, get some money together and take care of the problem. There doesn't seem to be a lack of that going on judging by what is on the dial. Are you saying that right-wingers should be denied the same rights that everyone else has? When did we go from "I may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" to "KEEP THESE PEOPLE OFF THE AIR" ??? Freedom is dying a death by a thousand cuts in this country and that death is being caused from all parts of the political spectrum. We truly are becoming a people who hate freedom and want the Government to regulate our lives entirely.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
The key word being propaganda. Pigboy flat-out admitted he was carrying water for Bush and the rest of the GOP. These are political operatives, not entertainers, and they should be fact-checked in real time. There are many conservative hosts who allow honest discussion, don't cut off people who disagree with them, and aren't spewing the exact same talking points every single day. These are public airwaves. If one party is going to control them, they should be forced to be honest. And the best way to do that is to have instant response when they lie. Hannity, for instance, is continuing to repeat the lie that a CNN reporter was drunk and heckling McCain in Baghdad. A check of the videotape shows no such thing happened. But he continues to spew it with no rebuttal. There is no reason the GOP should own the AM airwaves.
Wrong. The spectrum is very limited and belongs to the entire population. That was the original basis for the fairness doctrine. That is also the goal of Clear Channel, tu buy up the available spectrum and keep not GOP opinion off of it.
.
I've seen the fairness doctrine in operation and it doesn't hurt anyone. If someone like Rush spent an hour slamming someone, the station would give the target person a "reasonable time" to rebut. Usually five minutes or so. It's this objectivity that scares the shit out of the propagandists. They know it wouldn't take much more than this to destroy them.
.
Judging by the number of Spanish stations, one would have to say "That assessment appears to be in error."
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
No, but I am saying the other people should have the same rights as the right wingers have. Maybe not to buy up the spectrum the way the Bush family and Clear Channey has and then boot off all non-conforming opinion, but everyone should have equal access to the public airwaves.
.
Tell that to the small stations kicked off the air when a larger one wanted to expand its reach. Or the pirate station owners arrested. Or the low-power FM stations disenfranchised by larger stations (including the so-called liberal NPR). Radio stations don't "own" anything. They are granted a license to broadcast, in the public interest, on a certain band of the AM or FM dial. Why do you object to fact-checking? You don't get the right to lie just because you bought up someone's license to broadcast.
Red Herring? Since when did the fairness doctrine ever, ever, ever apply to the music format or the language used in the broadcast?
.
Yep, only people of low intelligence give him the time of day.
God is always good! Recall that the GOP now controlls the FCC. Putting Powells kid on the four member board cinched the deal. That has allowed Bush's buddies and largest campaign contributors at Clear Channel to basically take over the spectrum and enforce orthodoxy. You say this one sided propganda enforced by the state is a good thing. Why is that?
.
Nothning has to be done. The "reichwing" is imploding. Lies catch up with the spewers eventually. Fox, even among reichwingers, isn't considered a serious "news" source. It's a 24/7 celebrity gossip channel that manages to fill the gaps with crude reichwinger propaganda. It will fall on its own.
They get their talking points directly from the Rove office - because the White House taking points are mirrored exactly by the talk show operatives. We also have evidence of payments made to talk show hosts and opinion reporters to push White House approved spin on stories. That story went away when it should not have. So these talk show hosts are more than likely operatives and should be exposed. There is no way that all these people can sound alike and say things in ways to bolster White House Spin unless they were operatives. "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It's fine if offered on cable or satellite channels, but government propaganda outlets should not be allowed exclusive control of the public airwaves.
.
I don't object to fact-checking. If you want to do that, then go right ahead. I have an issue with people wanting to bring down Government Regulation in violation of the First Amendment and obliterate people's freedom of choice. If you don't want to read a particular newspaper, don't do it. If you don't want to listen to a particular radio show, don't do it. But don't deny people the right to publish or the right to offer their opinions. I'll ask the question again: Why do you hate freedom so much?
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
How about if the President's best friend uses political connections to buy up all the bandwidth and then tells you what you can and cannot hear? What if the programming, such and Limbaugh and Hannity, is offered free of charge to the member stations show the market forces are taken out of the equation? That is what is happening here today.
.
You approve of GOP ownership of the AM radio band, evidently. Just TRY finding a fair, balanced talk show on AM radio. You can't. The airwaves belong to ME, not to Rush Limbaugh. If he abuses them, he should either be forced to submit to instant rebuttal or he should be kicked off the air or stations carrying his show should lose their licenses. The reason the airwaves are a public trust is to defend against exactly what is happening, a news monopoly operated by one political party. If you really love one-party government, well, there's not much I can say.
Let Bush's best friend buy up all the bandwidth for Clear Channel and then let HIM deny people the right to publish their opinions. Is that what you are advocating here? That is the situation we are fast approaching.
.
No one has a right of speech via the airwaves per say - that is the basis for censorship by the FCC - Any type of fairness doctrine would not restrict speech rights via airwave because there is none. The fairness doctrine was eliminated for business reasons not free speech ones when deregulation of the broadcast business went into effect in the 80s.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You obviously define freedom as allowing the state, through Bush and Clear Channel Corporation, to determine what you hear over the media. I define it differently.
.
I have no doubt they work closely with this administration and government to push a standard proganda line day by day. But that isn't illegal but there is a question of limited airwave space that gov has the power to license over which can't be ignored. I generally am oppossed to any government interference IN ANY FORM with the media. Now- if it can be proved that tax payer money is being used to pay off journalists to push reichwinger spew- that, in my mind- is a jailable offense and impeachable. Being a shill catches up with you eventually- people catch on that you are a mouthpiece. O'Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh? Do they have a 10nth of broad credibility that they enjoyed in 2000? No. They don't. Their ratings have flatlined or fallen- and all they have left are their hardcore dopes who can't think for themselves anyway. Limbaugh isn't considered a serious commentator of the American political scene. He is seen as mouthpiece for the GOP. He isn't even the center of villification among "liberals" anymore because he isn't worth it. He has no influence outside his hardcorp 20 million. Fox may not die tomorrow. But it will NEVER have respectibility or be considered a REAL news service.
Who determines who gets to "rebut" Rush? Who determines when he is lying? Who determines what is "Fair"? The "fairness doctrine" is itself censorship. "Liberals" need to start up their own radio programs. From what I have heard - they did- and it failed. Too bad. I am sorry there is no audience for the Dem version of the two party fraud. But there it is. I despise Rush Limbaugh. I can't stand the sound of his voice. But you know what? I used to effing LOVE HIM. I, changed my mind- because he is a liar and a fraud and an all around disgusting man. I didn't need some behind the scenes power selecting who gets to "rebut" Rush and on what to change my mind. Imagine a Liberal talk show host- who says something like "Bush lied us into war." Does that merit a "rebuttal" from a reichwinger spin meister? So he can come on and say - No- he didn't lie- he was "mis-informed"? Do you not see the power a "Fairness doctrine" has to limit or stifle free speech?
620AM here in Portland, OR is "progressive talk" - so I found a balance without even having to resort to a directory. Care to try again? Here is the problem with what you propose. The "fairness doctrine" will have to apply to ALL broadcasting as I understand it. Since CBS "broadcasts" - each time Letterman bashes Bush, then CBS will have to put Ann Coulter on to rebut. Every time Garrison Keillor says "I'm a Democrat" on NPR, they bring on Bill O'Reilly. You will EXPAND the "reichwinger" reach instead of limiting them to Fox News (which, being cable, would not be touched) and AM talk radio. This is the Law of Unintended Consequences at work. Congratulations. You just had half the newsrooms in America fired and replaced with GOP operatives in the name of "fairness." That will be the result of supporting such a thing. That is where your advocacy will take us. The reach of the "reichwingers" will be expanded as opposed to contracted.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
They need GOP sponsored programming like Rush and Hannity. The advantage conservative radio has is that it is free from market forces. The programming is distributed free of charge. Nobody really knows who pays the multi-million dollar bills at EIB, but there is a suspicion that it is a partisan connection. You say that allowing someone who is attacked on the public airwaves equal time to respond is censorship. How so?
.
Over the top spin. That didn't happen in the past and I don't see why it has to happen now. The person or organization who is attacked is allowed equal time to rebut and may appear in person or may designate a spokesman.
.
Not in the slightest. When the doors are opened to "challenge fairness" do you really think that Ms. Coulter will give up the opportunity to put her voice everywhere she can? There are consequences to every action. When one fixes one defect, one always introduces another. That is just how things work.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
The AM Radio propaganda only survives in a very protected environment. Facts are the enemy. These people arn't anxious to face educated pundits in a situation where they can't turn off the mike - and where everyone gets a fair chance to present their views. How often do you see Rush on Nightline or Brit Hume on a major network? They don't leave the reservation now, why should they do it when there is a fairness doctrine in place? How many freepers do you see off FR?
.
Yes, because with an open exchange, propagandists like her are dead. They will just be roasted point by point in public. People like her can only survive when the government tightly controls the media in the model you advocate. When she and the other propagandists can be rebutted, they become buffoons. That is why these types didn't exist when the fairness doctrine wa in place and that is why the government is so terrified of it now.
.
It's censorship. Pure and simple. So, if I say Bush lied us into war- what I consider an OBVIOUS truth- some GOPER liar is to be given "equal time" to "rebut" that with some nonsense illogical glop that merely confuses and defuses my point? Already- we have a media that is INCAPABLE of calling a spade a spade. The most obvious malfeasance and wrongdoing is flubbed over with spin that our media refuses to call it what it is- total shit and illogical nonsense. And you want to compound that already? You want every nonsensical argument to be given equal time with facts? I'm don't like that Reichwinger liars are more popular than commentators I would rather listen too. But I don't want to see some state org mandating that every remotely contentious remark be given a rebuttal. Do you not see the power that puts in the hands of the state to limit debate to an even narrower range of opinion than we already have?
Allowing people equal time to rebut an unfair attack is censorship. OK. Good thing government now controls the AM spectrum huh?
.
You should work to get the newspapers closed down. They are operating without government control, and presenting all sides of the issues, and that has to be censorship as well.
.
No one said anything about PAYING people to fact-check. The argument here has been that stations would be responsible. That's why they get licenses. Letting one party control the discourse, attack everyone they disagree with, slander, libel and vilify political opponents, etc. while the ruling party controls the FCC and spends its time fining Stern for saying poop...this is how fascism happens. They are our airwaves, and if political operatives using deep-pocket donors willing to run stations at a loss to get the propaganda benefit, are taking them over, we have every right to revoke their licenses. Would you prefer that? It's perfectly legal, and if they don't start reining in their hatemongers, I will be very happy to spend time getting station licenses revoked. So you found one low-power "progressive" station taking on the 50,000 watt right wing superpowers. Woop. And do you think even that option is available outside the big cities? Hardly. The AM dial has turned into a monopoly. Clear Channel now owns something like a third of stations nationwide. How much of their income is coming from the GOP, directly or indirectly? If the fascists fear the Fairness Doctrine so much, perhaps they should start being fair. That doesn't mean a 50/50 mix of opinion. It means shutting their damn mouths when they start getting to the slander, libel and flat-out lying edge. Additionally, you're confusing issues. Keillor saying "I'm a Democrat" is both truthful and legitimate. No one is saying O'Reilly has to have a liberal sidekick. It's a matter of slandering the other side with no rebuttal allowed, a constant drumbeat of slander and hate. That is not what our airwaves are for. And the mechanisms are there to take back those airwaves.
You may get your wish. One thing Powell is now pushing is to allow Fox and Clear Channel to buy up the local newspapers. This would impose GOP control on all of the local news. It would all be like Clear Channel then, no dissenting views allowed at all. We could then rejoice at our freedom from censorship.
.
That's not what is going to happen? "Everyone" is not going to get a chance to to present their views. A few SELECT people will- people the state will pick- people with "Acceptable" opinions- safe state loving accetable opinions that will differ with Rush over style- not substance. What would a mainstream "liberal" challange Rush on by the way? His tone? Cause it wouldn't be his support of the war or ANY major issue. They would challange him over his characterizations of Dems as "supporters of terrorism". Whoppeee. Now the Dem frauds would get to "rebut" the idiotic two party kabuki theater schtick of Rush. Wow- how fair- meanwhile- the Dems and GOPERS have a lock via the "fairness" doctrine on the range of opinion that is subject to such "Fairness".
On his defense of torture? On his support for abridgement of habeas corpus?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
A valid point. But I am talking about people who have abused a public trust repeatedly, and have been allowed to get away with it. Meanwhile, Howard Stern got hounded off the air for merely being risque. By the Federal Government. If someone can prove that they offer fair comment, and rebuttal when it goes over the edge and they attack someone unfairly, they're not going to have someone on there every 15 minutes. Look at what happens at NPR. When they present the news, the offer views from both sides. They may take one side, but the other side gets to rebut. Pigboy won't allow a single dissenting voice on without cutting them off in mid-word. True, you got turned off, but this is just feeding hate and getting the goobers all het up. If they want to keep doing it, they should be subjected to fact-checking. Then the audience can make up its mind as to what is true.
You keep avoiding the question? WHO gets to decide what needs rebutting? You? Who says what is a lie or slander? Some gubmint monkey sitting in every station and every newsroom? Some "compliance" guy these stations must hire to make sure? Is every obvious truth to be challenged by crackpot lies? What newspapers are you talking about that present every viewpoint? I don't know of a single one. The New York Times? Let's take just one issue they cover. Iran and the nuke "crisis". The Dem position is to bomb Iran now. That it is the "Real threat". Meanwhile the GOP wants to bomb Iran too. Wow. Meanwhile- real valid opinion is ignored- like that of Iran's or just sane people. The "fairness doctrine" was during a time when there were three nationwide television channels and the two parties were assumed. You want to enshrine the two party fraud across all media? All such "fairness" does is totally limit debate to "approved" opinions- like two. And any topic or issue that challenges that narrow range of opinion won't even see the light of day. A fairness doctrine would all but make DC oligarchic opinion the only opinions in the country.
Like who? What Mainstream liberal would challange that? So every opinion that isn't even an attack on someone is to be challanged also? So Rush can't say that waterboarding isn't torture without someone coming on sayin it is? Do you not see how effing bad this can be abused by the state? Do you not see the power you would be handing to the state to limit debate? To tailor it and narrow it down to almost nothing?
As I said twice before. The person who was attacked decides. Let me say it for a 4th time. The person who was attacked and needs to rebut decides. Let me know if you need to hear it for a 5th time.
.
That's already happened- it's called Gannett News. That holding company that owns hundreds of small town papers let the DOD distrubute a "letter" from the troops in support of the war and telling rosey stories about Iraq. It was the same letter in every paper- just "signed" by different soldiers. I have no doubt that there is a massive (and illegal) government funded propaganda effort directed AT Americans. And your "Fairness doctrine" would make it easier.
NewsMax, NRO, the New York Times, Mother Jones, and the ten thousand other news papers in operation. They all present different viewpoints. You claim these divergent view points are censorship. I am saying that you might not have to endure them much longer if the FCC has its way and allows the government, through Clear Channel, to take control and eforce orthodoxy.
.
I heard your argument that allowing people to rebut attacks is censorship. I just don't understand it.
.
If you are talking about Michael Powell, it was Clinton that first appointed him to the FCC in 1997. Bush designated him as chairman after inauguration in 2001. Powell resigned from the FCC in the spring of 2005.
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Oh- so like I said- Radio host X says "Bush is Liar." He, or his chosen mouthpieces, gets to rebut that with some shit mist spin? What if he doesn't attack anyone in particular- just "Liberals" in general- as RUSH does almost all the time. Who picks the "liberal" to rebut him? Your "fainess" doctrine is an INVITATION to state control and managing of opinion.
Which kind of destroys the argument that right-wing talk radio is a populist forum which gives the common man a chance to express himself which he doesn't get from the elitist mainstream media gatekeepers like the New York Times.
Ah, sigh, ok- I see we are playing dumb now. When it gets to this point I generally stop. I don't engage BAC clones.
Yes, and I don't understand why you think this is a good thing, or why divergent viewpoints should not be given equal air time. I know government control of the media seems fair when you agree with the message, but you will not always agree with the message. Eventually, you will be sorry you fought for government control of the media. The government might tell you this is a good thing, but it isn't. You always want to give the divergent viewpoints equal access.
.
I'm not the one calling for government enforced "Fairness" that will limit debate to the narrow range of debate the gubmint picks- you are. But you know that. Now- you are just making a fool of yourself by childishly misrepresenting my views. I am turning red for you. Sad.
Yes, and what is wrong with that? What if he doesn't attack anyone in particular- just "Liberals" in general- as RUSH does almost all the time. Who picks the "liberal" to rebut him? I suppose they would handle it in the same way that they did for the first fifty years of radio. The various liberal organizations would apply for air time and if there were too many to go on, they would have to settle upon a spokesman and a viewpoint to present. If they coundn't do that, then they don't go on.
.
By keeping off dissenting views? By refusing to allow rebuttal of unfair attacks? Doing this on the airwaves that I own? On a "Public" license? So that a corporation allied with the government, i.e., Clear Channel, can decide what viewpoints I hear and don't hear? I say if they want to do this sort of thing, let them stand on their own two feet to do it. Cut off their government subsidy. Let them go onto cable or satellite.
.
This habit of repeadly going personal like this doesn't help your position. When you do this time and time again in a predictable fashion -- and you do this -- it just looks like pouting. Go take a deep breath and re-read what is posted above and try to make a rational come back. You already tried silly name calling further up on the thread and I ignored it. Reference your BAC comment above. They second time you tried it, here, I called you on it.
.
It may be censorship.......my concern is finding a leftie that I could enjoy listening to. I AM NOT A LEFTIE....just wanted to make the point that they're every bit as boring and disgusting as the righties. I live in the boondocks of the Rocky Mountains and have been able to get wafting radio waves on occasion. I've tried listening to the lefties out of los angeles and san fran.....and simply can't hack them. And if I had to listen to more than 45 seconds of mario como, I'd be throwing up. I've virtually given up talk radio........hopefully someone can recommend someone legit.
What is wrong with that is that nothing will ever be true. What is wrong with that is that a host will have to re-invent the wheel every time he says something. What is wrong with that is that it will destroy debate, chill people from expressing any opinion that could even remotely be challenged. People will confine themselves to a very narrow range of opinion. A host who says Bush is a liar - is goig to have to defend that every time he says it? He can't go further and or in depth with his views. Can't explore and talk about things that take his assumptions as true. It is STIFLING. Period. People are adults. They don't need the state to tell them what is fair. You may not like it- but there it is. Oh- and then your "application" process to rebut. LOL. I love that. And I am for stifling free speech! What is to stop the state gatekeeper to picking the liberal opinion that he thinks is the dumbest? Or the most idiotic? Or the most similiar to the reichwinger? What else should the state make "Fair" for us? Cause we are to stupid to decide what is fair ourselves.
BAC CLONE, I am tiring of this By keeping off dissenting views? I am not keeping off views. Not for that at all. I am just not for the state determing what is a lie, slander, and basically true and then mandating that an opinion show- give "equal time" to whom they determine was attacked and what needs rebutting. You are essentially for the State determining what is truth. By refusing to allow rebuttal of unfair attacks? Again BAC CLONE. Where have I ever said that? Anyone who is the victim of "unfair" attacks (the "Unfair" part being determined- again- by the state or whatever org you deem is qualified) is free to rebut all he wants. He just doesn't have a right to demand time on an opinion show for him, or a lacky, to rebut it. He can call a press conference and call Rush a liar. And as for Clear Channel being allied with the government- if so- if they are being given public funds- they should be prosecuted and shut down and the government lackies involved sent to jail. I frankly suspect such aid myself. I just don't think reichwinger radio is that popular. But that is beside the point. I am not going to give the power to limit debate in the hands of the government to fight Clear Channel. Your "fairness doctrine" is, again, an invitation to narrow debate than it already is. By the way- if Rush allowed to do satire of public officials? Is he allowed to mock them? Or does that also require "rebuttal" and "equal time". People who tune in to Rush do so because they generally share his opinion and like his humor. What would his show be if he had to watch over his shoulder what would be subject to "rebuttal"? Half his show would be rebuttals.
See- why does it have to be "leftie"? This "fairness" doctine would limit debate in this country to this "right/left" false dichotomy. I am sick of it. It is already firmly entrenched. I don't want to hear the "liberal" rebuttal to Rush. I want to hear the libertarian rebuttal or the anarchist rebuttal or the paleo conservative rebuttal. Those opinions might as well not exist right now anyway as far as our media is concerned. With a "Fairness doctrine" they woud never see the light of the day. With a "Fairness doctrine" there would be no Rush Limbaugh show. There would be no political opinion shows at all. Every political show - on TV and Radio- would resemble "Meet The Press". With A GOPER LIAR and a DEM LIAR "debating" how many angels fit atop a pin point. That is what a "Fainess" doctrine would enshrine.
Depends on if you think payola is illegal as well (paying DJs to play a groups song). I am against censorship but these conglomerates who own these radio stations are in it for the money not for speech rights - anything that threatens their bottom dollar they will ditch. Maybe we should have a law where one station on AM in a market - the low band end that few commercial companies want - gets designated as public space and with no or limited censorship but more speech freedom than a commercial station (the rubes, PC lefty nuts, religious nuts and or Jews might get upset so I can't see no censorship taking hold) like the public access cable channels. I am against censorship in any form. But the REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves. Used to be if you fired a controversial radio guy he could go down the dial to an independent radio station - now where will Imus go to? There are only 3.5 radio owing companies out there and all of them have matching interests and tastes. Satellite radio (if it does not go bankrupt) and web radio are the last bastions of free speech. You want free speech? Or freer speech? Break up the media. A company can only own 2 or 3 radio stations in a market and no television station or newspaper cross ownership - they can't own billboards and they can't own entertainment venues either (like theaters). I am not a libertarian - unfettered market forces will kill you for the right price.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I agree with you, Burke. The Fairness Docterine is useless - it doesn't address the problem in our media - which is limited and cross ownership of media by a handful of fatcat family/corporations - and yes, Fairness Docterine would stifle free speech because it would add yet another bureaucracy of well paid pencil pushing obnoxious gov't silly servant news-balance-checker-nazis. It's not the application of the "Fairness Docterine" that this country needs. It's the application of the anti-trust laws to break up the monopoly that exists today with a small cabal of owners controlling all aspects of our print, television, and radio media. http://www.info rmationclearinghouse.info/article13713.htm "It's time to break up the Media"
The REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves. See my above about breaking up the media crossownership.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Any government subsidy to media at all- in any form- is an assualt on free speech. Government shouldn't even be running public radio= as witness what NPR has become- a faux "balanced" warmonger channel that purports to be the model of the "Fairness doctrine" and yet it is just gubmint propaganda and lies with "Dems" and "GOPERS" debating over minutia and trivia. 80 percent of American media is in the hands of 8 large media conglomerates. What should be done about that? I don't know if anything should be done about it. I do know their "news" is a joke. It is full of lies and these companies rely greatly on the good favor and graces and government and thus toe a two party line. I don't read or watch them for the truth and increasingly fewer Americans do. NBC? CBS? CNN? New York Times? They are losing viewers and readers by the day. I don't think these media conlomerates are the future. But I take your point. In the real world in which government is a reality- perhaps there should be some sort of breakup of big media companies. I generally disfavor such action on the part of government but since the reality is that media sucks up to government since it has regulatory power- it is more than a little dangerous to have the media is so few hands. So if gubmint is going to be involved in media by way of regulations- it should have the power to break up the larger companies.
A "Fairness Doctrine" would please liberal believers in the two party fraud in that all these silly reichwinger talk programs wouldn't exist. But- what would replace them? Basically more "civilized" and "serious" "Meet the Press" type programs that have your standard Beltway approved "Liberal" and standard beltway approved "conservative" "debating" nothing fraud issues. The "issue" on Iraq would be what it is today- body armor for the troops, who loves the troops more, who wants to take care of the troops, and who is for killing more dirty moslems? That is the "Debate" the "fairness Doctrine" would bring. Or- Rush wouldn't go off the air- he would just hire some limp wristed setup "liberal" to provide the "balance"- like Alan Colmes supposedly does on Hannity's program. LOL! The problem with a "Fairness doctrine" is that it can so easily be abused and manipulated and used to control and stifle opinion to almost nothing- to fake absurd positions. Now- I am not blind to the possibility that Clear Channel and the goobermint are in cahoots and that it is curious how this reichwinger radio stays on the air despite how effing sad it is- but a "Fairness doctrine"- while it may "feel good" to get to the likes of Rush off the air- would do nothing to address the lack of debate in this country and the freedom of the press. It would hand gubmint the tools to control the range of opinion.
You know what a "Fairness Doctrine" would look like? Imagine a talk show host saying that Bush lied when he said that AQ and Iraq "worked together" then having to give "equal time" to the likes of a BAC to spew his Newsmax lies and silly juvenile illogical pettifogging nittery. It wouldn't matter if this host exposed this BAC's lies in the past- he would have to be given a platform to repeat his same tired old refuted 1000 times lies from his silly dopey reichwinger rag sheets every time the host said Bush lied about Iraq and AQ ties. Where could a host go with that? He could never get anywhere. He would eventually end up talking about moss growing - sounding like George Will or Tim Russert- contrived, staid, and utterly predictable = saying nothing controversial at all- not exploring anything - not even trying to connect the simplest of dots.
Yep. But that is where it would end under this so-called 'fairness' doctrine. [EDIT: Note that elections are virtually only lefties or righties--it is because they've made frigging election laws such that others have virtually no chance of success--and that is just the way they want it.] Other opinions, as you noted, would be lost, if ever initially found, in the shuffle of 'liar, liar pants afire' crap emanating from the righties or the lefties. I want to listen to whoever I want to listen to--or to listen to no one. I can think for myself--I sure as hell don't need the pilldown man or a nutty rebuttal from a leftie. Next thing you know, people will be demanding that laws be passed to make people be smarter/think smarter/do it 'their' way/blah blah blah. The market will take care of it....IMO.
The problem is that the media market in this country may be rigged. Thus I can see why people are groping about for "solutions". But a "fairness doctrine" would be a treatment worse than the disease. It would merely have the effect of making our political discourse sound more Sovietesque and boring. Rush and Hannity and O'Reilly- put on a show- and dress up their beltway toadyism as somehow "popular."
We break up monopolies to foster competition. No govt subsidies - just have many PRIVATE owners who don't cross own other media companies.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
But...the people...they want a homogenous product that's easy to digest.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Look up how Johnny Carson would make fun of those kinds of fairness doctrine moments - though it was before my time I do know of his skist through repeats I saw. Floyd R. Turbo is a recurring character on The Tonight Show. Floyd R. Turbo - Opinionated super-patriot first seen in 1977 during skits on the late night talk variety show THE TONIGHT SHOW WITH JOHNNY CARSON/NBC/1962- 92. Floyd R. Turbo (played by Johnny Carson) was an "everyman" type who taped editorial messages for television, (a la Gilda Radner's befuddled Emily Litella character). Billed as "Mr. Silent Majority," (and based on characters he encountered in his northeast Nebraska childhood) Floyd R. Turbo dressed in a plaid hunting jacket and hat, and stood nervously in front of a TV camera as he delivered his opinions on gun control, war, women's lib, and hunting ("If God didn't want us to hunt, He wouldn't have given up plaid shirts; I only kill in self defense-what would you do if a rabbit pulled a knife on you?"). Johnny Carson told Rolling Stone reporter Timothy White "He's (Turbo) the epitome of the redneck ignoramus. I find the things (characteristics) each week when I go out to do...his gestures at the wrong time, his not knowing where he's supposed to be, his feeble attempts at humor, his talks about things he doesn't quite understand." Here's an example of Turbo's wisdom on nuclear reactors. "And what's all this fuss about plutonium: How can something named after a Disney character be dangerous? So what if an atomic plant blows up? The people who say that, they are afraid to die. I'm not afraid to die because all my life I have lived by the Good Book, the American Legion magazine...They say atomic radiation can hurt your reproductive organs. My answer is, so can a hockey stick, but we don't stop building them....Sure, nuclear leaks will affect the forest animals. So what if a deer grows up with two rear ends? They're easier to shoot...So in my simple way, I' m asking that you support nuclear energy. Remember being an American means being powerful, proud and pushy, and in conclusion let me finish by ending...Thank You." And on the draft Turbo offered this opinion: "This station wants no draft. They want to deprive a boy of the Army. The Army is educational. The Army teaches you how to do dental work-with the butt of a rifle....how to tell what time it is by making a sundial out of a dead person...how to make beer out of bird droppings and also how to make a rubber girl out of an inner tube...In conclusion, I say we should not end the draft. We should increase it. We have a moral obligation to give Bob Hope soldiers to entertain. Fellow Americans, it is a honor to be drafted and to serve your country. Thank you, bye-bye, and buy bonds."
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
See my above about breaking up the media crossownership. Sorry I didn't have time to read your post at the time I wrote mine and posted it - I added you and others on the ping list with edit function after. It's not as simple as evil GOP vs wonderful looking out for the people's interest Dems, Destro. Degregulation had already started before GWB took office - actually it started under the Clinton Admin.- Bush appointed Chair of the FCC to accelerate the process that his surrogate brother, Billy Jeff had begun. ( radio had already been deregulated and cross ownership was allowed) http://www.forbes.com/2002/ 04/10/mpowell.html Based on what I read the deregulation in 2003 came about as a result of successful previous Supreme Court challenges to the existing FCC rules. Admittedly instead of having Congress draft lawsuit proof new media legislation, the FCC in 2003 merely threw out the baby with the bath water. In fact a report that showed the disasterous effects of de-regulating in radio was suppressed in 2003. Diane Feinstein received a copy. The happy news is that "Most of the rules the commission voted on in 2003 were thrown out by an appeals court in Philadelphia. The agency is reconsidering them." http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/09/18/senator_says_me dia_study_suppressed/ "Senator says media study suppressed" 09/18/06 So Humpty Dumpty can be be put back again in a better lawsuit proof version if Congress so chooses.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm pointing out the Law of Unintended Consequences so that you realize what you are getting into. The moment a "Fairness Doctrine" is put into place, do you have any doubts that it will be exploited? Realistically, what you want is censorship and marginalization. What you are going to get is a bloodbath and a fight if you open up doors to people who are a lot smarter, a lot more clever, and a lot more conniving than you are. "Fairness" will never exist. Get used to that idea. There will always be someone waiting in the wings to exploit the system and they will. There is nothing you can do about it. I've said it before and I will say it again: If you fix a defect, you introduce a new one. The Law of Unintended Consequences ALWAYS strikes, no matter how air-tight you design a system.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
There may be some back room shady deals the gubmint uses to get its propaganda out but there is no shortage of available bandwith for opposing views to get out. It's just the typical whining of people who don't want to pony up the money. A top 50 market station can be had for less than people on the coasts pay for a decent house. LOL, hells yes, let's buy out VIACOM. You put up the money and I'll be the brains of the outfit.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It sure needs to be done. Check out this chart of limited and cross ownership of our media - it will make you positively gag: http://www.mediachannel .org/ownership/chart.shtml Here's an activist site giving info on what the issues are regarding media ownership monopoly and what we as consumers, voters can do. http://www.freepress.net/issues/ I think for starters anti-trust laws need to be applied properly to this media ownership cabal that has developed over time. From the above-mentioned site: "Antitrust prosecution is potentially a powerful recourse in the fight against media consolidation." Antitrust prosecution is potentially a powerful recourse in the fight against media consolidation. Antitrust might be a way to break up the largest firms, shift control from corporations to consumers, and create a more democratic media system. Yet antitrust has yet to be employed to stop a major media deal. The very foundation of antitrust law is the idea that concentrated private power threatens democratic government – which is exactly what’s happening to the media. Yet Washington currently considers antitrust as merely a way to manage price-fixing and minor market failures. Under the current system, each merger is dealt with separately. Thus if one large company is allowed to get bigger, all of its competitors must be allowed to do the same. A more productive approach would be to look broadly at how a merger (or the likelihood of successive mergers) may affect the entire media landscape. A market that seems competitive from the prevailing antitrust perspective may be extremely concentrated from a democratic perspective – which suggests the need for a broader definition of antitrust in the media realm. Antitrust regulation should focus on vertical integration and cross-ownership – not just traditional horizontal integration. While one company doesn’t own all the TV networks, cable systems or radio stations, when just a handful each own 20 percent of these industries, much greater scrutiny is needed."
How can you claim "monopoly" when you just posted a criticism of said monopoly on a website that isn't corporate owned and linked to two websites that also were free to criticize the "monopoly"? The word has a specific meaning. It's not that people can't hear or read alternative messages, they just don't want to or don't agree with them. I mean most of us can't even open our own family members' eyes or change their minds and we have 24/7 access to them. We're the 5 percenters. Have been throughout history and probably always will be. Honestly, do you really think if you bought Clear Channel tomorrow and ended Rush's syndication and put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings?
How many people would feel empowered? How many people care about feeling empowered? They're the ones the rest of us should watch, except that would constitute busybodying. What a paradox.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The 5% that agree. How many people care about feeling empowered? 9.4%
b. It's not that people can't hear or read alternative messages, they just don't want to or don't agree with them. I mean most of us can't even open our own family members' eyes or change their minds and we have 24/7 access to them. We're the 5 percenters. Have been throughout history and probably always will be. c. Honestly, do you really think if you bought Disney tomorrow and ended Rush's syndication and put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings? a. You are right. Monopoly in the context of media ownership has a specific meaning - it applies to print, audio, and visual media media industries. The internet is not owned by the media moguls and that's why I can post on Christine's site and that's why an activist site can exist on the net. b. It's easier for people to get their news from print or radio or TV and that's not going to change for a while - not everyone is comfortable with or adept at or can afford the luxury of surfing the net to get news and or read diverse opinions. Therefore I think the media monopolies of "traditional" media need to be broken up for modern day America to have a chance at a less corporate manipulated general public. c. It's not a matter of new ownership for Disney. It's a matter of the DOJ using anti-trust laws to force Disney to sell off its ownership of subsidiaries across the film, TV, newspaper, radio spectrum. Disney would need to choose to concentrate on one of the 4. And if an independent buyer like me could afford to buy the Disney radio channel, perhaps I'd keep Rush on. But the following hour I might have a liberal talk show host on like Rachel Maddox. Who knows? It would be all up to me and not up to a bunch of corporate suits in LA who attend cocktail parties with the Viacom CEO and political insiders who together decide albeit informally what message the elites want to promote on any given day or week or month as I suspect happens now.
One example of how bad media consolidation was for radio listening: Media consolidation has meant that niche radio stations (that made profits but not the margins I imagine a Clear Channel would like) that catered to Oldies music or Jazz, etc have vanished from the scene. New York used to have 6 rock stations now they have half a rock station - half talk and half rock on weekends. They replaced the Oldies station (I am more of a 90s music guy) with a concept they call 'Jack' - yes Oldies were getting less popular as the 50s generation was getting older dying but they still made a profit. The audience for these stations were loyal and they were left without their music source - in other words the old stations served their communities and were commercially viable. Now the main mandate of over the air radio - to serve the community in exchange for the air license over public airways is not being met. In fact the airwaves have become defacto private property with radios only mission is to make money and screw the community.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
It didn't do this for fifty years. Why should it suddenly start? For most of Radio's existence the Fairness Doctrine has been in place. It didn't go away until Reagan decided to give a boost to the GOP political radio. Your idea is to let Mays, Bush's best friend and biggest campaign contributor decide who gets on? That is what is happening now. The GOP fear mongering that is now coming out didn't happen then, why should it happen now? Coulter didn't run the national networks then and she won't now. Children won't be required to listen to Limbaugh 12 hours per day any more than they were the last time the doctrine was in effect. People who are slandered by the on air personalities will however have an opportunity to request time to rebut the allegations. I know the GOP is terrified of this, and I see the fear tactics they are using to demonize the idea, but it was and is a basically fair system and one they will not be able to oppose when the facts are out. Hence the wild eyed hysteria right now.
.
I think the stations you are talking about here are the local stations in sparesly populated regions with ranges of about thirty miles. They have to shut down at night to allow the clear channel stations to take over. They have a very small audience reach and that is why they are cheap.
.
I'm boycotting NBC, MSNBC, and CBS. Besides, they're shit networks.
Buy an I-Pod.
Nope, many of those listed are Class As. You can buy a station in Raleigh NC with a metro population of 1 million for under 500k. I hope you weren't thinking you were going to start off with a transmitter on the Chrysler building for 10,000. Hop to it. If people like what you have for programming you can take your profits and buy another and another. You'll be a media mogul in no time.
Yeah, and there wasn't hardly any political radio. Great, I can't wait for Lawrence Welk to reclaim his AM throne.
Here you go. Grab your pocket book. http://broadcaststations4sale.com/sale.html http://lite.globalbx.com/Newspapers%5Clitecatlistings.html http://www.businessnation.com/Businesses_for_Sale/Media-Publishing/Publishing/ http://www.mergernetwork.com/c/newspaper-publishers-for-sale/
Just scanned your list and it looks like anything over 5kW goes up to at least a million bucks right away. You are not going to change the world with a low power transmitter covering a medium sized town in South Carolina.
.
There is very little political radio now. About all I see on FM is GOP propaganda. Do you think Hannity, Limbaugh and Savage or good sources of information? I mean, other than to see what the GOP wants to goobers to believe at any given moment?
.
I own an I-Pod just like I OWN a portion of the public airwaves that is held in trust in my name as well as that of every citizen. A corporation does not own the airwaves - they utilize them on a privileged basis only.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are so blinded by your stereo typing of people into your GOP/Dem pigeon holed slots it's impossible to have a open debate with you. Applying anti-trust laws properly, as I have suggested, to break up media cross owning monopolies does not mean letting "Roger Ails, Bush's best friend highest campaign contributor decide who gets on" You are being irrational. As for what is happening now, did you bother to read any of the material I linked to regarding how the monoplies came about. This situation did not come about as a result of GWB's election. It started long before and Fair Doctrine did not prevent it. The problem comes from a combination of successful Supreme Court challenges, Congressional ineffective action or inaction, and mis-application of the anti-trust laws on the books. How did the Fairness Doctrine help America be better informed since its inception in 1949 to the time it was side-lined under Reagan in the late '80's? In that time span we sailed through the McCarthy Commie witch hunts, the Kennedys' and Martin Luther King assassinations, the white wash of the Warren Commission, the faux Tonkin Incident, the MIC fueled Vietnam War, conscription for a war of lies, Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, the secret bombing of Cambodia, Carter starting the CIA support and training of the muhjadeen in Afghanistan, the Iran Contra deal taking place. The Fairness Doctrine instead of ensuring both sides of a controversial issue was heard on radio with the threat of fines or licenses being yanked did nothing of the kind. Instead it ushered in a time of quiet acquiescence non controversial lame news reporting that did not help one bit in giving us both sides of issues. In fact you know why a guy like Rush became so popular with initially liberals ( I hate to break it to you) and conservatives alike? It was because Rush was COLORFUL, CONTROVERSIAL, OPINIONATED and Americans - even if they did not agree with Rush - were STARVED for outside the box take it or leave it controversial opinions news analysis, instead of boring bland packaged pablum. In other words 40 years of Fairness Docterine made a guy like Rush a star and it gave rise to a TV market who swooned over Fox News, because as unbalanced as it was, FOX served up glitz and controversy and "the other side." You want Fairness Doctrine - go for it - the 2003 FCC regs have been thrown out by courts - press your Dem controlled Congressmen to bring back Fair Doctrine - and then you'll have to listen to guys like BAC presenting their schtick on Air America. Be my guest. Maybe it'll keep BAC occupied so he has no time to post his newsmax here. Here's the problem we have in this nation regarding the media and Fairness Doctrine has zero to do in serving as an antidote to the problem at hand. Look beyond your left/right pigeon holes.
You do? How much can you sell it for? How many shares do you own? Maybe you don't know what ownership is.
And it looks to me like you want even less. Are you going to make all those mom and pop stations follow the fairness doctrine too? So when they criticize the city council or the local garbage service they have to allow a rebuttal? How long do you think it will be before they switch to automated Golden Oldies?
Are you now claiming that the airwaves have become private property? What aspect of public property do you not understand?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
What would be wrong with that? It worked for fifty years, first as the Mayflower Doctrine and then as the Fairness Doctrine. If they criticize a person on the air, that person should be allowed time to reubut. The Fairness Doctrine never mandated absolutely equal time, it mandated a reasonable opportunity to rebut. The GOP fear mongering is saying "absolutely equal time" - and it is understandable why they are terrified of this. So you think that non-stop single sided propaganda parroting government issued talking points is preferable to golden oldies? You think that's political discourse? It isn't even close.
.
5kw isn't a low power transmitter. It's a Class B and a pretty good radius. This station right here will get you coverage of atleast 1.5 million during the daytime in the capital of the most populous state in the country. That's 33 cents per potential listener. "NORTHERN CALIFORNIA... right off major interstate near the State Capital. Daytime with very good coverage, 1560 on dial, nice equipment. Lease both studio and tower site on very long term lease, now in place. Asking $600,000 with $250,000 down. Balance to be paid over 5 years. Call or email Ted Gray at (336) 570-9133 for more details." Are you going to call the bank about a loan or keep bitching about how you can't get your message out. Hell, in a few years every major city will probably have total wi-fi coverage and you'll be able to broadcast at home for free in your underwear.
I understand it's an oxymoron.
This station right here will get you coverage of atleast 1.5 million during the daytime in the capital of the most populous state in the country. That's 33 cents per potential listener. Nice Red Herring and you are doing a good job of pumping it. But why should I have to buy a radio station to get back the public airways? This was decided back in the 1940s. They are the public domain. They should serve the public and not mearly function as a vehicle for pro government propaganda outlet.
.
They can. Letters to the editor, web page, pamphlets, buy their own station, internet broadcasting, billboard, etc.
1560 kHz with 1 kW/Daytime-only power? They use those frequencies to broadcast local high school games and ethnic programs to small communities. Don't piss down his back and tell him it's raining. The 1500s kHz and up is AM radio’s version of the boondocks – the top of the dial where AM signals are weakest.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Sure, or let them stand in their bathroom and scream. It all has the silly effect of sidestepping the issue. Why not give them a chance to use THEIR public airwaves to answer the charge with equal dignity. Is the Republican party so weak and corrupt that it has to use these underhanded mike cutting tactics to keep its propganda viable? I guess you don't need to answer that. Where would Fox News be if it couldn't turn off the mike? Where would the GOP be if facts entered the debate?
.
Not a red herring at all, but it has been a good excercise in getting you to show how lazy and cheap you are. I mean why spend your own money and drop your own sweat getting your message out when you can just have the government whip out its guns and make people listen to you.
And if the government wants to use its shills to blast one sided propaganda day and night, they can use cable, web radio or sirrius. They don't need to steal the public airwaves to do it. You shouldn't have to show political affiliation to use a road or a harbor and you shouldn't have to do it to use the airwaves that belong to the people.
.
Red Herring didn't work huh? Got news for you, the cheap personal attack didn't work either. Go think the matter over and come back when you have a rational argument. You simply cannot prove that the government has to right to use the public airways to blast out government controlled propaganda day and night. That is what you are trying to do and that is why you are frustrated and pissy about it.
.
What's your point? It will still reach a million POTENTIAL listeners in Sacramento. The key word is potential. If people are starving for your message,as you seem to believe they are, you'll have no problem reeling them in and making the big bucks. Your exactly like some young employees I've hired. They think they should be manager on the first day. Entitlement mentality.
O'Rielly, Hannity and Limbaugh are shilling for the government on the public airways. You think this is great and want to preserve it as it saves you from sweating to get your message out.
.
Let's get this straight, you think the government is both the problem and the solution to the same issue? Wow. And it wasn't a cheap personal attack. I'm just taking you at your word.
Actually, I think it's wrong for the government to appropriate a public trust for its own personal propaganda purposes. Exactly the same as if the government took over a harbor, a national forest or a road and only allowed card carrying party members to use it. If they want to do this, there is plenty of unlimited bandwidth they can buy and use on cable, internet, etc. They don't need to steal the public airways to for their propaganda purposes.
.
You know that bullshit. When have I ever praised the one party fraud shills on this forum. All I'm doing is pointing out a solution that doesn't require begging mommy gubmint to point guns at people. It used to be called freedom. Sometimes it requires risk and effort though and that scares some people. I understand that.
Nice strawman. You can really put words in people's mouths. Let's see. You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit. The only wingnut tactic left for avoiding the issue is changing the subject. Better try that now.
.
It is my position Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly strongly favor Republicans. I don't think you are going to have a lot of luck denying this. These are the people you are fighting to keep in exclusive control of the public airways. These people literally front for the government. They don't make a peep without checking the talking points.
.
Well once you get over the myth of "public trust" and realize their is only private property, and government property, it becomes clearer what to do about it.
Not myth, supreme court ruling. In effect since the early 1940s. And it was an assumed part of the body of law prior to that. If you disagree, write the Supreme Court and live with it until they change it. It is the current law.
.
My point is you are a bull shit artist and what is worse you are making stuff up as you go along without a clue about any of this.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I've done none of those. You said the problem was government using the airwaves for propaganda was the problem and that the government's Fairness Doctrine was the solution. No strawman there. And you have repeatedly shown you are opposed to putting your money where your mouth is so how is it a personal attack when I merely reiterate it? There is no red herring. The radio stations exist and they cost less than the houses in some areas. Clear Channel is putting 480 of theirs on the auction block this year.
And there is not a single shred of doubt anywhere that the FCC has the right to regulate the use of the spectrum. Licenses are part of this regulation and there is not a shred of doubt anywhere that conditions can be put on the licenses - conditions must be put on the licnses or there would be chaos.
.
I've done none of those. Check the thread above. I noted each one when you did it.
.
Never heard of the term legal fiction?
More BS on your part. I metioned that we should return to more private ownership of media - restricting the number of stations one company can own and restricting how much individual cross ownership across media like newspapers, radios and television can occur - and you came out against it. The market still rules but you have diversity of ownership and as a bonus it will tend to be on a local level.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Srawman attack number two. You say I can't enforce my rights unless I buy a radio station. That's silly.
.
As I said, send it to the Supreme Court. Until then, live with the law of the land. In fantasy land I can flap my arms and fly to the moon. But so what?
.
No Destro, that's you. That's usually all you do. I've posted links to radio stations that actually exist for sale, right now. Dozens of them of varying powers and market sizes. You just don't like it so you stomp your feet and get emotional, as is the norm for you.
What does the cost of a radio station have to do with the regulation of the public airways? Oh, I got it. This is the "change the subject" post. So now you have covered all bases: Red Herring twice, personal attack, strawman and now change the subject. I guess you can go home now.
.
Great post. The "Fairness doctrine" merely gave two sides of the same coin a platform that excluded all others. And that was when the parties really did have at least SOME real differences on major questions. Now? They are clones only with different faux issues they flog at election time (which are uncompetitive for the most part and match Soviet "elections" for turnover) which appeal to different cultural bases. But in the end? What do they differ on? Nothing. Oh, ok- one party likes the "gays" more. I think that is the difference. Bringing back the "fairness doctrine" would indeed make shows like Limbaugh's impossible. No more reichwinger radio. It would be replaced with the Pravda like droning of David Gergen-esque middle of the road say nothings who would say NOTHING of even slight controversy and the "issues" would be the same tired old fraud Beltway setups. And you are spot on. The reason a Rush burst out on the scene and became the success he was - was precisely because the "fairness" doctrine was simply massively abused by unreconstructed Kennedy era liberals who misrepresented conservative opinion by claiming such as George Will- was a "Conservative"- about the most establishment owned bitch faux conservative that has ever come down the pike. Rush was the voice of real conservative thought in this country. He was funny, and entertaining, and called out the hypocrisy of what really once was a media wich favored the Dem "liberal" side of the spectrum. But Rush has sold out. He has become part of the Beltway and has distorted "conservatism" so that it resemble little more that fascism American style. And I have a bit more faith in people. Rush doesn't have the cache he once had. He no longer angers "liberals" that much. They are not obsessed with him like they used to be. Why? Because Rush is widely seen as a GOP rumpswabber and a bought compromised whore. He isn't a serious commentator. He is a cheerleader. He is like Free Republic- an activist and rah rah booster for what our MSM now calls "conservatism" - which is just state loving Liberalism that loves the military more. Free Republic doesn't have the cache it once had either. Its an embarassing site now. No one goes there for interesting conversations- and what is more- in their mission statement they don't even pretend to be a "Debate" site. People who want to find the truth will find it. People- when they pay attention- are not stupid. But some people want to be lied too- like Bushbot Limbaugh listeners and they will never ever be persuaded otherwise. You just have to accept that. I think what some on this thread are trying to grapple with is that they think the media is being consolidated and controlled by the government- that Clear Channel like media conglomerates in cahoots with the government are monopolizing the airwaves and that something needs to be done about that. Yes- something does- like break up the media companies and get government out of media regulation. A "Fairness Doctrine", however, is not the way to go. It would be worse.
The law of the land is there is currently no Fairness Doctrine. So what are you gonna do? But I won't hold that against you in the argument as I'm not a law idolizer.
Ideology vs realism. I called it - Smokin is under the delusion that the airwaves can be owned like private property. He is a corporation pimp. He is a statist but he substitutes his love of statisim not to a govt but to corporations - who can do no wrong - what is good for GM is good for America, etc.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I've done none of those. 1st Red Herring called out in post 109 1st personal attack called out in post 115 1st Strawman called out in post 118
.
No, I don't believe in positive rights. I'm trying to persuade you to solutions where you don't violate the negative rights of others. You want to take the violent route though.
Then you have no right to own a gun or any sort of private property. OK.
.
Fuck off. I've shown the non-state solution. You want to pretend it doesn't exist.
1st personal attack called out in post 115 1st Strawman called out in post 118 Already rebutted soundly.
Yes, you want to keep the public airways in the hands of the government shills. And O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and Mays are government shills. Make no mistake about it.
.
Property rights flow from self-ownership. No positive rights involved.
No, never answered at all save for one blanket denial. Read the thread.
.
No, actually I was trying to show you how to put a private radio station in your hands for cheap. You want to go the mommy gubmint route. It's so much easier I know.
Nope. Read your house title. It's a grant from the soveriegn. That's what a fee is. It might be something different in fantasy land, but lets not go there. Its a waste of time.
.
Great job on this thread. You know you have pretty much won when your opponents start to misreprent your statements on purpose, play dumb, and attack arguments you are not making. They have no respect for the lurkers whom they assume are as dumb as a bag of rocks.
So now the government has rights?
Childish personal attack number two noted. Unsupported strawman number three noted. Why don't you tell me why the Supreme Court cases don't apply and how the public airways are not a public trust? You should also inform the Supreme Court that their rulings now have no effect. I am sure they would like to know.
.
So now the government has rights? Do you deny that they have the right to put you in jail for a crime? If so, why don't you go rob a bank. It beats working. But your fantasy land is so silly and tiring. Lets get back to reality.
.
Now you get it, B! It took a while. I understand why you would not understand what I and Scrapper were talking about because - no offense and I respect your views very much - you come from a school of thought that discounts that corporations can do no wrong from the Republican Right. I also don't like govt being involved in such BS issues as fairness, etc. But there is solution - a market solution which only gives the govt an oversight role but not much else - break up media consolidation. You can't have one company owning more than one or two or maybe three max radio stations and limit any cross ownership of media in the same market like television stations and billboards and newspapers. FOX was once barred from owning TV stations in New York City because they owned the NY Post as well. They had to get special permission from the FCC to get the privilege to buy a broadcast station here. Having many owners of media would increase business competition, would increase artistic and political diversity and the market would benefit from more local ownership and return local flavor to television and radio and newspapers. Why do libertarians hate a centralized federal govt in favor of local power but when it comes to corporations they support the impersonal cross border corporations over smaller local businesses?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ooooh boogie booogie. Divine Right Monarchs and SUPREME Courts. Voodooo statist witchdoctors. Call me unimpressed.
You're confusing power with rights.
You just transfer the statist worship on to corporations. The BS you shoveled on how easy it is to buy a radio station is one such example, obscuring the fact that is of a small low power station that operates in a limited capacity. That is your market solution to the issue at hand? Break up consolidation and you get a true and better result and no govt involvement beyond this regulation.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ooooh boogie booogie. Divine Right Monarchs and SUPREME Courts. Voodooo statist witchdoctors. Call me unimpressed. Don't feel bad. That sort of stuff only matters in the real world. In your fantasy land you are the ultimate authority.
.
Unsupported strawman number three noted. Just because you say "strawman" over and over it won't make it so. Have you not asked for mommy gubmint to provide a solution to a problem that you state has roots within government? Yes or no.
You're confusing power with rights. No, you are playing word games here. But you know that. If the government doesn't have the right to lock up criminals, then they are misusing their power and the government should be stopped from locking up criminals. Or they shold be granted the right to do it. Agree? By the way, you are going back to fantasy land here.
.
Actually it only matters if you care about it. It only matters if you believe in imaginary lines on maps and that wearing a black robe gives weight to an argument.
No And you are putting words in my mouth. That is why I called you on your third Strawman attack.
.
Only individuals have rights.
You really rule in fantasy land. No wonder you spend so much time there. But that is probably where you and I differ. I care about what is. You seem to care about the fantasy world you've cooked up in your brain. I actually have no interest in that.
.
No, you are playing word games here. But you know that. If the government doesn't have the right to lock up criminals, then they are misusing their power and the government should be stopped from locking up criminals. Or they shold be granted the right to do it. Agree? By the way, you are going back to fantasy land here. Only individuals have rights. Very silly word games. Does the government have the right to lock up criminals or not? Hint: Try to play games with the definition of "right". That will get you through one more post before you get hammered.
.
No I'm not. Right here you said the government was the problem: They should serve the public and not mearly function as a vehicle for pro government propaganda outlet. And here you said government can be the solution: It worked for fifty years, first as the Mayflower Doctrine and then as the Fairness Doctrine. If they criticize a person on the air, that person should be allowed time to reubut. Are you done lying yet?
Since when did the Supreme Court become a monarchist institution among the loopy libertarians? The broadband spectrum is public domain. For free, the govt grants licenses for its use in return for said license the broadcasters must also provide a service to the public for this trust. I want to see the libertarian argument stating that airwaves are now really private property of the corporations which broadcast on them. This is a new development in standard corpro-statist reasoning as far as I now - and I have been in Libertarian circles most of my adult life.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Huh? I have never expressed that opinion or anything like it ever. Corporations do wrong all the time. Not only do they do wrong but they can be genuinely evil. But, much of that wrong, and much of that evil is because of government inserting itself as the arbiter between prosperity and success and failure and loss. Are oil corps to blame for the Iraq war? Or would they just be stupid to not take advantage of government muscle since it exists? When did Microsoft become a scary secretive company? When they didn't have one lobbyist in DC and openly bragged about their lack of interest in politics? Or when they started buying up politicians and sending trucks loads of payola to DC every month because they were almost broken up by politicians out to destroy them on behalf of comapanies that were paying them off. Corps can be evil as any group or people or individual can. But, I happen to believe that in a true free market such evil wouldn't get them very far. But add a huge state into the mix- that grants favors, recieves favors, and is armed and has the "law" on its side- then corps are going to vie for those favors- seek anti market advantages- try to get the government to do their dirty work. It is only natural. Individuals seek to use and abuse government all the time. Corps the same way. Since we all MUST deal with the government which is basically an armed gang that claims monopoly on force of arms- it is only natural that we all try to gain its favor and seek to influence it.
And here you said government can be the solution: No, they can stop being the problem.
.
Chilish personal attack number three. Temper temper temper.
.
Even the statist Framers of the Constitution only stated governmet had powers. Never rights.
I caught you in a lie, called you on it and you call it a childish attack. Atleast you didn't call it a strawman again.
Yea and the Constitution is only apiece of paper with ink stains on it. At least you sort of admit you are an anarchist - an anarcho-capitalist. But this country and its constitution was not founded along anarcho-capitalist lines. Anarcho-capitalists have always been as delusional as communist ideologues - two sides of the extremist coin.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Nope. You put words in my mouth and then atacked why you said I said. Actually, I am very unimpressed.
.
Ahh but that's not what you said. You called for active measures not passive.
No I didn't. You want me to go over it one more time with you?
Let me give you some advice. Control your childish temper. That is what is giving you troble here.
.
Now you're getting somewhere. Baby steps.
No, I want to see you start jumping up and down and screaming Did So! Did So! Did So! Did So! and then start crying. If I said what you claimed I said, you would not have had to put your interpretation ahead of the quote. The quote could have stood on its own. But you know that.
.
No, how about you actually keep track of what you write on the thread and I won't have to go back and cut and paste to throw it in your face when you deny it.
Of course they are to blame for a large part. Why would the muscle be flexed if not for profit? Ideology may sway men but in America money moves them.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No I didn't. Go back and read the post ass. Your first sentence is what you claim I said and then you quote what I actually said, which isn't the same thing at all. You do this twice. LMAO!!
.
Interpretation? So you aren't calling for the gubmint to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine to correct their spewing "government propaganda" as you called it?
I'm not sure why the "constitution" is constantly sited by "conservatives" and held up as some sort of sacred document when it has obviously failed to do what the framers of it claimed it would do- keep power decentalized and government weak. It is long past time for that failed document to be consulted on anything as it obviously isn't a guide or even restriction on what our sainted holy "supremem court" decides upon. The FCC has the right . . . Huh? Why is there even an FCC at all?
I haven't been doing that? Haven't I called out all of your personal attacks, your strawman attacks and your change of subject tactical moves? Didn't I actually give you the post numbers to go back and check me on it?
.
My apologies. I made a bad assumption. Only because - in my defense - you seemed unable to grasp at the notion of media consolidation being the problem. This reminded me too much of corpro-statist worship I encountered on Freekrepublic. I don't see how allowing more owners in a market not less is not desirable unless you support the notion of corporations being so good that even of they owned almost all radio and television stations that would not be a big deal or much a problem. To me it is not a question of them being in cahoots with the govt - some like Clear Channel may be some are not. To me it is about allowing more voices to be heard on PUBLIC airways using a MARKET solution.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Spooner took care of that argument a long time ago and it wasn't 1/100th as bad as it is now.
Because if there wasn't, everyone would broadcast on all bands all the time and nobody would be able to receive anything. Whoever built the most powerful transmitter would get through - sometimes. Why are there stop lights? Why are there laws against murder? Why are airliners assigned cruise altitudes? Why do people agree to consistently drive on certain sides of the road? Why are there rules for how ships should pass each other when they meet on the open sea?
.
Well- the power exists for one. A huge standing military sitting around waiting for politicians to use it - to get their name in the history books and create their massive human sacrifice monument that we call "war memorials". Government restricts whom they can do business with. Haliburton just pulled out of Iran after finishing their contracts and can't do business there. Is Haliburton driving the war? Yes- but only because the freedom to do business is restricted by government. We can argue about this all day long I guess. If The US didn't have a 2 million man military and navy postured all over world- what would oil companies do? Create a costly Merc army to take over the ME? Or negotiate fair contracts with the local powers that be to do business?
Being a long time Howard Stern fan I am no fan of the FCC. The FCC has NO right. The FCC's role should be the same role we assign traffic cops for - I assume even extreme libertarians are for having traffic rules and regulations - but you know what they say about assumptions. The FCC's role should be to make sure radio station frequencies don't cross over and other such traffic work - its original mission. The FCC should not be in the business of speech censorship - a task it took on itself without any legislation telling it to do so. With that said - that does not diminish the fact - a point ignored - that the airwaves ARE NOT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY of the broadcaster but the of the public. Concede the point or don't and we can go from there but enough with avoiding it. When you avoid answering this it is obfuscation.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
This whole media thing, yes there is too few media companies. But that's because local radio just isn't that profitable on the small scale. The fact is you can't make any money putting on local hosts in medium markets when you only get 100 bucks for a 30 second spot. The way Clear Channel and CBS make money is they automate the place and put on a syndicated guy with advertising barter system. And even then its not much of a money maker. That's why Disney is selling off their smaller ABC radio stations, CBS and Viacom split, and now Clear Channel is putting 480 stations up for sale. It's also why you can get a medium market station for half as much as it would cost just to build the transmitting tower.
American military invasions have all been based on protecting a business interest - be it fruit in Latin America or oil in Iraq. If it was about keeping a military arm employed we would have invaded Rwanda a long time ago. The war in the Congo does not bother us because the Western corporations are not restricted in their mineral transactions there.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Apparently not if you can't even keep track of when you call for the government to fix a problem they caused.
That has been my point all along. The public airways are the property of the public at large. As such, they must be administered for the good of the public at large. This is even more true now that alternate bandwidth is available. People can run a media outlet anyway they want as long as they do it on a private channel - such as cable. But if they want to use a public owned channel, they have responsibilities. If they don't want to live up to these, they can go private and give the channel to somebody who will live up to the responsibilities.
.
Strawman attack numer 5. You are on a roll. Instead of just putting words in my mouth, why don't you read up on the subject and try putting your own words down. Something besides childish insults and silly fantasies about how you think things ought to be in your perfect world.
.
Says who? local stations tend not to make a profit at the rate a Clear Channel would want but they do tend to make money. The big corporations are selling off their radio stations for a variety of reasons not all of them radio business related.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
With today's technology, and the almost unimaginable ability to split the spectrum, there is no reason why they couldn't be private property.
No- no one would make money. Agreements would be made. Arrangements bartered and haggled over. Or do you really think wannabe radio station owners would sit around trying to outbroadcast each other on the same frequency? Do they have a magic bag of money to do this? Do they like pissing money away? And FCC- Federal. What about states and local governments allocating such frequncies if you just can't stand people to do it themselves- negotiating with neighboring government entities to settle disputes? Why the feds? So they can control the scope of debate easier? Is that it? Let me ask you something- do you really think - but for government plains would crash into each other, people wouldn't obey simple agreed upon traffic rules- and murder would be common place? Is that the silliness you are reduced too? Have you ever been to a shanty town in a third world country? They have no government "services"- or even law. Is it chaos? Is it "anarchy"? No- intricate and PRIVATE means to settle disputes, collect garbage, regulate street traffic, buy and sell property to which they have no "government approved title" too and which is but impossible to get- all done with no government. All manner of transactions are conducted- quite without any sort of government whatsoever.
Fantasy land again. Doesn't exist on a commercial basis.
.
Yes, and the reason I think that is because that is exactly what they did. And that is what gave rise to the regulation and the treaties with Mexico on this subject.
.
Because the clear channel stations, and many others, go interstate and international. And the contitution says that regulating this sort of commerce is a federal issue. Very local broadcasting could be locally regulated if the vertical range could somehow be reliably limited, but it can't under the current technology.
.
Well then buy one. My family has been in and out of the small market radio business for 35 years, and all the way back to the 80s, you had to go automated Easy Listening to make a profit. You can't pay 6 local schmucks to do 24 hours of live talk radio in a medium market and make any money.You would be broke in a month. If you could, people would be doing it.
This is a sorta which came first - the chicken or the egg- type merry go round argument. It can't be resolved. Again- but for the fact that the US government had a contingent of marines ready and poised for deployment- would United Fruit have taken it upon themselves to over throw the government in Guetemala or would they have had to come to terms with that government?
Because the Constitution mandates this. See the post above. Broadcasting across state lines is interstate commerce.
.
Yes and yes. Armed gangs collect garbage in Rio and kill anyone who muscle in on their turf.
.
LOL Ok, Rip Van Winkle. I guess I was just imagining cell phones, Wi Fi, satellite tv, satellite radio, digital tv, digital audio, analog tv, analog radio. My mistake.
bribes. When you do business there you hook up with someone who knows the bribe rate. You have to do this. Or you can't operate.
.
I am waiting for an answer. A point ignored by the libertarian anarchist on here - that the airwaves ARE NOT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY of the broadcaster but the of the public. They can concede the point or not and we can go from there but enough with avoiding it. If they think the airwaves are private property say it and provide a reason for it. Maybe it will change my mind and other minds or maybe they will come off as loopy kooks but stop trying to change the argument. In fact I have seen an avoidance of my point and yours about the need to break up of media conglomerates. I am not talking about the fairness doctrine BS or having the govt hold your hand - we are advocating the creation of conditions (yes, via the law) for more PRIVATE owners of broadcast media in markets and the restriction of cross media ownership.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Yes, your mistake. "Cell" phones operate in short range cells. That is why you can have so many. They don't transmit out of the cell. They are low power broad band devices moron. Everything else you describe is a reciever. The digital TV, audio and Satellite TV are MUX'd signals that sometimes increase apparent bandwidth. These are all normal spectrum signals operating at frequencies outside normal broadcast frequencies. The point is that they are not using any wave stacking to increase the information handling capability of the channel. They are strictly Nyquest bandwidth devices. You can calculate the spectrum spread by looking at the information transfer rate, i.e, bytes per second. As I said above, I suggest you do some reading before popping off.
.
Interesting- what makes governments so reasonable that they make treaties over such things- but private parties who have direct financial interest in these matters can't? Governments make "treaties" on this subject- but two radio stations owners wouldn't come to terms with each other - but - like assholes with bottomless supplies of cash- would broadcast on the same frequency so that their listeners would get jumbled static? Oh- ok. Thank god the Feds created the FCC- because we wouldn't have TV or radio without them and their agency. I See.
Of course they would. Why would they not?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I didn't ignore it. I stated earlier there is no reason why the airwaves should be claimed by the government. Bandwith is cheap and easily split and getting cheaper and more easily split every year. Information transfers are easily and cheaply compressed and it's getting cheaper and easier every year.
Because they are not the government and can't steal money from people to support stupid unproductive projects like broadcasting on the same frequency as a local competitor. I guess two morons could exist in the same market- But I imagine they would run out of money as no one could listen to their stations and no advertisers would buy time- and two guys who were not morons would buy them out and agree to broadcast on different frequencies. I imagine thousands upon thousands of such agreements, contracts, pacts, pools, would exist among users of the airwaves if the FCC didn't exist.
No really, thanks for enlightening me. I guess 20 miles is short range to you. How many people does that 20 miles cover in a metro area moron?
When Chechnya won its first war against Russia, the govt in Chechnya was no govt - it existed but had no power. During that time you saw a slave trade in kidnapped people rise up unheard of in modern times. Want to see the gruesome ransom videos? I am sure kidnap and murder were illegal in Chechnya then as well. It was a business - it was done to make money not to spread any ideology or religion. Anarchist have real world examples - they just don't have any good ones. Anarcho-libertarians are just as irrational Utopians as the socialist variety. Utopianisim is the most dangerous of ideologies.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are right- the trafficing of Gulag prisoners as slave laborers to state industries under Stalin was better.
The point is that they are not using any wave stacking to increase the information handling capability of the channel. My point wasn't that they were in the normal "broadcast frequencies". That's a government designation. My point was the frequencies that technology has allowed the consumer to recieve information by.
They were given the chance and they didn't so regulations were put in place. Exactly the same thing happened with the railroads about 70 years earlier. And I didn't write the Constitution. I only know what it says. And it says that regulating interstate commerce is a Federal Issue. And note that if the broadcasters wanted to change the rules, they probably could. The storngest support for the rules probably comes from the broadcasters. They don't want a hundred thousand watt station extracting tribute from them or blowing them off the air. And they don't want to have to build a two hundred thousand watt transmitter just to negotiate.
.
America seemed to make it along just fine with the border blaster X's.
Yes, that is exactly the way they acted. Sort of like the drug industries do today. Or sort of like Enron playing games with the California energy supplies and making milions off the brown outs - before the evaporated with eveyone's pensions.
.
No, that is why they now have the traties with Mexico regarding this.
.
But they are not! I don't live in Utopia and I don't cater to Utopian wish lists. So the best solution barring friggin Utopian conditions is to have - for a variety of reasons - media dis-consolidation of the broadband markets. This allows market forces and allows for a hoped for diversification of views and art and for competition but mostly for keeping voices on the PUBLIC AIRWAVES open as widely as possible under MARKET conditions.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
About 300 to a cell. Like I said, read before shooting your mouth off moron.
.
And I replied - if just using the soldiers for any war just to get more weapons made and spur on the war industry was the reason we would have invaded Rwanda. I already described how deals for such things are made in this govt - coalitions formed etc - you responded favorable to my analysis. I may have to find it again if you wish.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No, you are trying to change your point because you got hammered on your ignorant rant. What you said is below and it says nothing about "normal broadcast frequencies". It talks about "splitting the spectrum" which isn't the same thing at all. With today's technology, and the almost unimaginable ability to split the spectrum, there is no reason why they couldn't be private property.
.
Who "Gave" them this chance? ANd I don't buy that for an effing second. And same with the railroads. No one proffited more from railroad regulation than railroad barons. What government often calls "chaos" is merely them not getting their piece of the pie. Radio comes along- making money hand over fist- and government wanted their piece- thus the various radio acts and laws and comissions that eventually got consolidated to the FCC. There never was a "chance". Congress was already passing laws on Radio broadcasts when there were barley any to begin with.
That is my experiance/observation also.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Like I said, if all the broadcasters agreed to deregulate, then the regulations would probably go away. If there was an evil conspiracy to keep the regs in place over their objections, my guess is that you would hear about it. They do have the ability to get the message out.
.
You do know those frequencies are regulated by the FCC as well - the companies who are in the businesses you mentioned don't own the broadband either and operate under license. Your mistake, indeed.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Do you really think that but for the FCC- we would have a jumble of static on the air- no one able to pick up radio broadcasts or television signals? That isn't what you are saying is it? You are really going to argue that radio station owners would just bankrupt themselves by moronically braodcasting on the same frequency as a competitor in the same market but for "laws" and force of government telling them not to- "Granting" them the license for a specific frequency? I don't want to misrepresnt what you are saying.
There is a method of transmitting using short bursts with wave fronts only about a yard long. You can MUX in many different channels here by synchronizing the receiver with the transmitter and just picking up every 10th packet, etc. He read something about this once and was mouthing off about it. He is now trying to cover for the gaff. This technology has problems with rain and dust, etc. That changes the speed of transmission and raises hell with the wave stacking.
.
What are you talking about - businesses do that all the time and have- undercut a competitor to drive him out of the market. Stop with the corpro worship - the govt can kill you and so can a corporation - both can become irrational because they are run by flawed men. Sorry to get all Christian Democrat on you.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I can only go by what happened in the past and this did happen in the past. In fact, it was happening in the 1960s with Mexico. And yes, I do believe that a few corporations would try to take advantage of the situation. And note, the situation becomes unworkable if only ONE corporation decides to play around. That is the nature of the business here. One corporation can put everyone else out of business and take over the whole nations broadcasting.
.
That's right Burke - now you get it - BOTH full on Statisim and full on anarcho- libertarianism SUCK. You maintain anarcho-libertarianism does not suck. THEY BOTH SUCK!!
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Regardless, Boortz is correct in pointing out the Modern Inquisition and issuing a warning. Excellent expose of the hypocrisy in all this. Absolutely correct observation. The man's credibility is totally irrelevant to the truth of his observation. Freedom is under attack in this country from all quarters. Give a little and more will be taken away. All those on this forum who can not see this would you please open your eyes. Please. This is only the beginning of total censorship. A backdoor via radio to eventually come after the internet by setting precendents. Do you stand for Freedom or something else? Yeah, freedom can be "uncomfortable." But then I thought we were beyond this level.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Why would they want deregulation? Do you think the airline companies, all three of them- wanted deregulation? Do you think the faux private entity Amtrak wants railroad deregulation? Do you think the auto industry wants all those federal standards to go away? Regulation limits the playing field by raising the cost of doing business and basically making it impossible for start ups to occur. If you are a big giant company or corporation- you want regulation. Cause you can afford to comply with them- your smaller competitors can't. There is a reason why this country had three airlines until the 80's- and it wasn't because of the evil free market.
You are a statist. Chechyan rebels, coming out of 70 years of communist barbaric rule is not "anarcho capitalism". And even if it were- their slave trade was nothing compared to the modern statist slave labor holocausts we have seen in the past hundred years.
Or you want regulation if you are a 5 kW mom and pop station being menaced by a multi-million dollar three hundred thousand watt station two states over.
.
I am a long time Howard Stern fan - when Howard went to have one of his marches to celebrate his ratings triumph a competitor had their engineer cut his signal. Ever see the movie 'Used Cars'? Selling cars by jacking the feed of the superbowl - funny as hell movie starring Kurt Russel.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
When can I charge people for breathing air? Let me know.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I don't worship the corps. You obviously worship the state.
I've been looking around on the news this past hour or so and have found 3 other articles/editorials connecting Don Imus being fired to the Duke case and I wasn't even looking for that. I find this curious especially in light of the fact that the author here is obviously fanning the flames of anger and outrage. I can't believe how this topic is dominating all the so-called news outlets, it makes me wonder if something is brewing that we need to be distracted from.
They also prevent unethical bullying by multi-national corporations who simply want to run the small operators out of business to take over the market - and maybe not take over until some later date. I've worked for major corporations and seen them deliberately destroy all the small independent operators. They then didn't even bother take over the market, they held it in reserve and the general population suffered for it.
.
When you guys run out of arguments you take one of three tired options: 1. Strawman 2. Personal insult 2. change of subject. Nice Strawman. You really put some nasty words in my mouth. Guess you don't have to make sense after that huh?
.
Why not? The Chechens that came out of that rule did not impose communism or create a communist state. Chechnya was by far the closest example in the modern world to a lawless state - by lawless I mean no state authority. You may have a Utopian ideal of "anarcho capitalism" - Utopia is bullshit and never existed nor will it exist.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The topic of Don Imus being fired, not the connecting of it to the Duke lacrosse team which I only saw those 3 articles about that, but Don Imus fired articles in general are everywhere.
If you would do some reading, and think about what you are saying before hitting the post button, you wouldn't need to start kicking and screaming and using your three tactics. What you are doing above is making up your mind and then trying to fit the fact to your prejudice. And you get your ass kicked. You then start your personal attacks and you get laughed at. LOL!!! Now try taking the facts and forming an opinion from them. That is what adults do.
.
Hmmmmm. The federal government has tons of broadcast laws and regs and comissions- hundreds of thousands of them. Have they protected those small mom and pop radio stations? What has happened to media in the last 50 years? More hands? Or fewer hands? Do we have more laws and regs regarding broadcasting today than existed 30 years ago? How many employees does the FCC have now compared to 30 years ago? The feds have done a great job protecting those small media companies.
I have no "Utopian" ideal. I just don't give government credit when none is due.
They still exist, my family owns one.
.
I'm confident I have held up quite well in this exchange. I don't have to resort to the nervous and awkard BAC "LOL" either.
And how is this related to the price of tea in China? How many emloyees are needed and how many are surplus? And does this change on any given day? Does it change seasonally? Do the types of employees required morph over time? Nice change of subject. Now try personal insult.
.
That's right. You used the BAC reference when you got desperate and went to personal insult earlier today. I used the LOL to illustrate your use of the three tactics was silly. But you know that.
.
I don't worship the state. I am for limited govt. But I am for govt. I am a Burkeian but more so a John Locke empiricist. As an empiricist I hold "anarcho capitalism" notions in disfavor because no such macro-economic system has ever existed in human history. It is a school boys model.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The Duke case is when all is said and done a local issue - Don Imus is a famous nationally syndicated radio star and his firing has NATIONAL implications. White women and black women falsely accuse men of rape all the time.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Yes, what's your point? Just because they don't own it now means they can't own it ever?
THAT IS NOT OUR POINT!!!! The only govt regulation beyond say regulating frequency, etc (which you are against anyway) we are calling for is to limit media consolidation. Focus. The only govt regulation beyond say regulating frequency, etc (which you are against anyway) we are calling for is to limit media consolidation. Why? We think that it would create a diversity of opinions on the airwaves - or more opinions than are found now. Agree with this point or not? focus.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Yes, and on this note I might add that I don't worship the state either, but I do believe that political philosophies are only ideals and that anyone who rigidly adheres to any particular philosophy as dogma is a fool headed for disaster. If you could efficiently catalog human behavior into an adquate set of laws, you could model humans. And you can't do that. And it may not even be possible to do that. Roger Penrose a dean of mathematics at Oxford doesn't think it is possible and he gives a pretty good proof of it in The Emperors New Mind. The system is only a rough guide. Judges, Juries and Legislaturs fill in the details on a case by case bases. They have to do this because human behavior is too complicated to write out in advance - and that is what you would have to do to have perfect laws.
.
Sure they have. The ancient world was by and large one giant free market and "government" was little more than a group of armed men that had to be paid off- an expense of business. Ancient laws and regulations, even of the most technocratic ancient empires were few by reason of technological limitations and enforced erratically and unevenly. "Government" barely existed in the lives of most people day to day. Today- you literally can't do anything without bumping into the state. It pervades EVERYTHING we do. I think, that human history has come full circle again. That the technology that made state control more effective and more onerous- is now being superseeded by yet more technology- information technology that renders much of what state now does and claims that only in can provide superfluous and unneccessary. I think the "state" as a central component in culture is floundering and will take a back seat once again.
You brought up the term "normal broadcast frequencies". Are you having trouble following along again? 300 What do voice channels have to do with available frequencies? And were you saying that digital technology hasn't made more efficient use of the frequencies?
See my #255 - the issue they are avoiding is of media consolidaton. Why? My guess - as corpo-statists - they view the state as evil so therefore a corporation/business must be good in comparison - the anti-state. In reality, they both can be evil because both are man made creations.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
In other words - not in our living experiance. If we can get in a time machine let me know.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No one has avoided it. Why Because I already showed you that: A) You can be the media for not a whole lot of money B)The media is currently reversing consolidation. They are selling off stations like hotcakes. Put in your bid.
I am focussed. I was getting in to a side argument about regulation and law in general. Yes- I believe government regulation of the airwaves is not necessary- that operators would by and large come to mutally beneficial agreements and arraingements out of self interest. Under current circumstances - in which the reality is we have a heavily regulated media in this country- subject to the stick and carrot of government control- it might be better to prevent the consolidation of the media into only a few hands using the force (law) of the same government. But absent such overweening government interference in the first place- such preventitive measures against media consolidation wouldn't be necessary.
When I first noticed the length of this thread I was surprised. After listening to the conservative communists all day long on talk radio whining about Imus and comparing the Duke case comments made by two more communists from the liberal pool of fakirs, and then witnessing the prolonged commentary here regarding this non-event, I determined that whatever it is they're doing to our minds it seems to work. How we allow the low-life propaganda prostitutes to guide our thought patterns and waste our time debating non-issues is startling. Either I'm nuts or things are so topsy turvy and "spun" out of control that we're all caught up in a dizzying dance with disinformation and mind control that causes us to grasp at nonsensical crap like the Imus thing in a vain attempt to retain our sanity. Frankly, who gives a rats ass about the nappy headed ho's or the brats from Duke ??? Who gives a good shit about whether left or right wing liars are banned from spewing their brand of bullshit and getting paid kazillions for "keeping us occupied" while their political partners in crime rob the country, sell the ports, lock up dissidents, invite invasion, attack trade centers murdering 3000 of our fellow prisoners and pre-emptively attack the middle-east. It appears to me that only the dullest mind is able to remain seriously attached to the political system and the hypocrits able to fund their phoney campaigns. No wonder they lowered the voting age to 18, maybe it should be lowered again to about 5. Mainstream Talk Radio, a term the "fair and balanced" crowd deny, is a nuclear turd delivered daily like a dose of prozac served up to anyone with too much time on their hands. And to think some people are so friggin stupid or comatose they actually think there are two sides, good guys and bad guys ... or maybe it's more akin to a baby-bottle shoved into the collective baby's mouth to shut it up. Liberal communists or conservative communists, decisions, decisions. How do you prefer your shit-sandwich, white bread or rye ?
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
The treaty is evidence there was a problem? What was the problem? That kids in Minneapolis could hear Wolfman Jack?
And three quarters of Nevada is owned by the Feral Gubmint. I guess that means it always should be.
I thought we were talking about enough room to broadcast talk radio.
The American "Wild West" is a recent example. Despite the idiocy of a program like "Deadwood" which shows a state of chaos existing between groups of murderers and thieves- the American West wasn't ever very "wild." Settlers and squatters- existed for years in peace with no Federal government hanging over their heads. All they had was a shared culture and voluntary agreements. They bought and sold land between each other on deeds they wrote up themselves for example - (which are worth a lot of money today if you have one of these "squatter deeds".) Hell- they even printed their own money (which was also done in the great depression- people literally traded their own made up currencies). Humanity- will never be rid of government in some form. But I would love to get back to the days when they were little more than a bunch of thugs whose only contact with was generally once a year when their tax collector (bag man) came for a visit rather than what is now- the arbiter of everything and all things down to how you raise your kids and how many gallons of water your toilet uses per flush.
Strawman attack numer 5. You are on a roll. So you want to deny again that you stated that government using the airwaves for propaganda was the problem and a government mandated Fairness Doctrine was the solution?
Like it or not the truth is that the darker this country gets ethnically the more the nanny state will intrude into our lives. "Democracy" allows the welfare sucking indigent the same vote as someone productive and self supporting. When the welfare recipients outnumber the the producers they will vote themselves raises by electing hacks that will pander to their welfare sucking "CONstituents, until they break the backs of the dwindling number of producers. We're almost there now ! Looking at the amount of good and the amount of ill that issues forth from the U.S. Govt. as a whole ... I'd say we'd be better off without it. The only thing preventing the border problem from being fixed is the U.S. Govt.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Right. Look- I am more than confident that any reader of this thread will see who is the pettifogging nervous nilly dancing about trying to distract and obfuscate by playing dumb and going off an tangents and misrepresentation of his opponent's arugments.
They still exist, my family owns one. Then what's your problem? They won't let you near a microphone to battle the gubmint propaganda?
Somalia (obviously before the US AC-130H Spectres). Now tell me Vermont couldn't do without an FCC. From the BBC: A host of mobile phone masts testifies to the telecommunications revolution which has taken place despite the absence of any functioning national government since 1991. Three phone companies are engaged in fierce competition for both mobile and landline customers, while new internet cafes are being set up across the city and the entire country. It takes just three days for a landline to be installed - compared with waiting-lists of many years in neighbouring Kenya, where there is a stable, democratic government. And once installed, local calls are free for a monthly fee of just $10. International calls cost 50 US cents a minute, while surfing the web is charged at 50 US cents an hour - "the cheapest rate in Africa" according to the manager of one internet cafe. But how do you establish a phone company in a country where there is no government? No monopoly In some respects, it is actually easier. There is no need to get a licence and there is no state-run monopoly which prevents new competitors being established. Voices of Somali internet users In pictures And of course there is no-one to demand any taxes, which is one reason why prices are so low. "The government post and telecoms company used to have a monopoly but after the regime was toppled, we were free to set up our own business," says Abdullahi Mohammed Hussein, products and services manager of Telcom Somalia, which was set up in 1994 when Mogadishu was still a war-zone. "We saw a huge gap in the market, as all previous services had been destroyed. There was a massive demand." The main airport and port were destroyed in the fighting but businessmen have built small airstrips and use natural harbours, so the phone companies are still able to import their equipment. Despite the absence of law and order and a functional court system, bills are paid and contracts are enforced by relying on Somalia's traditional clan system, Mr Abdullahi says. Mobile target But in a country divided into hundreds of fiefdoms run by rival warlords, security is a major concern. While Telcom Somalia has some 25,000 mobile customers - and a similar number have land lines - you very rarely see anyone walking along the streets of Mogadishu chatting on their phone, in case this attracts the attention of a hungry gunman. We are very interested in paying taxes Abdullahi Mohammed Hussein Telcom Somalia Life in Somalia: Have Your Say The phone companies themselves say they are not targeted by the militiamen, even if thieves occasionally steal some of their wires. Mahdi Mohammed Elmi has been managing the Wireless African Broadband Telecoms internet cafe in the heart of Mogadishu, surrounded by the bustling and chaotic Bakara market, for almost two years. "I have never had a problem with security," he says and points out that they have just a single security guard at the front door. Mr Abdullahi says the warlords realise that if they cause trouble for the phone companies, the phones will stop working again, which nobody wants. "We need good relations with all the faction leaders. We don't interfere with them and they don't interfere with us. They want political power and we leave them alone," he says. Selling goats on the net While the three phone companies - Telcom, Nationlink and Hormuud - are engaged in bitter competition for phone customers, they have co-operated to set up the Global Internet Company to provide the internet infrastructure. Somali traders say if business is better without a government Elsewhere, they can have a wireless connection at 11Mb/s. He says his company is able to work anywhere in Somalia, whichever faction is in charge locally. "Even small, remote villages are connected to the internet, as long as they have a phone line," he says. The internet sector in Somalia has two main advantages over many of its Africa neighbours. There is a huge diaspora around the world - between one and three million people, compared with an estimated seven million people in Somalia - who remain in contact with their friends and relatives back home. E-mail in Somali Somalis send e-mails in their own language E-mail is the cheapest way of staying in touch and many Somalis can read and write their own language, instead of relying on English or French, which restricts internet users to a smaller number of well educated people. Just two days after it was opened, the Orbit internet cafe in south Mogadishu's km5 was already pretty busy, with people checking their e-mail accounts, a livestock exporter sending out his invoices and two nurses doing medical research. Video calling And Somalia's telecoms revolution is far from over. "We are planning to introduce 3G technology, including live video calling and mobile internet, next year," says Mr Abdullahi. But despite their success, the telecoms companies say that like the population at large, they are desperate to have a government. Telecoms engineer Mogadishu's phone engineers are going to be kept busy "We are very interested in paying taxes," says Mr Abdullahi - not a sentiment which often passes the lips of a high-flying businessman. And Mr Abdulkadir at the Global Internet Company fully agrees. "We badly need a government," he says. "Everything starts with security - the situation across the country. "All the infrastructure of the country has collapsed - education, health and roads. We need to send our staff abroad for any training." Another problem for companies engaged in the global telecoms business is paying their foreign partners. At present, they use Somalia's traditional "Hawala" money transfer companies to get money to Dubai, the Middle East's trading and financial hub. With a government would come a central bank, which would make such transactions far easier. Taxes would mean higher prices but Mr Abdullahi says that Somalia's previous governments have kept taxes low and hopes this will continue under the regime due to start work in the coming months. Somalia's telecoms companies are looking forward to an even brighter future with the support of a functioning government - as long as it does not impose punitive tax rates or state control in a sector which obviously needs very little help to thrive.
Yep- I posted that story I think back when it was written. The only thing the "Islamic Courts" did was formally defeat the warlords in Mogadishu. That was when suddenly the "Chaos" became a "problem" that had to be "Solved" in Somalia. By the way- private somalians were issuing their own currencies as well. "Governtmentless" Somalia was never in "chaos". That is just statist drivel.
By the way- do you think there will be statist apologists 30 years from now- with an internet heavily regulated by government up the ass- who will say that but for the Federal Internet Comission the net would be "chaos?"
You're missing the much larger issue in question. Whether Imus is or isn’t aired is not important. What is important is how a small group of racial hustlers can impose sanctions on our 1st amendment rights via corporate sponsors. The Imus matter is wonderful opportunity for Abe Foxman to drill his hate speech agenda into the legal system.
You're exactly right, IndieTX. Just as 911 was used to advance some precooked “terror” bills, this matter will advance Hate Speech legislation which will affect each and every one of us. This forum included. For a group who is otherwise politically astute, I can't understand how some are missing the obvious.
No one with hearing could have missed the point being squawked about all day long yesterday by every talk radio hustler, and the brainwashing is obvious when you later see people using the exact same language like "racial hustler" to describe the two nappy headed preacher ho's. Reverse discrimination has been obvious for 20 years and nothing has been done about it by the politicians, just like the border issue that goes unattended, proving once again that your tax dollars are being used to destroy you. What is important is how a small group of racial hustlers can impose .... whatever agenda they want because a few years ago they were backed by a huge mob of negroes burning shit and turning over buses. It's our turn to demand respect and impose our will.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
The NC AG not only dismissed the charges, he declared the Duke Three innocent. A few questions: In the two months or so that the case was in AG's office, what "new" information did the NC AG have or discover that Nifong did not have or could not have discovered with relative ease? When will Jesse and Al apologize to the Duke Lacross team? And, repeasting one from the article above: when will Oprah have the Duke Lacross team on her show?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
The government already operates outside of the rules it makes for itself, so I guess the question is: If they pass the law, will you follow it? Right now, if they really wanted someone shut up, they could do it under "enemy combatant status" or some other such thing and no one would hear from you again. It's like worrying about them banning guns - it's probably inevitable they'll do it someday - we just need to create the mindset among the majority that they won't turn them in. Personally, I worry more about political correctness that comes from people self-censoring - where the person's thoughts and words are automatically suppressed and they don't even notice it.
Whether I do or don't is far less important as are the sanction they will apply to me if I stray from their rules. In the case of Imus, his speech was silenced when his sponsors folded under the pressure of the dual darks and their hollow army of black and white leftists. Either political extreme is capable of speech codes, but the left seems more organized and focused than their counterparts on the right.
I agree and if we don't our fate is sealed. But given the cowardice of whites (gee, illegals can muster under the flag of their nation and demand respect, but not whites) I hold no hope.
Out of arguments I see. Back to the childish personal attacks. What is this one? Number five on this thread? I've lost count now. You know, if you can't say anything worthwhile, it might be better to just shut off the 'puter. Keeps people from laughing at your simple dynamic. Push you into making a statement, show how your statement is stupid and ill and informed and then catch you pouting by making a personal attack, a strawman attack or trying to change the subject. Don't pout and don't sulk in your posts like you just did here. It only makes you look like an idiot.
.
Not really, I already won the main one which was there was no need for a government mandated Fairness Doctrine because there were a multitude of reasonable ways for people to get their message out (including owning radio stations)... you just want to keep going.
Yeah, those two do suck, and Ed Schultz sucks about half the time. The Young Turks were awesome, but they moved to XM. Then there's Stephanie Miller--witty, intelligent, and soooo dreamy.
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
Calling people names and stawman attacks don't win anything. Neither does making up silly facts about cell phones and satellite TV. That's why you can' post a link to where you did anything else. Recall that you already tried this tactic above when you simply stood up and said you didn't use personal attacks, strawman attacks or subject changes. I had to go find the links where you did and then you tried to change the subject.
.
And, repeasting one from the article above: when will Oprah have the Duke Lacross team on her show? it will be a cold day in hell. those two things would be the beginning of some real repair, but we know that would go against the agenda.
By the way, your failed argument that people can get access to radio by simply buying their own radio station is asinine. As is your denial of the effect of the Suupreme Court cases. And yes I know, the Surpeme Court doesn't exist in your childish fantasy land. Some higher authority rules there. But we arn't operating there. We are operating here in the real world now.
.
By the way, I loved your assertion on the thread above that the Government doesn't have the right to put crooks in jail. Are you going to start robbing banks for a living? Sounds like a nice easy profession.
.
Only to tightwads and people with low credit scores.
It's hilarious how you keep screaming "childish attack" and "strawman" even though you are both committing them and I have documented that you stated what you say you didn't. Accuse the other guy of doing what you plan to do seems to be your M.O.
One that you haven't rebutted at all. You just keep repeating the assertion as if that's an argument. You're starting to bore me.
Are there six million cheap radio stations out there for people to buy? If you want to handle the public trust question this way you better have an insult or a stawman ready for your comeback. And what if someone who owns part of the public trust doesn't want their interest sold off? How are you going to get the Supreme Court to change the status? And remember, the Supreme Court exists here in the real world. Laws exist here in the real world. We are not working in your fantasy land here.
.
Wny don't you go rob a bank today and then tell the cops you did it. Come back and tell us what happened. If you can. When the cops slam the jail door tell them that the Constitution does not give them police powers. Tell them that you changed that last night on an internet thread.
.
What significance is the number six million other than Ernst Zundel, Abe Foxman and David Irving? Oh, none you say, you just pulled it out of your ass.
What does that have to between my (and the Framers of the Constitution)understanding of the difference between a power and a right?
This is a reall clumsy strawman and subject change. Even morons like you can do better than that. Let's say ten or twelve million if that makes you feel better. Are there twelve million cheap radio stations out there for people to buy?
.
Now you edit it to "power". You just stated "right" a few seconds ago. You can't even keep your thoughts straight enough to get it together in a single post.
I like Stephanie Miller; I like Ed Schultz and Bill Press and one other dude who gets about an hour somewhere in the middle. Oh, and I liked Randi Rhodes back when I could get her. But Bennett and Samuels? They just suck (so of course they get 3 fucking hours apeice).
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Cut the cheap word games and tell us why the state can't lock up crooks. It's my position that the state was granted the right to do this. You answer that in fantasy land the word isn't defined that way is stoopid.
.
You need to learn the terms before you use them. Are there twelve million cheap radio stations out there for people to buy? What significance is the number 12 million? Even morons like you can do better than that. Like I said, your M.O. is to accuse others of what you plan to do.
You just said "power" a minute ago, and now you are back to "rights". Buy a dictionary.
What significance is the number 12 million? What you are doing here is called begging the question. You know you can't answer it withoug looking like an idiot so you try to extend the discussion by answering the question with another pointless question. You are not the only one to do this - 9 year olds do it all the time. You will try to string things along and hope you can either start a fight or change the subject. Why don't you just answer the question instead?
.
Another term you don't know the meaning of. You know you can't answer it withoug looking like an idiot so you try to extend the discussion by answering the question with another pointless question. No, I really want to know what the significance of the numbers you are spouting is.
Another term you don't know the meaning of. I disagree, but you can call your tactic for avoiding the question anything you like. What is this tactic called in fantasy land? Here the question again, now you ask a pointless question in response to avoid it. And you can call the tactic by the same name the people in fantasy land employ. The result is the same. Are there twelve million cheap radio stations out there for people to buy?
.
You're confusing consumer popularity with airwave monopoly. There are plenty of other AM channels that don't play talk radio. People don't listen to liberal talk radio because it sucks, there's only so much crap anyone, even a liberal, can put up with when it comes to carping about insufficient funding for [insert self destructive behavior of the day whose victims need my money here]. And when it comes down to it, outside of the discussion of foreign policy, 95% of liberal talk is that, and conservative talk is bitching about government and everybody likes to bitch about the government. If you're an investor, it's easy to see where to put your money on that bet. If this so called fairness doctrine came back in effect, I can guarantee that the end result would merely be a quicker migration to satellite and digital internet formats. Fairly soon after that, there would be liberals bemoaning the monopolization of those formats and clamoring for some type of regulation of them. If you could put together a host team of people who didn't sound like an NPR condescention crew and weren't idiots like Al Franken et. al., you might have a shot at market viability if you could figure out how to propagate liberal ideas that weren't dependant upon constantly expanding monetary policy...
"pound pastrami, can kraut, six bagels – bring home for Emma"
Well you can disagree all you want. It won't make you right. "Begging the question" is term with a specific meaning and it has nothing to do with asking a question. What is this tactic called in fantasy land? I don't know what fantasy land you refer to, but in the English language we call it asking a question. Here the question again, now you ask a pointless question in response to avoid it. I'm not avoiding it. I want to know the relevance of the numbers you picked. Why not a billion radio stations, or a trillion? Do you think in a debate you should just be able to pull numbers out of your ass and then force people to argue from an irrelevant premise? Not with me you don't.
I had anarcho-capitalists/libertarians mention this to me in the past. To me that sounded like Khmer Rouge thinking of returning the world to Year Zero. The above was all well and good for a barter economy but we are not there anymore. History teaches me via my empiricist observations that this very anarchy of the ancient world in fact FORCED the creation of the state because Heboodia did not trust the scales of Zebodia in Mesopotamia nor did they trust the gold purity of each other's nuggets. This necessitated the STATE coining money, affixing its seal on the gold coins in Lydia and regulating weights and measures. So empiricist observations of history belies the Utopian notions of anarcho-capitalists/libertarians as much as it does the BS that comes from Utopian Anarchists/Marxists. PS: I am enjoying this conversation. I hope you are also.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
In other words, on this issue we are in agreement. Such discussions from like minded individuals reminds me of the Orthodox and Catholic disputes from a thousand years ago where they argued that in understanding the Holy Trinity if the Holy Spirit could come from the Father and/or the Son (Correct answer from the Father only-Heh).
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That is why I have attempted to discuss media consolidation as the problem and media dis-consolidation (break up) as the best solution/hope to diversity in media message.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Not from my readings. Then again maybe you like the notion of fake judges like Roy Bean handing out these kind of sound judgments: "One story has him finding a dead Chinese man with a gun and $40 in his pocket; since he purportedly knew of no law against killing a "Chinaman", he proceeded to fine the dead man $40 for carrying a concealed weapon. He also knew next to nothing about the law; he reputedly thought habeas corpus was a profanity" I guess the retort is - govt imposed judges are no better and on the argument goes.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
More Whites (gross figure not per capita) live under some welfare state provision than the 'Darkies'. In fact if you factor in farm subsidies and corporate welfare (which the Darkies on welfare crowd leaves out) then Whites are the real welfare queens.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
In fact if you factor in farm subsidies and corporate welfare (which the Darkies on welfare crowd leaves out) then Whites are the real welfare queens. Don't confuse him with the facts.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
I agree with you.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Good for Somalia. How about Chechnya where they cut cellphone installation technicians heads off - probably because he did not pay the local warlord or could be they like head chopping - who knows.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I like confusing people with facts - it's why I was banned from Freerepublic a dozen times. Facts confuse extremists on the left AND the right. "Whites are the real welfare queens."
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Wise words. And they apply to everything. Absolutely everything.
Well did you talk your Catholic school teachers into showing your 4th grade class High Anxiety?
Good point, though apparently novel for many. All that is accomplished by regulation is a shift of nexus from private managers to state managers, i.e. bureaucrats. The state apparatus becomes the aspiration of office-seekers. This is not necessarily an improvement -- but that cuts both ways. Far more important than the face-value rules of the game are who the players are.
Well did you talk your Catholic school teachers into showing your 4th grade class High Anxiety?
Thom Hartman. He's OK too. If the XM-Sirius merger goes through, hopefully you'll be able to pick your programming a little more. Did you hear when Randi Rhodes called Stephanie Miller and was flirting with her? Rowr!
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
That's the guy. Bennett could do his schtick on any network, even a right wing one, it's so bland and basically non-political; and Samuels, Oey Vey... Typical New York hag kvetching about trivial bullshit and switch hitting opinions.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
There might be a certain, umm, path dependence here.
Well did you talk your Catholic school teachers into showing your 4th grade class High Anxiety?
Its a shame nobody listens to the quality manager.... Another one that is absolutely true and nobody heeds is "Sometimes the best thing to do is nothing at all" I have an entire list of 'rules' that I've been generating over the last year as I notice things that require a 'new rule' to address. Some year I'll turn it into a book.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
Unfortunately though, there is very little agreement on what things constitute flaws, or to what degree, except perhaps in some things like not liking to be killed. Even worse, there is only some agreement on the value of agreement per se, or on reciprocity.
In the depth of their sorrow, they shall know; That he who held back holds back no longer.
In fact if you factor in farm subsidies and corporate welfare (which the Darkies on welfare crowd leaves out) then Whites are the real welfare queens. There isn't a successful self sustaining black nation on the planet earth, and the welfare monies spent on blacks in America are probably secondary to the financial impact that black criminals have on our society, not to mention the amount of violent crime committed by them. The illegals are also a major drain on the economy and huge negative impact on the social costs because of their criminal activity, and this bullshit is being PROMOTED by the government and the Vatican. I won't argue about the corporate welfare, I think corporations should be outlawed, period. They are "legal fictions" ... frauds that have no reason for existence other than to maximize greed and limit liability. (Oh, and to bribe politicians). The farm subsidy actually serves commodities brokers, bankers and tax collectors more than the farmer. The farmer's product is price regulated which prevents market forces from determining the price. The cost of everything related to farming, tractors, combines, fuel etc., has sky-rocketed while the crops have remained at nearly the same price for the last 60 years or more. (Crops have gone up a little in the last couple of years, but not significantly).
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
That was my impression, too. Since I'm not a) a New Yorker, b) Jewish, or c) attracted to harpies, I don't listen to her. Also, she's got a mouth like a sailor--that's tough for when the kids are in the car.
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
This is very true. Society seems to be operating like a software QA department. Things are looked at when they are reported and the "fix" slows down to a crawl when it is 'escalated.' But the common agreement is "This must be fixed!" Yet most often, the best thing to do...is to do nothing at all...its a shame people can't figure that out.
Press 1 to proceed in English. Press 2 for Deportation.
Yup. WHich would be okay if she was at least funny. Ech.
It is not a Justice System. It is just a system.
Not even Italy?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
whitey mudda fuckers Don't make me come ovah there bitch...
The Bahamas? Jamaica?
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
Maybe ya gotta have faith. History gives many examples of the right man in the right place at the right time. Historians love to write about them and think they're important, but I think that's mostly just survivor bias.
In the depth of their sorrow, they shall know; That he who held back holds back no longer.
Both are anglophone and have been run by whites, speak english and I wouldn't consider them successful self-sustaining countries either. However, they are fun to vacation in.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Nappy Headed Ho: This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Imus and Company is "so going to" cash in on this faux controversy... Laughing all the way to the bank...he!
Never swear "allegiance" to anything other than the 'right to change your mind'!
Not even Italy? The Black Nobility do not qualify ... but it was an exceptional reply !
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
Says who? You? The descendant of body painting and animal skin wearing Germanic barbarians the Romans only thought were fit for plow work? The people whose ethnic name gave the world the term 'vandal' based on the destructive characteristics of their ethnic traits? Till Goths, and Vandals, a rude Northern race, Did all the matchless Monuments deface (John Dryden 1694).
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Most countries in Africa were former colonies of Europe, yet they fell apart when whitey left, but for some the Caribbean nations didn't. Now they're making money due to the drug trade and offshore gambling servers--good for them. I do know that Jamaica and the Bahamas both have their dirt-poor areas, but it's not like there are rival factions going around hacking peoples heads off with machetes.
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
Improvement maybe, but success is surely judged to a higher standard than limited machete hacking ... even though our own society looks to be headed in that direction.
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
LOL!
The "Department of Defense" has never won a war. The "War Department" was undefeated.
Neil has a rather full closet. He's right to sweat. Hatemongering on the public airwaves is not a nice thing. Imus was just making a joke; these asshats are dead serious.
#2. To: Mekons4 (#1)
#3. To: Brian S (#0)
#4. To: Brian S (#0)
Their original plan was to wait until Democrats control the congress and the White House and then murder talk radio with the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
#5. To: Destro (#2)
Boo-rtz has zero credibility.
#6. To: orangedog (#4)
Then the first time you say something on air that displeases her, you end up being labeled as aiding terrorists and hauled off to Club Gitmo. There won't be any Roy Black or other million dollar lawyer to get you out of it...you'll just be gone, getting the business end of the police state you had to have.
#7. To: Mekons4 (#6)
They were just trying to keep you safe from Terrah-ists and Islamofascists.
#8. To: mirage (#5)
Regardless, Boortz is correct in pointing out the Modern Inquisition and issuing a warning.
#9. To: Mekons4 (#8)
(Edited)
There's no reason Boortz and his ilk should not be held to the same standard as a newspaper or magazine.
#10. To: Brian S (#0)
By the way ... my guess? Now that MSNBC has dumped Imus, CBS is sure to follow. Look at it this way .... NBC has canned him. How in the hell can CBS stand up to the this racially charged onslaught? "Hey, CBS! NBC did the right thing? How about you?"
#11. To: orangedog (#4)
I want you all on the air when some marxist cunt like Hitlery gets control of all that extra-constitutional power you fucks cheerleaded over the past five years.
#12. To: mirage (#5)
Regardless, Boortz is correct in pointing out the Modern Inquisition and issuing a warning.
#13. To: Mekons4 (#8)
#14. To: mirage (#5)
#15. To: mirage (#9)
Why should private industry be forced to subsidize left-wing commentary?
#16. To: Brian S (#0)
#17. To: ... (#15)
But why should a right wing propaganda engine be given exclusive use of MY airwaves? If they want to spew one sided bile, let them go on cable or sirrus.
#18. To: ... (#15)
But why should a right wing propaganda engine be given exclusive use of MY airwaves?
#19. To: mirage (#17)
Anyone can start up a radio station or buy one.
#20. To: Mekons4 (#18)
#21. To: ... (#19)
#22. To: mirage (#17)
Are you saying that right-wingers should be denied the same rights that everyone else has?
#23. To: mirage (#17)
Anyone can start up a radio station or buy one.
#24. To: mirage (#21)
Judging by the number of Spanish stations, one would have to say "That assessment appears to be in error."
#25. To: Destro (#2)
Boo-rtz has zero credibility.
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#26. To: mirage (#21)
#27. To: Mekons4 (#18)
#28. To: Mekons4, mirage, bluedogtxn, burkeman1 (#8)
(Edited)
They're operatives for one political party, but never disclose their affiliations.
#29. To: Burkeman1 (#27)
Fox, even among reichwingers, isn't considered a serious "news" source. It's a 24/7 celebrity gossip channel that manages to fill the gaps with crude reichwinger propaganda.
#30. To: Mekons4 (#23)
Why do you object to fact-checking?
#31. To: mirage (#30)
If you don't want to listen to a particular radio show, don't do it.
#32. To: mirage (#30)
#33. To: mirage (#30)
But don't deny people the right to publish or the right to offer their opinions.
#34. To: mirage, Mekons4, bluedogtxn (#30)
But don't deny people the right to publish or the right to offer their opinions.
#35. To: mirage (#30)
Why do you hate freedom so much?
#36. To: Destro (#28)
#37. To: Mekons4 (#32)
#38. To: Mekons4, Destro, bluedogtxn, ... (#32)
Just TRY finding a fair, balanced talk show on AM radio. You can't.
#39. To: Burkeman1 (#37)
"Liberals" need to start up their own radio programs. From what I have heard - they did- and it failed.
#40. To: mirage (#38)
Since CBS "broadcasts" - each time Letterman bashes Bush, then CBS will have to put Ann Coulter on to rebut.
#41. To: ... (#40)
Over the top spin.
#42. To: mirage (#38)
That will be the result of supporting such a thing. That is where your advocacy will take us. The reach of the "reichwingers" will be expanded as opposed to contracted.
#43. To: mirage (#41)
(Edited)
When the doors are opened to "challenge fairness" do you really think that Ms. Coulter will give up the opportunity to put her voice everywhere she can?
#44. To: ... (#39)
#45. To: Burkeman1 (#44)
It's censorship. Pure and simple.
#46. To: Burkeman1 (#44)
#47. To: mirage (#38)
#48. To: Burkeman1 (#44)
#49. To: ... (#42)
These people arn't anxious to face educated pundits in a situation where they can't turn off the mike - and where everyone gets a fair chance to present their views.
#50. To: Burkeman1 (#49)
What would a mainstream "liberal" challange Rush on by the way?
#51. To: Burkeman1 (#44)
But I don't want to see some state org mandating that every remotely contentious remark be given a rebuttal. Do you not see the power that puts in the hands of the state to limit debate to an even narrower range of opinion than we already have?
#52. To: ... (#45)
#53. To: aristeides (#50)
#54. To: Burkeman1 (#52)
(Edited)
You keep avoiding the question? WHO gets to decide what needs rebutting? You?
#55. To: ... (#48)
This would impose GOP control on all of the local news.
#56. To: Burkeman1 (#52)
What newspapers are you talking about that present every viewpoint?
#57. To: Burkeman1 (#55)
And your "Fairness doctrine" would make it easier.
#58. To: ... (#26)
Recall that the GOP now controlls the FCC. Putting Powells kid on the four member board cinched the deal.
#59. To: ... (#54)
#60. To: Mekons4 (#51)
Pigboy won't allow a single dissenting voice on without cutting them off in mid-word.
I've already said too much.
#61. To: ... (#56)
(Edited)
NewsMax, NRO, the New York Times, Mother Jones, and the ten thousand other news papers in operation. They all present different viewpoints. You claim these divergent view points are censorship.
#62. To: Burkeman1 (#55)
That's already happened- it's called Gannett News. That holding company that owns hundreds of small town papers let the DOD distrubute a "letter" from the troops in support of the war and telling rosey stories about Iraq. It was the same letter in every paper- just "signed" by different soldiers.
#63. To: ... (#62)
Eventually, you will be sorry you fought for government control of the media.
#64. To: Burkeman1 (#59)
Radio host X says "Bush is Liar." He, or his chosen mouthpieces, gets to rebut that with some shit mist spin?
#65. To: Burkeman1 (#63)
I'm not the one calling for government enforced "Fairness" that will limit debate to the narrow range of debate the gubmint picks- you are.
#66. To: Burkeman1 (#63)
(Edited)
Now- you are just making a fool of yourself by childishly misrepresenting my views.
#67. To: Burkeman1 (#44)
#68. To: ... (#64)
Yes, and what is wrong with that?
#69. To: ... (#65)
#70. To: rowdee (#67)
#71. To: Burkeman1, mirage, Mekons4, bluedogtxn, ... (#36)
(Edited)
have no doubt they work closely with this administration and government to push a standard proganda line day by day. But that isn't illegal
#72. To: Burkeman1, ..., Mekons4, bluedogtxn, Destro, rowdee (#68)
(Edited)
#73. To: scrapper2, Burkeman1, ..., Mekons4, bluedogtxn, rowdee (#72)
I agree with you, Burke. The Fairness Docterine is useless -
#74. To: Destro (#71)
#75. To: scrapper2 (#72)
#76. To: Mekons4 (#51)
#77. To: Burkeman1 (#70)
(Edited)
See- why does it have to be "leftie"?
#78. To: rowdee (#77)
#79. To: Burkeman1 (#74)
Any government subsidy to media at all
#80. To: Destro (#79)
#81. To: Burkeman1, Mekons4 (#76)
(Edited)
You know what a "Fairness Doctrine" would look like?
"Floyd R. Turbo", a dimwitted yokel responding to a TV station editorial.
#82. To: Destro, Burkeman1, Mekons4, bluedogtxn, rowdee (#73)
The REAL CENSORSHIP has been the fucking right wing backing the deregulatio n/media consolidation of media ownership that monopolized the air waves.
#83. To: Mekons4 (#47)
#84. To: Burkeman1 (#78)
The problem is that the media market in this country may be rigged.
#85. To: SmokinOPs (#84)
It's just the typical whining of people who don't want to pony up the money.
#86. To: Destro, Burkeman1, rowdee, Mekons4 (#79)
We break up monopolies to foster competition. No govt subsidies - just have many PRIVATE owners who don't cross own other media companies.
#87. To: scrapper2 (#86)
(Edited)
Here's an activist site giving info on what the issues are regarding media ownership monopoly and what we as consumers, voters can do.
#88. To: SmokinOPs (#87)
put on someone more in tune with the 4um view of the world, that they could pull his ratings?
#89. To: Dakmar (#88)
How many people would feel empowered?
#90. To: SmokinOPs (#87)
How can you claim "monopoly" when you just posted a criticism of said monopoly on a website that isn't corporate owned and linked to two websites that also were free to criticize the "monopoly"? The word has a specific meaning.
#91. To: scrapper2, SmokinOPs, Burkeman1, rowdee, Mekons4 (#90)
#92. To: scrapper2 (#72)
(Edited)
Fairness Docterine would stifle free speech because it would add yet another bureaucracy of well paid pencil pushing obnoxious gov't silly servant news-balance-checker-nazis.
#93. To: SmokinOPs (#84)
There may be some back room shady deals the gubmint uses to get its propaganda out but there is no shortage of available bandwith for opposing views to get out. It's just the typical whining of people who don't want to pony up the money.
#94. To: Brian S (#0)
#95. To: Destro (#91)
One example of how bad media consolidation was for radio listening: Media consolidation has meant that niche radio stations (that made profits but not the margins I imagine a Clear Channel would like) that catered to Oldies music or Jazz, etc have vanished from the scene.
#96. To: ... (#93)
(Edited)
I think the stations you are talking about here are the local stations in sparesly populated regions with ranges of about thirty miles. They have to shut down at night to allow the clear channel stations to take over. They have a very small audience reach and that is why they are cheap.
#97. To: ... (#92)
For most of Radio's existence the Fairness Doctrine has been in place.
#98. To: scrapper2 (#90)
(Edited)
It's easier for people to get their news from print or radio or TV and that's not going to change for a while...
#99. To: SmokinOPs (#96)
Nope, many of those listed are Class As. You can buy a station in Raleigh NC with a metro population of 1 million for under 500k.
#100. To: SmokinOPs (#97)
Yeah, and there wasn't hardly any political radio.
#101. To: SmokinOPs (#95)
(Edited)
Buy an I-Pod.
#102. To: ..., Burkeman1, Smokin'OPS, Destro (#92)
(Edited)
Your idea is to let Roger Ails, Bush's best friend highest campaign contributor decide who gets on? That is what is happening now.
#103. To: Destro (#101)
I own an I-Pod just like I OWN a portion of the public airwaves...
#104. To: ... (#100)
There is very little political radio now.
#105. To: SmokinOPs (#103)
Maybe you don't know what ownership is.
#106. To: SmokinOPs (#104)
So when they criticize the city council or the local garbage service they have to allow a rebuttal?
#107. To: ... (#99)
Just scanned your list and it looks like anything over 5kW goes up to at least a million bucks right away. You are not going to change the world with a low power transmitter covering a medium sized town in South Carolina.
#108. To: Destro (#105)
What aspect of public property do you not understand?
#109. To: SmokinOPs (#107)
5kw isn't a low power transmitter. It's a Class B and a pretty good radius.
#110. To: ... (#106)
If they criticize a person on the air, that person should be allowed time to reubut.
#111. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#107)
#112. To: SmokinOPs (#110)
They can. Letters to the editor, web page, pamphlets, buy their own station, internet broadcasting, billboard, etc.
#113. To: ... (#109)
Nice Red Herring and you are doing a good job of pumping it.
#114. To: SmokinOPs (#110)
They can. Letters to the editor, web page, pamphlets, buy their own station, internet broadcasting, billboard, etc.
#115. To: SmokinOPs (#113)
Not a red herring at all, but it has been a good excercise in getting you to show how lazy and cheap you are.
#116. To: Destro (#111)
1560 kHz with 1 kW/Daytime-only power? They use those frequencies to broadcast local high school games and ethnic programs to small communities.
#117. To: SmokinOPs (#113)
I mean why spend your own money and drop your own sweat getting your message out when you can just have the government whip out its guns and make people listen to you.
#118. To: ... (#115)
You simply cannot prove that the government has to right to use the public airways to blast out government controlled propaganda day and night.
#119. To: SmokinOPs (#113)
I mean why spend your own money and drop your own sweat getting your message out when you can just have the government whip out its guns and make people listen to you.
#120. To: ... (#117)
O'Rielly, Hannity and Limbaugh are shilling for the government on the public airways. You think this is great and want to preserve it as it saves you from sweating to get your message out.
#121. To: SmokinOPs (#118)
Let's get this straight, you think the government is both the problem and the solution to the same issue? Wow. And it wasn't a cheap personal attack. I'm just taking you at your word.
#122. To: SmokinOPs (#120)
(Edited)
You know that bullshit.
#123. To: ... (#119)
Actually, I think it's wrong for the government to appropriate a public trust for its own personal propaganda purposes.
#124. To: SmokinOPs (#123)
(Edited)
Well once you get over the myth of "public trust"
#125. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#116)
What's your point? It will still reach a million POTENTIAL listeners in Sacramento.
#126. To: ... (#121)
You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit.
#127. To: SmokinOPs (#123)
Well once you get over the myth
#128. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit.
#129. To: ... (#124)
Not myth, supreme court ruling.
#130. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#120)
All I'm doing is pointing out a solution that doesn't require begging mommy gubmint to point guns at people.
#131. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
And you have repeatedly shown you are opposed to putting your money where your mouth is so how is it a personal attack when I merely reiterate it?
#132. To: SmokinOPs (#129)
Never heard of the term legal fiction?
#133. To: Destro (#125)
My point is you are a bull shit artist and what is worse you are making stuff up as you go along without a clue about any of this.
#134. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
There is no red herring. The radio stations exist and they cost less than the houses in some areas. Clear Channel is putting 480 of theirs on the auction block this year.
#135. To: scrapper2 (#102)
#136. To: ... (#132)
Until then, live with the law of the land.
#137. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#123)
Well once you get over the myth of "public trust" and realize their is only private property, and government property, it becomes clearer what to do about it.
#138. To: SmokinOPs (#126)
You tried red herring, personal attack and strawman discredit.
#139. To: ... (#131)
You say I can't enforce my rights unless I buy a radio station.
#140. To: SmokinOPs (#139)
No, I don't believe in positive rights. I'm trying to persuade you to solutions where you don't violate the negative rights of others.
#141. To: Destro (#137)
He is a statist
#142. To: ... (#138)
1st Red Herring called out in post 109
#143. To: SmokinOPs (#141)
I've shown the non-state solution.
#144. To: ... (#140)
Then you have no right to own a gun or any sort of private property.
#145. To: SmokinOPs (#142)
Already rebutted soundly.
#146. To: ... (#143)
Yes, you want to keep the public airways in the hands of the government shills.
#147. To: SmokinOPs (#144)
Property rights flow from self-ownership. No positive rights involved.
#148. To: SmokinOPs (#141)
#149. To: ... (#127)
And there is not a single shred of doubt anywhere that the FCC has the right to regulate the use of the spectrum.
#150. To: SmokinOPs (#146)
No, actually I was trying to show you how to put a private radio station in your hands for cheap. You want to go the mommy gubmint route. It's so much easier I know.
#151. To: SmokinOPs (#149)
And there is not a single shred of doubt anywhere that the FCC has the right to regulate the use of the spectrum.
#152. To: Burkeman1, scrapper2 (#135)
(Edited)
I think what some on this thread are trying to grapple with is that they think the media is being consolidated and controlled by the government- that Clear Channel like media conglomerates in cahoots with the government are monopolizing the airwaves and that something needs to be done about that. Yes- something does- like break up the media companies and get government out of media regulation. A "Fairness Doctrine", however, is not the way to go. It would be worse.
#153. To: ... (#150)
It's a grant from the soveriegn. Supreme Court
#154. To: ... (#151)
Do you deny that they have the right to put you in jail for a crime?
#155. To: SmokinOPs, Burkeman1, ... (#141)
(Edited)
I've shown the non-state solution. You want to pretend it doesn't exist.
#156. To: SmokinOPs (#153)
It's a grant from the soveriegn. Supreme Court
#157. To: ... (#150)
Childish personal attack number two noted.
#158. To: SmokinOPs (#154)
Do you deny that they have the right to put you in jail for a crime?
#159. To: ... (#156)
That sort of stuff only matters in the real world.
#160. To: SmokinOPs (#157)
Have you not asked for mommy gubmint to provide a solution to a problem that you state has roots within government? Yes or no.
#161. To: ... (#158)
#162. To: SmokinOPs (#159)
(Edited)
Actually it only matters if you care about it. It only matters if you believe in imaginary lines on maps and that wearing a black robe gives weight to an argument.
#163. To: SmokinOPs (#161)
You're confusing power with rights.
#164. To: ... (#160)
And you are putting words in my mouth.
#165. To: ..., SmokinOPs, burkeman1 (#156)
It's a grant from the soveriegn. Supreme Court Ooooh boogie booogie. Divine Right Monarchs and SUPREME Courts. Voodooo statist witchdoctors. Call me unimpressed.
#166. To: Destro (#152)
you come from a school of thought that discounts that corporations can do no wrong
#167. To: SmokinOPs (#164)
hey should serve the public and not mearly function as a vehicle for pro government propaganda outlet.
#168. To: SmokinOPs (#164)
Are you done lying yet?
#169. To: ... (#163)
Does the government have the right to lock up criminals or not?
#170. To: ... (#168)
Chilish personal attack number three.
#171. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#159)
(Edited)
It only matters if you believe in imaginary lines on maps and that wearing a black robe gives weight to an argument.
#172. To: SmokinOPs (#170)
I caught you in a lie, called you on it and you call it a childish attack. Atleast you didn't call it a strawman again.
#173. To: ... (#167)
No, they can stop being the problem.
#174. To: ... (#172)
You put words in my mouth
#175. To: SmokinOPs (#170)
I caught you in a lie, called you on it and you call it a childish attack. Atleast you didn't call it a strawman again.
#176. To: Destro (#171)
Yea and the Constitution is only apiece of paper with ink stains on it.
#177. To: SmokinOPs (#174)
No I didn't. You want me to go over it one more time with you?
#178. To: ... (#175)
Control your childish temper. That is what is giving you troble here.
#179. To: Burkeman1 (#166)
Are oil corps to blame for the Iraq war? Or would they just be stupid to not take advantage of government muscle since it exists?
#180. To: SmokinOPs (#174)
You put words in my mouth
#181. To: ... (#177)
If I said what you claimed I said, you would not have had to put your interpretation ahead of the quote.
#182. To: SmokinOPs (#169)
#183. To: SmokinOPs (#178)
No, how about you actually keep track of what you write on the thread
#184. To: Burkeman1 (#166)
Huh? I have never expressed that opinion or anything like it ever. Corporations do wrong all the time.
#185. To: Burkeman1 (#182)
I'm not sure why the "constitution" is constantly sited by "conservatives" and held up as some sort of sacred document when it has obviously failed to do what the framers of it claimed it would do- keep power decentalized and government weak.
#186. To: Burkeman1 (#182)
(Edited)
Why is there even an FCC at all?
#187. To: Destro (#179)
#188. To: Burkeman1, SmokinOPs, ... (#182)
The FCC has the right . . . Huh? Why is there even an FCC at all?
#189. To: Burkeman1 (#182)
#190. To: Burkeman1 (#187)
If The US didn't have a 2 million man military and navy postured all over world- what would oil companies do?
#191. To: ... (#183)
I haven't been doing that?
#192. To: Destro (#188)
#193. To: SmokinOPs (#191)
(Edited)
Apparently not if you can't even keep track of when you call for the government to fix a problem they caused.
#194. To: SmokinOPs, Burkeman1 (#189)
This whole media thing, yes there is too few media companies. But that's because local radio just isn't that profitable on the small scale.
#195. To: Destro (#188)
With that said - that does not diminish the fact - a point ignored - that the airwaves ARE NOT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY of the broadcaster but the of the public.
#196. To: ... (#186)
Because if there wasn't, everyone would broadcast on all bands all the time and nobody would be able to receive anything. Whoever built the most powerful transmitter would get through - sometimes.
#197. To: SmokinOPs (#195)
With today's technology, and the almost unimaginable ability to split the spectrum, there is no reason why they couldn't be private property.
#198. To: Burkeman1 (#196)
Or do you really think wannabe radio station owners would sit around trying to outbroadcast each other on the same frequency?
#199. To: Burkeman1 (#196)
(Edited)
What about states and local governments allocating such frequncies if you just can't stand people to do it themselves- negotiating with neighboring government entities to settle disputes?
#200. To: Destro (#194)
Says who? local stations tend not to make a profit at the rate a Clear Channel would want but they do tend to make money.
#201. To: Destro (#190)
American military invasions have all been based on protecting a business interest
#202. To: Burkeman1 (#196)
Why the feds?
#203. To: Burkeman1 (#196)
Have you ever been to a shanty town in a third world country? They have no government "services"- or even law. Is it chaos? Is it "anarchy"?
#204. To: ... (#197)
Doesn't exist on a commercial basis.
#205. To: Burkeman1 (#196)
buy and sell property to which they have no "government approved title"
#206. To: ..., SmokinOPs, Burkeman1 (#192)
(Edited)
That has been my point all along.
#207. To: SmokinOPs (#204)
(Edited)
I guess I was just imagining cell phones, Wi Fi, satellite tv, satellite radio, digital tv, digital audio, analog tv, analog radio. My mistake.
#208. To: ... (#198)
#209. To: Burkeman1, ... (#196)
Or do you really think wannabe radio station owners would sit around trying to outbroadcast each other on the same frequency?
#210. To: Destro (#206)
A point ignored by the libertarian anarchist on here - that the airwaves ARE NOT THE PRIVATE PROPERTY of the broadcaster but the of the public.
#211. To: Destro (#209)
#212. To: ... (#207)
"Cell" phones operate in short range cells. That is why you can have so many. They don't transmit out of the cell. They are low power broad band devices moron.
#213. To: Burkeman1, ... (#196)
Let me ask you something- do you really think - but for government plains would crash into each other, people wouldn't obey simple agreed upon traffic rules- and murder would be common place? Is that the silliness you are reduced too?
#214. To: Destro (#213)
#215. To: ... (#207)
These are all normal spectrum signals operating at frequencies outside normal broadcast frequencies.
#216. To: Burkeman1 (#208)
Governments make "treaties" on this subject- but two radio stations owners wouldn't come to terms with each other - but - like assholes with bottomless supplies of cash- would broadcast on the same frequency so that their listeners would get jumbled static? Oh- ok.
#217. To: ... (#216)
They don't want a hundred thousand watt station extracting tribute from them or blowing them off the air. And they don't want to have to build a two hundred thousand watt transmitter just to negotiate.
#218. To: Burkeman1 (#208)
but - like assholes with bottomless supplies of cash- would broadcast on the same frequency so that their listeners would get jumbled static? Oh- ok.
#219. To: SmokinOPs (#217)
America seemed to make it along just fine with the border blaster X's
#220. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#195)
With today's technology, and the almost unimaginable ability to split the spectrum, there is no reason why they couldn't be private property.
#221. To: SmokinOPs (#212)
No really, thanks for enlightening me. I guess 20 miles is short range to you. How many people does that 20 miles cover in a metro area moron?
#222. To: Burkeman1 (#201)
Again- but for the fact that the US government had a contingent of marines ready and poised for deployment- would United Fruit have taken it upon themselves to over throw the government in Guetemala or would they have had to come to terms with that government?
#223. To: SmokinOPs (#215)
My point wasn't that they were in the normal "broadcast frequencies". That's a government designation. My point was the frequencies that technology has allowed the consumer to recieve information by.
#224. To: ... (#216)
They were given the chance
#225. To: ..., Burkeman1 (#203)
Have you ever been to a shanty town in a third world country? They have no government "services"- or even law. Is it chaos? Is it "anarchy"?
#226. To: Burkeman1 (#224)
(Edited)
What government often calls "chaos" is merely them not getting their piece of the pie. Radio comes along- making money hand over fist- and government wanted their piece- thus the various radio acts and laws and comissions that eventually got consolidated to the FCC. There never was a "chance". Congress was already passing laws on Radio broadcasts when there were barley any to begin with.
#227. To: SmokinOPs, ... (#204)
LOL Ok, Rip Van Winkle. I guess I was just imagining cell phones, Wi Fi, satellite tv, satellite radio, digital tv, digital audio, analog tv, analog radio. My mistake.
#228. To: ... (#218)
#229. To: Destro (#227)
#230. To: Burkeman1, ... (#211)
Because they are not the government and can't steal money from people to support stupid unproductive projects like broadcasting on the same frequency as a local competitor.
#231. To: Burkeman1 (#228)
(Edited)
Do you really think that but for the FCC- we would have a jumble of static on the air- no one able to pick up radio broadcasts or television signals?
#232. To: Burkeman1, ... (#214)
You are right- the trafficing of Gulag prisoners as slave laborers to state industries under Stalin was better.
#233. To: mirage, destro, christine, tauzero, freedom lovers, ferret mike, jethro tull (#5)
Boo-rtz has zero credibility.
In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these.
- - IndieTX
"Peace? There's no money in peace! What we need is a war!"
--Three Stooges
#234. To: ... (#226)
#235. To: Destro (#232)
#236. To: Burkeman1 (#234)
If you are a big giant company or corporation- you want regulation.
#237. To: Burkeman1, ... (#228)
Do you really think that but for the FCC- we would have a jumble of static on the air- no one able to pick up radio broadcasts or television signals?
#238. To: ... (#229)
#239. To: Destro (#230)
#240. To: Brian S (#0)
In the meantime... while the race industry is calling for the head of Don Imus, we have Crystal Gail Mangum of North Carolina. Who is she? She is the woman who falsely accused three members of the Duke lacrosse team of rape. Her unsubstantiated charges resulted in a media firestorm against Duke University and these lacrosse players.
#241. To: Burkeman1 (#234)
Regulation limits the playing field by raising the cost of doing business and basically making it impossible for start ups to occur.
#242. To: Burkeman1 (#239)
You obviously worship the state.
#243. To: Burkeman1. ... (#235)
Chechyan rebels, coming out of 70 years of communist barbaric rule is not "anarcho capitalism".
#244. To: All (#240)
topic is dominating all the so-called news outlets
#245. To: Burkeman1 (#239)
I don't worship the corps. You obviously worship the state.
#246. To: ... (#241)
#247. To: Destro (#243)
#248. To: Burkeman1 (#246)
Have they protected those small mom and pop radio stations?
#249. To: ... (#245)
#250. To: Burkeman1 (#246)
How many employees does the FCC have now compared to 30 years ago?
#251. To: Burkeman1 (#249)
I don't have to resort to the nervous and awkard BAC "LOL" either.
#252. To: Burkeman1, ... (#239)
I don't worship the corps. You obviously worship the state.
#253. To: Diana, Brian S (#240)
#254. To: Destro (#227)
You do know those frequencies are regulated by the FCC as well - the companies who are in the businesses you mentioned don't own the broadband either and operate under license.
#255. To: Burkeman1, ... (#246)
(Edited)
Hmmmmm. The federal government has tons of broadcast laws and regs and comissions- hundreds of thousands of them. Have they protected those small mom and pop radio stations?
#256. To: Destro (#252)
#257. To: Destro (#252)
#258. To: ... (#223)
(Edited)
No, you are trying to change your point because you got hammered on your ignorant rant. What you said is below and it says nothing about "normal broadcast frequencies".
#259. To: ... (#256)
#260. To: Burkeman1 (#257)
Sure they have. The ancient world was by and large one giant free market and "government" was little more than a group of armed men that had to be paid off- an expense of business.
#261. To: Destro (#259)
See my #255 - the issue they are avoiding is of media consolidaton.
#262. To: Destro (#255)
#263. To: Diana (#240)
(Edited)
I can't believe how this topic is dominating all the so-called news outlets, it makes me wonder if something is brewing that we need to be distracted from.
#264. To: ... (#219)
No, that is why they now have the traties with Mexico regarding this.
#265. To: Destro (#220)
But they are not!
#266. To: ... (#207)
The point is that they are not using any wave stacking to increase the information handling capability of the channel.
#267. To: Destro (#260)
#268. To: ... (#193)
(Edited)
Apparently not if you can't even keep track of when you call for the government to fix a problem they caused.
#269. To: Burkeman1 (#267)
Humanity- will never be rid of government in some form. But I would love to get back to the days when they were little more than a bunch of thugs whose only contact with was generally once a year when their tax collector (bag man) came for a visit rather than what is now- the arbiter of everything and all things down to how you raise your kids and how many gallons of water your toilet uses per flush.
#270. To: ... (#251)
#271. To: ... (#248)
Have they protected those small mom and pop radio stations?
#272. To: Burkeman1 (#270)
(Edited)
#273. To: SmokinOPs (#272)
#274. To: SmokinOPs (#272)
#275. To: noone222 (#263)
and then witnessing the prolonged commentary here regarding this non-event, I determined that whatever it is they're doing to our minds it seems to work.
#276. To: IndieTX (#233)
Please. This is only the beginning of total censorship. A backdoor via radio to eventually come after the internet by setting precendents.
#277. To: Jethro Tull (#275)
What is important is how a small group of racial hustlers can impose ....
#278. To: Brian S, leveler, aristeides, christine (#0)
#279. To: Jethro Tull (#276)
You're exactly right, IndieTX. Just as 911 was used to advance some precooked “terror” bills, this matter will advance Hate Speech legislation which will affect each and every one of us. This forum included. For a group who is otherwise politically astute, I can't understand how some are missing the obvious.
#280. To: SmokinOPs (#279)
The government already operates outside of the rules it makes for itself, so I guess the question is: If they pass the law, will you follow it?
#281. To: noone222 (#277)
It's our turn to demand respect and impose our will.
#282. To: SmokinOPs (#271)
Then what's your problem? They won't let you near a microphone to battle the gubmint propaganda?
#283. To: ... (#282)
Out of arguments I see.
#284. To: bluedogtxn (#13)
I've got satellite, and I listen to Talk Left all the time (as you can imagine), and half of them just plain suck shit. Like Alex Bennett and Lynn Samuels.
#285. To: SmokinOPs (#283)
Not really, I already won the main one which was there was no need for a government mandated Fairness Doctrine because there were a multitude of reasonable ways for people to get their message out (including owning radio stations)... you just want to keep going.
#286. To: wbales (#278)
When will Jesse and Al apologize to the Duke Lacross team?
#287. To: All (#285)
including owning radio stations
#288. To: SmokinOPs (#283)
#289. To: ... (#287)
By the way, your failed argument that people can get access to radio by simply buying their own radio station is asinine.
#290. To: ... (#288)
Are you going to start robbing banks for a living? Sounds like a nice easy profession.
#291. To: ... (#288)
By the way, I loved your assertion on the thread above that the Government doesn't have the right to put crooks in jail.
#292. To: SmokinOPs (#289)
Only to tightwads and people with low credit scores.
#293. To: SmokinOPs (#291)
(Edited)
One that you haven't rebutted at all.
#294. To: ... (#292)
Are there six million cheap radio stations out there for people to buy?
#295. To: ... (#293)
Wny don't you go rob a bank today and then tell the cops you did it. Come back and tell us what happened.
#296. To: SmokinOPs (#294)
What significance is the number six million other than Ernst Zundel, Abe Foxman and David Irving? Oh, none you say, you just pulled it out of your ass.
#297. To: ... (#293)
When the cops slam the jail door tell them that the Constitution does not give them police powers.
#298. To: Indrid Cold (#284)
#299. To: SmokinOPs (#295)
What does that have to between my (and the Framers of the Constitution)understanding of the difference between a power and a right?
#300. To: ... (#296)
This is a reall clumsy strawman and subject change.
#301. To: ... (#299)
It's my position that the state was granted the right to do this.
#302. To: SmokinOPs (#300)
Are there twelve million cheap radio stations out there for people to buy?
#303. To: ... (#302)
What you are doing here is called begging the question.
#304. To: SmokinOPs (#303)
What you are doing here is called begging the question.
#305. To: Mekons4 (#32)
You approve of GOP ownership of the AM radio band, evidently. Just TRY finding a fair, balanced talk show on AM radio. You can't.
#306. To: ... (#304)
I disagree...
#307. To: Burkeman1, ..., SmokinOPs (#257)
(Edited)
Sure they have. The ancient world was by and large one giant free market and "government" was little more than a group of armed men that had to be paid off- an expense of business.
#308. To: Burkeman1, ..., SmokinOPs (#262)
Under current circumstances - in which the reality is we have a heavily regulated media in this country- subject to the stick and carrot of government control- it might be better to prevent the consolidation of the media into only a few hands using the force (law) of the same government. But absent such overweening government interference in the first place- such preventitive measures against media consolidation wouldn't be necessary.
#309. To: noone222, Diana (#263)
Mainstream Talk Radio, a term the "fair and balanced" crowd deny, is a nuclear turd delivered daily like a dose of prozac served up to anyone with too much time on their hands. And to think some people are so friggin stupid or comatose they actually think there are two sides, good guys and bad guys ... or maybe it's more akin to a baby-bottle shoved into the collective baby's mouth to shut it up.
#310. To: Burkeman1, ..., SmokinOPs (#267)
Despite the idiocy of a program like "Deadwood" which shows a state of chaos existing between groups of murderers and thieves- the American West wasn't ever very "wild."
#311. To: noone222, Burkeman1 (#269)
Like it or not the truth is that the darker this country gets ethnically the more the nanny state will intrude into our lives.
#312. To: Destro (#311)
More Whites (gross figure not per capita) live under some welfare state provision than the 'Darkies'.
#313. To: Destro (#309)
That is why I have attempted to discuss media consolidation as the problem
#314. To: SmokinOPs, Burkeman1, ... (#272)
But in a [Somalia] divided into hundreds of fiefdoms run by rival warlords, security is a major concern.
#315. To: bluedogtxn, noone222 (#312)
Don't confuse him with the facts.
#316. To: mirage (#41)
When one fixes one defect, one always introduces another. That is just how things work.
#317. To: SmokinOPs (#103)
You do? How much can you sell it for?
#318. To: bluedogtxn (#298)
and one other dude who gets about an hour somewhere in the middle.
#319. To: Indrid Cold (#318)
Thom Hartman. He's OK too.
#320. To: SmokinOPs (#272)
We saw a huge gap in the market, as all previous services had been destroyed.
#321. To: Tauzero (#316)
Wise words. And they apply to everything. Absolutely everything.
#322. To: mirage (#321)
#323. To: Destro (#311)
Like it or not the truth is that the darker this country gets ethnically the more the nanny state will intrude into our lives.
#324. To: bluedogtxn (#319)
Samuels, Oey Vey... Typical New York hag kvetching about trivial bullshit and switch hitting opinions.
#325. To: Tauzero (#322)
Unfortunately though, there is very little agreement on what things constitute flaws, or to what degree, except perhaps in some things like not liking to be killed. Even worse, there is only some agreement on the value of agreement per se, or on reciprocity.
#326. To: Indrid Cold (#324)
Also, she's got a mouth like a sailor--that's tough for when the kids are in the car.
#327. To: noone222, bluedogtxn (#323)
There isn't a successful self sustaining black nation on the planet earth
#328. To: Destro (#327)
#329. To: noone222 (#323)
There isn't a successful self sustaining black nation on the planet earth
#330. To: mirage (#325)
Yet most often, the best thing to do...is to do nothing at all..
#331. To: Indrid Cold (#329)
The Bahamas? Jamaica?
#332. To: All (#323)
#333. To: noone222 (#332)
Nappy Headed Ho:
#334. To: Destro (#327)
There isn't a successful self sustaining black nation on the planet earth ...
#335. To: noone222, Bluedogtxn (#334)
The Black Nobility do not qualify ... but it was an exceptional reply !
#336. To: noone222 (#331)
Both are anglophone and have been run by whites, speak english and I wouldn't consider them successful self-sustaining countries either.
#337. To: Indrid Cold (#336)
I do know that Jamaica and the Bahamas both have their dirt-poor areas, but it's not like there are rival factions going around hacking peoples heads off with machetes.
#338. To: noone222 (#337)
but success is surely judged to a higher standard than limited machete hacking
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest