Under the fairness doctrine does that mean Rush would be on NPR as a commentator???

no. but it would mean that for every swift boat attack ad, there would have to be a corresponding response ad.
no more overwhelming inundations of right wing lies drowning out voices of reason and rational thinking.
how silly of me to think you understood the concept :P

say it.

LONG LIVE FREEDOM LONG LIVE FREEDOM!!! DOWN WITH THE GATEKEEPERS!!! DOWN WITH THE GATEKEEPERS!

Ronald Reagan scrapped that fairness doctrine crap.

Ronald Reagan was the best president this country ever had.

Why not? You think that liberal media (namely NPR) doesn't need to be countered?

The public deserves to be told the truth. One party should not control the media like they did in Soviet Russia and they do not in Communist China. You rightees should be in favor of it. Why am I not surprised that you are against it?

That's what the left is trying to do.  eliminate Michael Savage, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingram, etc.  

Their stupid Air American was so bad that no one and  I MEAN NO ONE WOULD LISTEN TO IT.

HAha HAha HAha HA HA--HAAA!!!!.  No one listened to Air America.

The leftys are trying to end freedom of speech.

No fairness b*llsh*t.

LEFTYS CAN'T COMPETE---LEFTYS CAN'T COMPETE-- haha

IT'S NOT THE TRUTH!!!!!

Long live free speech!!

And while I'm here----Make the internet a permanent TAX FREE ZONE!!!!

YES  I do not want to pay taxes on internet access.  F*ck that!  We must keep the internet tax free!!!!! Make it permanent.

The greatest President the US HAS HAD, RONALD REAGAN, SAID THIS:

"Trouble with those on the left is if they see something move, they'll tax it; if it keeps moving, they'll regulate it; and if it stops moving, they'll subsidize it."

I can't help it, I'm all hyped on coffee.

That's all.

Down with the gatekeepers,  Michael Savage and Rush Limbaugh and everyone else should be able to say what they want.

Even that moron Rosie O'Donnell.
-- Modified on 7/17/2007 3:42:28 AM

-- Modified on 7/17/2007 6:26:30 PM

Unless of course those debating can only do so in the form of rude, juvenile personal attack, and those who commonly use that form of debate merely impugn themselves and garner support from the weakest of minds.  

 I find it disturbingly convenient that both parties harbor particularly entrenched, opposing hot button 'personal' ideologies that are the very definitions and iterations of our freedom, liberty, equality and choice. Although surely well intentioned; domination by either of these conflicting parties and their ideologies would spell the end of what this republic is supposed to stand for. In the meantime the bickering and legislations over many of these “personally” held ideological planks is conveniently and effectively gutting what this republic “stands for”.

I consider it ironic that the party most associated with “Pro Life” is also the most associated with “Capital punishment”

And;

The party most associated with “Pro Choice” is also the most associated with taking “choice” out of gun ownership.

And;

Why do BOTH parties refuse to decriminalize cannabis sativa while the majority of the public either smokes, has smoked or is ambivalent about it.

There are many other ideological ironies (hypocrisies) that appear to be more purposefully engineered than benignly serendipitous.

 

-- Modified on 7/17/2007 7:33:23 AM

That's because BOTH major political parties take their marching orders from the same ruling body... the Powers That Be.

and they keep the populace dumbed down and fighting amongst ourselves while they orchestrate a global government and hand U.S. sovereignty over to it.

In fairness you could also put Hilary in the witch's outfit.

I don't remember this level of political rancor.  Today you might have "conservative" and "liberal" outlets, but they are the equivalent of marketing niches where the prejudices of either group are affirmed and catered to.  Sales take precedence over political discussion.

Part of me really wouldn't object too much to putting a muzzle on Michael Savage. Maybe we could put him and the left's reigning idiot, Al Franken, in a pit and let them fight it out for our amusement.

BTW Geezer, you forgot my favorite, Neal Boortz, he makes way too much sense to be allowed a voice on the airwaves.

"Sales take precedence over political discussion".  No doubts about that..Another advantage of a free country
 

I believe that there are things called *facts* which apparently you think are the same as *opinions*. In your world one party should control all the media and get to tell all of us what those *facts* (or opinions portrayed as facts) are. You can go to Russia or China right now and get the system you want -- go for it!

Or perhaps the president?  Let them own the channels.  

First, making sure you know what I meant: political discussion became something to sell.  It catered to an audience-- who won't buy unless it hears what it wants to hear, things that confirm its prejudices.  It buys sophistry, it buys entertainment, not information.  

The exact place that we're in today is that the two sides don't even agree on facts now.  Conservatism became a marketing brand once the fairness doctrine was gone.

The FCC is the referee come license renewal time. They determine is the station fulfilled its obligations under the terms of the broadcast license it's been granted.

-- Modified on 7/20/2007 7:44:11 AM

you could not speak up here until someone was willing to post an opposite opinion. Since there are no other sources for news than TER, all views could only be offered when someone offers the opposing view. This is what the founding fathers meant by free speech.