NationStates Jolt Archive

The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.

So much for Pelosi's support for it - or Senator Boxer and Senator Clinton's wish that it be imposed.

I'm glad - I think the Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment.

The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.

So much for Pelosi's support for it - or Senator Boxer and Senator Clinton's wish that it be imposed.

I'm glad - I think the Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment.

It would help if there was a helpful link so we knew what the hell you were talking about.

It would help if there was a helpful link so we knew what the hell you were talking about.

Kimchi's implying that all Democrats and thus all left wingers/liberals support radio censorship in the form of the "Fairness Doctrine".

Kimchi's implying that all Democrats and thus all left wingers/liberals support radio censorship in the form of the "Fairness Doctrine".
Details would be nice.

The Fairness Doctrine is made of fail, I do not support it at all because it infringes on the First amendment rights.

The Fairness Doctrine would have prevented conservatives from airing their opinions on the radio without having a contrary opinion also broadcasted. It's a blatant infringement of our first amendment rights.

The Fairness Doctrine would have prevented conservatives from airing their opinions on the radio without having a contrary opinion also broadcasted. It's a blatant infringement of our first amendment rights.

Don't forget to rinse.

Don't forget to rinse.

:confused:

The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.

So much for Pelosi's support for it - or Senator Boxer and Senator Clinton's wish that it be imposed.

I'm glad - I think the Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment.

Kimchi's implying that all Democrats and thus all left wingers/liberals support radio censorship in the form of the "Fairness Doctrine".

The Fairness Doctrine is made of fail, I do not support it at all because it infringes on the First amendment rights.

The Fairness Doctrine would have prevented conservatives from airing their opinions on the radio without having a contrary opinion also broadcasted. It's a blatant infringement of our first amendment rights.

Umm...

WHAT THE F*CK IS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE??!!!

Umm...

WHAT THE F*CK IS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE??!!!

I wonder the same thing.

The Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) was a previously existent FCC enforced rule that all issues should be presented in a judicious and balanced manner. It was thrown out in 1987 for the obviously questionable nature, especially in regards to the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Recently, a handful of extreme-left members of the Senate and House attempted to reintroduce the concept of the Fairness Doctrine in law. It was handily defeated by a massive, bipartisan group of Democrats and Republicans.

[WHAT THE F*CK IS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE??!!!

Broadcast companies have to present both sides of controversial issues in a balanced manner. Sort of an equal time thing.

The Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine) was a previously existent FCC enforced rule that all issues should be presented in a judicious and balanced manner.

Hang on, what's wrong with that?

Hang on, what's wrong with that?

It's extremely, extremely Constitutionally questionable.

Hang on, what's wrong with that?

It's un-American or something is my guess.

Hang on, what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with the government dictating the political stance which must be adopted by radio shows? Do you like censorship? Do you find it doubleplusgood?

It's un-American or something is my guess.

Ah, so it's sensible, then?

It's un-American or something is my guess.

Un-constitutional...but you can use your biased and emotional rhetoric all you'd like.

It's extremely, extremely Constitutionally questionable.

Big Fucking Deal.

Thank God I don't live in a country that's so hung up on a 220 year old bit of paper.

What's wrong with the government dictating the political stance which must be adopted by radio shows? Do you like censorship? Do you find it doubleplusgood?

Do you even know what that means? :confused:

Yes, it's correctly used. But it's ironic given the user...

Big Fucking Deal.

Thank God I don't live in a country that's so hung up on a 220 year old bit of paper.

Thank God I live in a country where the codified law is the centerpiece of government.

Big Fucking Deal.

Thank God I don't live in a country that's so hung up on a 220 year old bit of paper.

Thank G-d I live in a country where the market (consumers) decide what they get to listen to instead of the government.

Liberal talk radio has failed because it couldn't attract listeners. There isn't a market for it. Air America's demise proves it.

Thank God I live in a country where the codified law is the centerpiece of government.

Well, if you're happy with ineptitude...

Thank G-d I live in a country where the market (consumers) decide what they get to listen to instead of the government.

You can say "God", you know, it's not a bad word.

Well, if you're happy with ineptitude...

It's not ineptitude.

Well, if you're happy with ineptitude...

If you're happy with the government telling you what you can and can't listen to at different times...

Thank G-d I live in a country where the market (consumers) decide what they get to listen to instead of the government.

Let's hear it for the right to unfettered Consumer culture, kids!

Woot.

If you're happy with the government telling you what you can and can't listen to at different times...

Well, if that was what I was advocating...

Well, if that was what I was advocating...

Which is what the fairness doctrine is.

To prevent a radio station from broadcasting a certain viewpoint is nothing more than censorship and the infringement of freedom of speech.

It's not ineptitude.

Well, what do you call a system that is quite believably inept?

Let's hear it for the right to unfettered Consumer culture, kids!

Woot.

Thank God I can enjoy what I want, free of the dictates of people who think they know what is better for me than me.

Let's hear it for the right to unfettered Consumer culture, kids!

Woot.

Yes we know, you like to talk about how great communism is, but you are a hypocrite who conveniently benefits from capitalism.

I'd like you to put your money where your moth is and donate any money you make over the national average to a charity. If you don't then you are a hypocrite.

Which is what the fairness doctrine is.

To prevent a radio station from broadcasting a certain viewpoint is nothing more than censorship and the infringement of freedom of speech.

If a "fairness doctrine" prevened a station from broadcasting a certain viewpoint then, yes, that would be a problem.

The problem for you, however, is that it doesn't.

Well, what do you call a system that is quite believably inept?

It's not inept.

My system of government has overseen one of the largest economic and political expansions in history. It is imperfect, certainly, but it's also one of the finest governmental structures in history.

220 years of continuous Constitutional government is certainly not a sign of ineptitude.

If a "fairness doctrine" prevened a station from broadcasting a certain viewpoint then, yes, that would be a problem.

The problem for you, however, is that it doesn't.
Sure it does. A radio station should be able to broadcast what ever the hell it wants whenever it wants.

The fairness doctrine prevents that. Let's face it, the liberals have three major networks, MSNBC, and CNN. I don't see anyone saying they have to have a fairness doctrine.

The liberal monopoly on TV has meant there was an untapped market of conservatives. That led to the formation of Fox News and the resurgence of talk radio.

Sure it does. A radio station should be able to broadcast what ever the hell it wants whenever it wants.

The fairness doctrine prevents that. Let's face it, the liberals have three major networks, MSNBC, and CNN. I don't see anyone saying they have to have a fairness doctrine.

The liberal monopoly on TV has meant there was an untapped market of conservatives. That led to the formation of Fox News and the resurgence of talk radio.

I see two there.

I see two there.

the three major networks refers to cBS, NBC, and ABC. I meant to say the three major broadcast networks. MSNBC and CNN are listed separately as they are cable channels.

Sure it does. A radio station should be able to broadcast what ever the hell it wants whenever it wants.

That's a different thing.

Please, feel free to explain to me how A = B where

A is a radio station being made to give both sides of an argument

and

B is a radio station being prevented from "broadcasting a certain viewpoint"

Please, I would love to know.

The fairness doctrine prevents that. Let's face it, the liberals have three major networks, MSNBC, and CNN. I don't see anyone saying they have to have a fairness doctrine.

Ah, ignore.

The liberal monopoly on TV has meant there was an untapped market of conservatives. That led to the formation of Fox News and the resurgence of talk radio.
And again.

the three major networks refers to cBS, NBC, and ABC. I meant to say the three major broadcast networks. MSNBC and CNN are listed separately as they are cable channels.

Well, I must congratulate you on your incredible lack of making sense.

Well, I must congratulate you on your incredible lack of making sense.

I worked a 10 hour day and was up at 5.

The Fairness Doctrine is about as unconstitutional as the prohibition on NBC airing hardcore pornography at 8PM. The airwaves are public property, you don't have the right to conduct yourself without responsibility in public, nor on the airwaves. The deregulation of the broadcast industry has led to a multi-million dollar industry in mind poison that creates a single-viewpoint echo chamber on broadcast media, right wing to center-right. It's the reason the United States was so easily deluded into war with Iraq, being without a responsible dissenting viewpoint. This is only a mild demonstration of the power of a monolithic media machine pumping out propaganda for the regime, and when the Fairness Doctrine was implemented, it was clear that it was a bad idea.

In other countries, regulation of the media has forced it to present only one side of the story, from Goebbels' brilliant manipulation of the German people in the 30's to Josef Stalin's listening-mandatory broadcasts during the Great Terror. The difference which should be obvious, is that the fairness doctrine opposed single-viewpoint media, whether it is legislated by tyrants or funded by tycoons eager to gain acceptance of their ideas. It forces the media to present both sides of the issue. What's so dangerous about that?

That's a different thing.

Please, feel free to explain to me how A = B where

A is a radio station being made to give both sides of an argument

and

B is a radio station being prevented from "broadcasting a certain viewpoint"

Please, I would love to know.


The radio station is being forced to express a viewpoint it does not necessarily agree with. That is entirely unjust.

I worked a 10 hour day and was up at 5.

That's why they invented caffeine drinks and BAWLS.

It's not inept.

My system of government has overseen one of the largest economic and political expansions in history. It is imperfect, certainly, but it's also one of the finest governmental structures in history.

220 years of continuous Constitutional government is certainly not a sign of ineptitude.

Main Entry: in·ept
Pronunciation: i-'nept
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle French inepte, from Latin ineptus, from in- + aptus apt
...
3 : not suitable to the time, place, or occasion : inappropriate often to an absurd degree <an inept metaphor>

There we have it.

A constitution, with the intention of creating fair democracy, that prevents laws that ensure that both sides of the political debate are aired fairly is inept in a political climate that is so bipartisan as the US is at the moment.

That's why they invented caffeine drinks and BAWLS.

I drink my caffeine in the morning. I don't need it when I plan on turning in real soon.

The radio station is being forced to express a viewpoint it does not necessarily agree with. That is entirely unjust.

If you're going to reply to that post, at least attempt to answer the question.

F.

Yes we know, you like to talk about how great communism is, but you are a hypocrite who conveniently benefits from capitalism.

I'd like you to put your money where your moth is and donate any money you make over the national average to a charity. If you don't then you are a hypocrite.

I've been called far worse by better people. And while you'd like me to put money where my moth is (and why bring that poor, beleagured insect into this? She's never caused you any trouble), though you undoubtedly meant to say 'mouth' - and let's just go with that for now - while you'd like me to put my money where my mouth is, I'd also like for you to not put words (or vague allusions) in samesaid mouth.

Or moth, for that matter.

*turns to Binky the Kilt-eating moth*

C'mon Binky, let's just leave. These people're all crazy in the head.

*unexpectedly flaps enormous insect wings and flies off with Binky*

There we have it.

A constitution, with the intention of creating fair democracy, that prevents laws that ensure that both sides of the political debate are aired fairly is inept in a political climate that is so bipartisan as the US is at the moment.

Who says the networks that had to follow the Fairness Doctrine were interested in fair debate? Very simply, they own their programs and pay to broadcast, so they should have control over their content. The doctrine required additional content that the networks didn't want to include or express, in essence requiring them to modify their content and alter their message.

As stupid as biased networks like Fox can be, they shouldn't be forced to fake a fair debate or air opinions they don't believe.

As stupid as biased networks like Fox can be, they shouldn't be forced to fake a fair debate or air opinions they don't believe.

QFMFT.

Who says the networks that had to follow the Fairness Doctrine were interested in fair debate? Very simply, they own their programs and pay to broadcast, so they should have control over their content. The doctrine required additional content that the networks didn't want to include or express, in essence requiring them to modify their content and alter their message.

As stupid as biased networks like Fox can be, they shouldn't be forced to fake a fair debate or air opinions they don't believe.

What is it with people and posts that are of no relevance to the one they quote?

What is it with people and posts that are of no relevance to the one they quote?

Some of us like to keep debates on the topic. Modern relevancy of the Constitution is a fine debate and all, but this thread is about the Fairness Doctrine, isn't it?

I've been called far worse by better people. And while you'd like me to put money where my moth is (and why bring that poor, beleagured insect into this? She's never caused you any trouble), though you undoubtedly meant to say 'mouth' - and let's just go with that for now - while you'd like me to put my money where my mouth is, I'd also like for you to not put words (or vague allusions) in samesaid mouth.

Or moth, for that matter.

*turns to Binky the Kilt-eating moth*

C'mon Binky, let's just leave. These people're all crazy in the head.

*unexpectedly flaps enormous insect wings and flies off with Binky*Nice dodge. I call you out and you cower away and refuse to answer my challenge.

Perhaps you might want to admit that capitalism has helped you and you would be unwilling to lower your standard of living and actually practice your own foolish beliefs.

Some of us like to keep debates on the topic. Modern relevancy of the Constitution is a fine debate and all, but this thread is about the Fairness Doctrine, isn't it?

You're not familiar with NSG, are you?

Debates ramble off topic. Get used to it.

There we have it.

A constitution, with the intention of creating fair democracy, that prevents laws that ensure that both sides of the political debate are aired fairly is inept in a political climate that is so bipartisan as the US is at the moment.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

There are outlets for all popular sides of a debate to be expressed. I fail to see how legislation would improve the situation.

You're not familiar with NSG, are you?

Debates ramble off topic. Get used to it.

I'm used to it, doesn't mean I can't try to keep at least one thread on topic past the second page.

They do indeed. And the Constitution is still relevent.

To pitch in, I actually agree with Remote Observer. (Cue gagging.) It is an abrdgement of First Amendment rights. Now, I would love to see both sides of an argument presented fairly, and I agree that with public/government owned radio, like, say, NPR, it should be done.

But commercial radio, like everything else, ought to be allowed to run as free as it should. If they want to primarily promote conservative talk radio, so be it. I don't listen to that trash anyway--nor did I ever really spend time listening to Air America for the same reasons--so it doesn't affect me and it doesn't make a whit of difference with anyone. It's what sells, as sad as that is, and Air America's liberal radio did not. (With occasional brief listening and comments from my dad who listened regularly, I did note that Air America has become much more like conservative talk radio lately in terms of being ridiculously angry and berative on every subject, which only proves my point.)

As stupid as biased networks like Fox can be, they shouldn't be forced to fake a fair debate or air opinions they don't believe.

Huz-zah.

Big Fucking Deal.

Thank God I don't live in a country that's so hung up on a 220 year old bit of paper.

We could be invaded by England and live under their rules. You seem to like em eh?

Kimchi's implying that all Democrats and thus all left wingers/liberals support radio censorship in the form of the "Fairness Doctrine".
I wouldn't be opposed to a law that prevents people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Hannity from being on the air.

I wouldn't be opposed to a law that prevents people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Hannity from being on the air.

That can be quickly turned on anyone. Be careful what you wish for.

I wouldn't be opposed to a law that prevents people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Hannity from being on the air.

What TPH really means

"I like free speech unless it means someone can say something I disagree with."

What TPH really means

"I like free speech unless it means someone can say something I disagree with."
Indeed. I really dislike what those listed people have to say, but they have the right to say it, just as we have the right to say they are total dickweeds.

I wouldn't be opposed to a law that prevents people like Coulter, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, or Hannity from being on the air.

Even morons like Ann the Man Coulter, Rush Limblob, Bill ORLY?, and Shallow Sean Hannity deserve the right to voice their idiocy on the air.

What TPH really means

"I like free speech unless it means someone can say something I disagree with."

QFT and...

Indeed. I really dislike what those listed people have to say, but they have the right to say it, just as we have the right to say they are total dickweeds.

...QFT once again.

What TPH really means

"I like free speech unless it means someone can say something I disagree with."
"I like free speech until it is use to incite hatred and misinform masses of people or endanger people."

"I like free speech until it is use to incite hatred and misinform masses of people or endanger people."

Unless you're shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, your speech is protected.

Unless you're shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, your speech is protected.

Not quite. Libel isn't protected either. Nor is incitement to riot, I believe.

Not quite. Libel isn't protected either. Nor is incitement to riot, I believe.

Yes, but there's a difference between libel and incitement to riot and what is usually said on conservative talk radio. Sure, they're being hateful, but they're not trying to make people take arms against the athiests or what have you. They're just spouting hate, much like we spout our dislike of them. Such speech under the law is equally valid regardless of our own personal opinion, as that's the whole bloody point.

Not quite. Libel isn't protected either. Nor is incitement to riot, I believe.

I misspoke, so sorry.

"I like free speech until it is use to incite hatred and misinform masses of people or endanger people."

That's what lots of dictators say, too. They rationalize their censorship laws by saying they're trying to prevent "incitement of hatred" or "misinformation."

Yes, but there's a difference between libel and incitement to riot and what is usually said on conservative talk radio. Sure, they're being hateful, but they're not trying to make people take arms against the athiests or what have you. They're just spouting hate, much like we spout our dislike of them. Such speech under the law is equally valid regardless of our own personal opinion, as that's the whole bloody point.

Sure. I mean, there are cases you could make against individual talk show hosts--the more extreme ones--but they're unusual. I should make clear that while I think the Fairness doctrine is a good idea, it's also completely unenforceable and far too open to abuse. Seriously--do you think that if the Fairness Doctrine were in force today that it would be enforced on anyone but Air America radio?

Sure. I mean, there are cases you could make against individual talk show hosts--the more extreme ones--but they're unusual. I should make clear that while I think the Fairness doctrine is a good idea, it's also completely unenforceable and far too open to abuse. Seriously--do you think that if the Fairness Doctrine were in force today that it would be enforced on anyone but Air America radio?

Of course it wouldn't be. That's part of the reason I am against it, the other part being the rights of commerical radio to say what they please. Again, if government owned radio wants to do what the Fairness Doctrine requests, I'm all for it, and indeed request that they do so. But commercial radio should not and cannot be made to do so, so it's pointless.

Sure. I mean, there are cases you could make against individual talk show hosts--the more extreme ones--but they're unusual. I should make clear that while I think the Fairness doctrine is a good idea, it's also completely unenforceable and far too open to abuse. Seriously--do you think that if the Fairness Doctrine were in force today that it would be enforced on anyone but Air America radio?

Nah, something more subtle...something (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Coast_to_coast_am_logo.jpg) that's on the AM dial, perhaps something that's broadcast from coast to coast, maybe?

Liberal talk radio has failed because it couldn't attract listeners.
(Notes that NPR still exists)

There isn't a market for it.
Well, except for educated liberals. But there aren't too many of them, especially compared to educated conservatives.

(NOTE: I'm using the American meanings of liberal and conservative, not the real world ones)

Air America's demise proves it.
:confused:
...an airline owned by the CIA fails, so that proves that liberal talk radio has failed?

(Notes that NPR still exists)
Golly, I like NPR an awful lot.


:confused:
...an airline owned by the CIA fails, so that proves that liberal talk radio has failed?

Hehe...no that strange "liberal response to talk radio" station.

(

Well, except for educated liberals. But there aren't too many of them, especially compared to educated conservatives.

(NOTE: I'm using the American meanings of liberal and conservative, not the real world ones)
Unfortunately, Air America does not even come close to qualifying as such. If you've listened to it, you would know.


:confused:
...an airline owned by the CIA fails, so that proves that liberal talk radio has failed?

...

No. If you're thinking of any airline, that's American Airlines(which isn't owned by the CIA as far as I know.) The radio company we speak of is Air America, an American liberal radio station network that is basically crap.

Thank G-d I live in a country where the market (consumers) decide what they get to listen to instead of the government.Keep telling yourself that if it helps you sleep at night, but consumer choice doesn't determine what people listen to--corporate makes those decisions, and they don't always look at ratings. They look at advertisers more than anything else.

Liberal talk radio has failed because it couldn't attract listeners. There isn't a market for it. Air America's demise proves it.

Umm--Air America Radio is still on all over the country. What failed was their initial business plan, not the format. And the two fastest growing radio personalities out there claim to be proud liberals and don't even work for Air America--Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz.

No. If you're thinking of any airline, that's American Airlines(which isn't owned by the CIA as far as I know.) The radio company we speak of is Air America, an American liberal radio station network that is basically crap.

I think he's talking about the CIA airline that did airdrops and illegal bombings in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war. It was called Air America--there was a pretty bad movie made about it starring Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr.

No. If you're thinking of any airline, that's American Airlines(which isn't owned by the CIA as far as I know.) The radio company we speak of is Air America, an American liberal radio station network that is basically crap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_America
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/Vietnamescape.jpg
Read before you post. ;)

I think he's talking about the CIA airline that did airdrops and illegal bombings in Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam war. It was called Air America--there was a pretty bad movie made about it starring Mel Gibson and Robert Downey Jr.
An amusing coincidence in naming, or an intentional choice by Air America the radio station?

Ghost: Yes, I see that now.

Unfortunately, Air America does not even come close to qualifying as such. If you've listened to it, you would know.

Huh, so it is a radio company.

Well, whatever. You're still dumb for disagreeing with me. :p

...But commercial radio, like everything else, ought to be allowed to run as free as it should. If they want to primarily promote conservative talk radio, so be it...

Why is this even an issue? We had this already and repealed it for good reason. Whatever the purest intentions may be, ultimately it is used as a suppression of free ideas. The ultimate goal is not true freedom of expression...but rather obedience and control. Previous presidents/officials used threats of license revoking on networks airing programming they didn't favor. The FCC itself stated after its repeal that it "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance." So rather than presenting both sides of a controversy, they just wouldn't present it at all.

And imagine taking this to the fullest extent possible, applying it to webpages and (cue horror music) forums like this.

An amusing coincidence in naming, or an intentional choice by Air America the radio station?

Ghost: Yes, I see that now.

I really don't know--perhaps a deliberately ironic choice? Intentional or not, I think it wasn't the best choice of name given the association. I immediately thought of the CIA when I heard the announcement. But for a medium that was supposed to be dead in 30 days, it's hung around awfully well.

Huh, so it is a radio company.

Well, whatever. You're still dumb for disagreeing with me. :p
Rather, there is a radio company with the same name. And I wasn't disagreeing with you, as there is a market for the type of radio you mention. Air America just isn't that type.

I really don't know--perhaps a deliberately ironic choice? Intentional or not, I think it wasn't the best choice of name given the association. I immediately thought of the CIA when I heard the announcement. But for a medium that was supposed to be dead in 30 days, it's hung around awfully well.
Indeed it has, though irritatingly. I can't stand most of the people on it, least of all Randy Rhodes, who is basically Ann Coulter as a Democrat...such hatred spewing forth from her mouth at Republicans and anything that disagrees with her narrow opinions...not to mention her stupidity. I can remember one time I tuned as part of my research and she was blabbering away about how Americans don't speak English, they speak "American" and how the British deride us by saying so, which all of us at NSG know is bullshit apart from a few people, and even those few people usually say something more along the lines of "American English isn't true English."

Total idiot, she is.

On censorship: It is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I hold by the quote "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

On censorship: It is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I hold by the quote "I may disagree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it."

Which would be fine if the fairness doctrine involved censorship, but it didn't. It just required equal time for dissenting views. Like I said a while back, I think the fairness doctrine is generally unenforceable, but you can't call it censorship under any reasonable definition.

Which would be fine if the fairness doctrine involved censorship, but it didn't. It just required equal time for dissenting views. Like I said a while back, I think the fairness doctrine is generally unenforceable, but you can't call it censorship under any reasonable definition.

It might not be censorship, but it certainly is an insult to the intelligence on par with Kansas school science books. The same condescending handhold as the advisory stickers about "Evolution is merely a theory."

Broadcast companies have to present both sides of controversial issues in a balanced manner. Sort of an equal time thing. So if it passed FOX news would have actually had to truthfully be "Fair and Balanced?"

Hmm... Good thing it was shut down then, because Faux doesn't need anymore creditablity

Nice dodge. I call you out and you cower away and refuse to answer my challenge.

Perhaps you might want to admit that capitalism has helped you and you would be unwilling to lower your standard of living and actually practice your own foolish beliefs.
Dobbs didn't answer your challenge because Dobbs isn't a communist.
Thus the whole, "been called worse by better" deal. Not having complete and utter faith in the market does not make one a communist.

It might not be censorship, but it certainly is an insult to the intelligence on par with Kansas school science books. The same condescending handhold as the advisory stickers about "Evolution is merely a theory."

Rush Limbaugh likes to point to the original dumping of the Fairness Doctrine as the reason (other than his own self-proclaimed genius) for his rise to fame, but he's only partly right. The big thing that allowed the right to own talk radio the way they have is deregulation on station ownership. Liberal talk has proven it can compete and beat the right wing in major markets, but the major players aren't willing to put them on. As Ed Schultz said recently about his distributor, Jones Radio Network, "how many cities do I have to beat Slanthead in (Sean Hannity, for the uninformed) before I get 200 stations?" And he's right--he's beaten Hannity in a number of major markets, but his distributor won't push him into more. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine won't change that--but making sure one company doesn't own all the talk stations in a region would. Allow real competition and encourage local ownership and you may see some change.

Rush Limbaugh likes to point to the original dumping of the Fairness Doctrine as the reason (other than his own self-proclaimed genius) for his rise to fame, but he's only partly right. The big thing that allowed the right to own talk radio the way they have is deregulation on station ownership. Liberal talk has proven it can compete and beat the right wing in major markets, but the major players aren't willing to put them on. As Ed Schultz said recently about his distributor, Jones Radio Network, "how many cities do I have to beat Slanthead in (Sean Hannity, for the uninformed) before I get 200 stations?" And he's right--he's beaten Hannity in a number of major markets, but his distributor won't push him into more. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine won't change that--but making sure one company doesn't own all the talk stations in a region would. Allow real competition and encourage local ownership and you may see some change.

As if California's power grid isn't a wonderful testament to the miracles of deregulation in general.

As if California's power grid isn't a wonderful testament to the miracles of deregulation in general.

Or the Savings and Loan industry, for that matter.

It's possible to overregulate an industry and kill it, certainly, but the answer is not to completely throw off the reins and leave them to their own devices. Even Heinlein, more than a little libertarian, said in one of his novels that an economy without regulation was like trying to control an engine with positive feedback--it will quickly oscillate out of control. You have to have a brake on it at times. The question is over how much of a brake to apply, and that's where most of the debate falls.

But there are always those "the market is always right" people who never seem to get it.

As if California's power grid isn't a wonderful testament to the miracles of deregulation in general.

http://www.mises.org/story/1053
http://www.mises.org/story/1954
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=361&sortorder=title
http://www.mises.org/story/957

This would severely abridge freedom of the press and of expression, something repugnant to liberty and contrary to the constitution.

This would severely abridge freedom of the press and of expression, something repugnant to liberty and contrary to the constitution.

How? Pray, expound for us.

How? Pray, expound for us.

By forcing a broadcaster to air certain political opinions. Pretty cut and dry.

It's a fair system we have now. The electorate is more or less 50-50 with the two parties, even in spite of a very strong conservative bent to broadcast radio.
If there were a demand for loudmouthed left-wing idiots as alternatives for their right-wing opposite numbers, there would be lots of left wing whiners on the air instead of exclusively right wing ones.

Don't like the right wing, know-nothing blowhards that run their mouths on talk radio? Turn it to something else, act like a grownup.

The Fairness Doctrine as originally conceived was a good idea, and one that withstood early constitutional scrutiny. The idea was that based on the limited nature of public airwaves, such that broadcasters would have monopoly or near-monopoly status in some areas, it was appropriate to ensure that licensees would be serving a broad interest--since market forces, after all, would be dampened by the restricted range of available bandwidth.

Since then, technological advances have allowed more stations to operate on less bandwidth, so that the Fairness Doctrine has become increasingly obsolete.

With the advent of digital broadcasting, which dramatically increases the potential for bandwidth to carry multiple broadcasters, it is completely obsolete.

But that does not mean it was a horrible, anti-speech idea. It was, originally, very much about promoting free speech under less-than-ideal circumstances.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a... frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

Just for the record.

http://www.mises.org/story/1053
http://www.mises.org/story/1954
http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=361&sortorder=title
http://www.mises.org/story/957

Here's links related to a documentary that explicitly fingers Enron for the Rolling Blackout engineering, most if not all of it. It's called "ENRON: The Smartest Guys in the Room."

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/enron/index.html

http://www.enronmovie.com/

I watched it myself. And it details how ENRON personnel called up the power plants and intructed them to shut down operation at key moments in order to drive up the price of electricity. And even with that shortage they were continuing to export power out of Cali and sell it to other states.

It's no myth. It's ENRON.

It is very very hard for non Americans to understand how America operates. Some of the things we do seem odd or downright mean and inconsiderate to the rest of the world.

The rejection of the Fairness Doctrine, like rejection of Kyoto, was based off the principle that it violated the written constitution of the US. The US Constitution is not the oldest. The British Constitution is not only older but formed part of the basis of the US Constitution. Part of the bill of rights was taken from the Magna Carta.
However, the British consititution has been changed frequently on a whim depending on who held power.
In the US, changing the Constitution is more difficult. You basically have to get your opponents to agree to the change amiably. In most countries, when you want to change the Constitution you do it through force or by overthrowing the government. (Fortunately most Western governments have evolved beyond "forced" constitutions)
In the US the courts have said that the Fairness Doctrine violates freedom of speech. This is the right of private persons and private business to say whatever they want even if its offensive. It also includes the right not support an opposing view.
Many networks in the US are not owned by public. They privately owned (either by shareholders or some wealthy guy like Ruport Murdoch). Because they are private businesses you can't force them to give a voice to views they don't agree with.
However we also have public access channels which are publicly owned (the government finances and runs them). Many American cities use such channels to broadcast city council meetings. These channels are also required (in some communities) to provide equal access to both sides of an issue during election time. Ih some communities, the public access channels have to provide equal coverage all the time otherwise they lose their government backing. In these cases it is local government doing the regulating and funding.
PBS is also a public access channel as is NPR. C-Span is a type of public access cable channel.
The reason for public channels needing to give both sides, while private channels don't, is that the government has to give the appearance that it is not biased against any particular groups (except the bad guys of course).

While we've changed our constitution over the last 220 something years, you will find that the principles found in the Constitution have never changed.

Just for the record.

from wikipedia:

"1974 in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote, "government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate"."

"In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply in the face of expanding communications technologies and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). The court's majority decision by William J. Brennan noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech" and said the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

"Two corollary rules of the doctrine, the "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in practice until 2000. The "personal attack" rule was pertinent whenever a person or small group was subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations had to notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The "political editorial" rule applied when a station broadcast editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulated that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit, ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to repeal the Fairness Doctrine. The FCC did not provide prompt justification, and ultimately ordered their repeal in 2000."

"But the Court said that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered. Without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court also concluded in a subsequent case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate".

from wikipedia:

....

"In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply in the face of expanding communications technologies and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).

Like I said. ;)

While we've changed our constitution over the last 220 something years, you will find that the principles found in the Constitution have never changed.Ironic that you should say this on the same day as this debacle (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/us/29assess.html?th&emc=th).

The five opinions that made up yesterday’s decision limiting the use of race in assigning students to public schools referred to Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark 1954 school desegregation case, some 90 times. The justices went so far as to quote from the original briefs in the case and from the oral argument in 1952.

All of the justices on both sides of yesterday’s 5-to-4 decision claimed to be, in Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s phrase, “faithful to the heritage of Brown.”

But lawyers who represented the black schoolchildren in the Brown case said yesterday that several justices in the majority had misinterpreted the positions they had taken in the litigation and had misunderstood the true meaning of Brown.

And as those reactions make clear, yesterday’s decision has reignited a societal debate about the role of race in education that will almost certainly prompt divisive lawsuits around the country. Indeed, the decision has invited a fundamental reassessment of Brown itself, perhaps the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century.

“There is a historic clash between two dramatically different visions not only of Brown,” said Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, “but also the meaning of the Constitution.”

The fundamental principles of the Constitution change every time our courts and our culture decide to reinterpret the words that make it up.

Consider the word "equality." What principle does this word represent? Should it be interpreted, for instance, such that ours is a country committed to racial equality? Or does it mean that our country should be committed to color-blindness?

This depends in a fundamental way on what we mean by "equal," doesn't it? And we've variously interpreted "equal" throughout our history to mean some kind of equality of outcome, some kind of equal treatment, or some combination of the two. Oh, and when it comes to equal treatment, we've sometimes insisted that equal means "the same," and other times we've argued that treatment can be separate (that is, different), so long as it is in some sense "equal"--and of course, the definition is very much up for grabs if we don't define it as "the same."

So in what way have our basic principles NOT been subject to change?

That's what lots of dictators say, too. They rationalize their censorship laws by saying they're trying to prevent "incitement of hatred" or "misinformation."

Which does not make the premise wrong. Nice try at a strawman there, skippy.

The radio company we speak of is Air America, an American liberal radio station network that is basically crap.

Probably because they don't sit around and slander conservatives enough.

Umm...

WHAT THE F*CK IS THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE??!!!

The Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine)

A rule that broadcasters had to pretend lying sacks of shit that were using the airwaves to push their own agenda that does not violate the first amendment because the airwaves are owned by the public and as such the government has the right to set the terms on their use. Just like when the government gives you a license to drive a car they have the right to make sure that you don't drink alcohol, if they give you a license to broadcast on the radio they have the right to make sure you don't drink "kool-aid."

We could be invaded by England and live under their rules. You seem to like em eh?

Well, good luck being invaded by a country that neither is sovereign nor has an army.

Hang on, what's wrong with that (The Fairness Doctrine)?
It'd destroy Fox for a start. Then what would little Rupee Murdoch do?

It'd destroy Fox for a start. Then what would little Rupee Murdoch do?
Too bad for you it's dead now.

Oh, and a little thing called the First Amendment is in your way. Good to know that you're a megalomaniac bent on destroying the Constitution.

If people actually wanted to listen to left-wing tripe, Air America would not have declared bankruptcy this past October.

If people actually wanted to listen to left-wing tripe, Air America would not have declared bankruptcy this past October.
Damn those left-wing bastards for trying to assault us with facts and logic! They should employ more unfounded, misinformed, biased slander like the right-wingers!

Damn those left-wing bastards for trying to assault us with facts and logic! They should employ more unfounded, misinformed, biased slander like the right-wingers!

I can't help it if the people who tune in to talk radio want to hear Rush instead of Franken.

Radio plays what sells, and obviously, the ideas of the Democrats don't play well to a radio audience.

The only successful radio the Democrats have is National Public Radio, and that's only because the government props it up.

The only successful radio the Democrats have is National Public Radio, and that's only because the government props it up.
God forbid anyone want to listen to real news, it must just be a liberal thing to want to hear news with facts instead of idiots blaming all the bad stuff on Democrats and claiming everything that was good that happens as Republicans doing. Facts in the news? Ridiculous!

And it's pretty hard to real well on the radio if you are stuck in one little tiny part of nowhere.

God forbid anyone want to listen to real news, it must just be a liberal thing to want to hear news with facts instead of idiots blaming all the bad stuff on Democrats and claiming everything that was good that happens as Republicans doing. Facts in the news? Ridiculous!

And it's pretty hard to real well on the radio if you are stuck in one little tiny part of nowhere.

Looks like people pay to hear Rush.

So few people want to pay to hear Franken that Air America went bankrupt.

God forbid we would let people choose what to listen to.

If people wanted to listen to Franken, the advertisers would know this, and he would be a billionaire radio star.

Looks like people don't want to hear him or his friends.

So few people want to pay to hear Franken that Air America went bankrupt.Actually, Air America went bankrupt because it was run by morons who couldn't do math. If you want to talk about its popular appeal, look to the ratings: it has been among the top five stations (counting both AM and FM) in several major markets.

It has also been picked up by XM, which I suppose means that people are actually paying to listen to it.

Looks like people pay to hear Rush.
People pay to get tied up and whipped too.

So few people want to pay to hear Franken that Air America went bankrupt.
Because of course Franken is the only liberal talk show host.
Not like every legacy airline hasn't been bankrupt, and just like them Air America is still on the air.

God forbid we would let people choose what to listen to.
People could still listen to Limbaugh under the Fairness Doctrine, he would just have to be independently entertaining now instead of an asshat.

Looks like people don't want to hear him or his friends.
Which is of course why it is still on the air and on satellite radio.

Too bad for you it's dead now.

Oh, and a little thing called the First Amendment is in your way. Good to know that you're a megalomaniac bent on destroying the Constitution.

If people actually wanted to listen to left-wing tripe, Air America would not have declared bankruptcy this past October.

Per Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, the Fairness Doctrine is not, in fact, unconstitutional. If you'd read the Wikipedia article through, you'd see that. The closest the Brennan court came to overturning this precedent is (and pay close attention to verb choice and use of conditionals here; they matter) that if The Court finds that the Fairness Doctrine actually reduces rather than enhances speech, it would have to be overturned as unconstitutional. You can see for yourself in the excised comments here:

The court's majority decision by William J. Brennan noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech" and said the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

So, in fact, the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine never was revisited, because the FCC determined that Congress had not mandated the doctrine be enforced, and decided on their own not to enforce it. As such, precedent still stands.

And finally, the Fairness Doctrine is not and never was about putting left-wing wackos on the airwaves. If anything, given the purported liberal nature of the press, it would be about putting conservatives on to counterbalance liberals (indeed, given the nature of the Fairness Doctrine, how exactly would their be an "untapped market" for conservatives to hear their view put out, the whole world wonders). Rather, the aim of the doctrine was to ensure two things: 1) both sides could get their airs viewed, and 2) both would have equal time and opportunity to make their cases. Given the limited nature of the public spectrum at the time, with only 3 main networks, and the fact that the airwaves are in fact public with the networks in effect liscensing use of those frequencies for the public, the Fairness Doctrine seems fairly sensible. How well it would work in the modern context is far more dubious, as I suspect pay-for-service sites like Sirius or cable couldn't be covered given Constitutional precedent.

Ironic that you should say this on the same day as this debacle (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/29/us/29assess.html?th&emc=th).



The fundamental principles of the Constitution change every time our courts and our culture decide to reinterpret the words that make it up.

Consider the word "equality." What principle does this word represent? Should it be interpreted, for instance, such that ours is a country committed to racial equality? Or does it mean that our country should be committed to color-blindness?

This depends in a fundamental way on what we mean by "equal," doesn't it? And we've variously interpreted "equal" throughout our history to mean some kind of equality of outcome, some kind of equal treatment, or some combination of the two. Oh, and when it comes to equal treatment, we've sometimes insisted that equal means "the same," and other times we've argued that treatment can be separate (that is, different), so long as it is in some sense "equal"--and of course, the definition is very much up for grabs if we don't define it as "the same."

So in what way have our basic principles NOT been subject to change?


The concept of affirmative action, which is what the Brown decision enforced, is not found in the US Constitution.
The fundamental assertion by the original author's of the constitution that all men are created equal is a basic principle enshrined in the constitution. Everyone in the US agrees that all men are created equal under God. (Unless you don't believe in God)
This principle in the belief of equality has not changed. What has changed is how we interpret what makes men equal.
Washington and Jefferson believed that blacks were equal to whites and thus should not be held as slaves. However, when Jefferson introduced a proposal to include a clause to the US Constitution that would've banned slavery in the US a little bit earlier, the clause was overwhelmingly defeated because most white American property owners at the time disagreed with him.
In the beginning it was only property owners who were treated equally by the state governments and federal government. Shortly after passage, however, this was changed so that all white males were equal.
Despite this, the end of slavery, women's liberation, and despite the civil rights movement we are still evaluating what it means to be equal.
Eqaulity started off as a vague concept which we are still developing into a sharp definition.
Today we have people claiming that there is no equality unless everyone has the exact same type of property and the exact same type of outcomes.
I interpret the equality principle as it is found in the Declaration of Independence "that all men have the right to pursue happiness." It does not say they have the right to be happy just because brown people are happy or blue people are happy. It just says they have the right to "pursue."
This is where the American idea of "equal opportunity" comes from.
You have an equal right to the opportunity to pursue happiness. But you do not have the right to happiness itself.
On the other hand, I do support some of affirmative action in our elementary schools so that everyone will be equipped to start off on an equal footing. Unfortunately, in the US, while rich schools get lots and lots of public funding, poor and minority schools get little public funding and hence have higher rates of crime and bigger crime problems.
THe problem is equality only to the extent of how much we've been ignoring the plight of schools in low income neighborhoods. Why should not the rich be required to pay for their own kids education so as to make more public money available to low income children (most of whome tend to be minority children).
I think if you make over 100,000 a year you should be required to pay for your child's education so more money is available where it is needed most.

It's like the rich people who greedily take from social security not because they need but just because they can and they don't care that they're hurting the system.

Per Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, the Fairness Doctrine is not, in fact, unconstitutional. If you'd read the Wikipedia article through, you'd see that. The closest the Brennan court came to overturning this precedent is (and pay close attention to verb choice and use of conditionals here; they matter) that if The Court finds that the Fairness Doctrine actually reduces rather than enhances speech, it would have to be overturned as unconstitutional. You can see for yourself in the excised comments here:

The court's majority decision by William J. Brennan noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech" and said the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."

So, in fact, the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine never was revisited, because the FCC determined that Congress had not mandated the doctrine be enforced, and decided on their own not to enforce it. As such, precedent still stands.

And finally, the Fairness Doctrine is not and never was about putting left-wing wackos on the airwaves. If anything, given the purported liberal nature of the press, it would be about putting conservatives on to counterbalance liberals (indeed, given the nature of the Fairness Doctrine, how exactly would their be an "untapped market" for conservatives to hear their view put out, the whole world wonders). Rather, the aim of the doctrine was to ensure two things: 1) both sides could get their airs viewed, and 2) both would have equal time and opportunity to make their cases. Given the limited nature of the public spectrum at the time, with only 3 main networks, and the fact that the airwaves are in fact public with the networks in effect liscensing use of those frequencies for the public, the Fairness Doctrine seems fairly sensible. How well it would work in the modern context is far more dubious, as I suspect pay-for-service sites like Sirius or cable couldn't be covered given Constitutional precedent.


You make a good fundamental argument.
Indeed, I do believet that it was the Fairness Doctrine which gave Rush Limbaugh his first shot at Talk Radio.
However, in these days and times, the fairness doctrine is totally out of date. You can't impose it on cable or privately owned satellite TV/Radio networks. It can only be applied to public airwaves as such. This might be the reason the major broadcast networks lost viewer to cable and satellite during the 90's. And why some radio stations are losing listeners to satellite radio.

I'm glad they shot it down.

Let's be honest, ok?

This was reintroduced because there are those who want to silence Limbaugh and Hannity and the rest. Listen to comments made over the last few days by people like Finestein. They gripe and cry that there's someone out there who not only disagrees with themm, but have enough of a following that i t can make a difference.

The Fairness Doctrine is a load of crap. Always was. People deny it's an assault on free speech/free press based upon the idea that since the FCC regulates the radio waves, it has a right to reject or deny licenses. That's crap too. Radio stations are indepenently owned businesses. They make revenue on advertising. If they can't get listeners, they can't get advertisers to pay for commercial time. if that happens, the station shuts down.

Now, if people like Conservative talk radio but suddenly it gets cluttered by timesharing with anybody and everybody who claims to be entitled to get in there, people quit listening to that station.

*ding* see what happens?

Please don't be so naieve that you think it would happen by accident.

Government should have NOTHING to do with radio station's political content. NOTHING.

Unless you have pure faith in the true honesty and integrity of those running the US Government.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Ask yourself this:
Who decides if the content on a talk show is liberal or conservative?
Who decides whom to pick to respond?
Who decides whether or not it even NEEDS to be responded to?

The concept of affirmative action, which is what the Brown decision enforced, is not found in the US Constitution.That's a matter of interpretation, isn't it?

The fundamental assertion by the original author's of the constitution that all men are created equal is a basic principle enshrined in the constitution.Just for the record, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote "all men are created equal," and he wasn't invited to the constitutional convention. Just so we're all clear on our sources, okay?

The "equal" that matters for purposes of affirmative action is primarily the "equal" in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was drafted and ratified decades after every signer of the constitution was dead. It was drafted and ratified after the Civil War, a point at which America decided to pave a new way in matters of race.

Everyone in the US agrees that all men are created equal under God. (Unless you don't believe in God).NB: Whether we believe in God or not, some of us also believe that women are equal, too. ;)

This principle in the belief of equality has not changed. What has changed is how we interpret what makes men equal.You're trying to disguise a fallacy of equivocation here:

The founders believed in "equality."
The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed in "equality."
The Supreme Court writing in Brown believed in "equality."
The Supreme Court striking down affirmative action believes in "equality."

But if each of these entities interprets the word differently, especially when they diverge in radical ways, then one cannot say that they believe in the same thing just because they use the same word for it. They believe in different principles which share the same name.

Washington and Jefferson believed that blacks were equal to whites and thus should not be held as slaves. However, when Jefferson introduced a proposal to include a clause to the US Constitution that would've banned slavery in the US a little bit earlier, the clause was overwhelmingly defeated because most white American property owners at the time disagreed with him.Again, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. While Jefferson was not in a position to "ban" slavery with the Declaration, he did try to include language that strongly suggested a condemnation of the institution, and it was defeated for fears that it would enshrine an abolitionist opinion in the nation's founding document.

Again, Jefferson was not involved in the Constitution in any way. He was in France at the time, and he was terribly offended that no one invited him to the party. Of course, they didn't want him there because he had this crazy alternative idea about what "equality" means.

Eqaulity started off as a vague concept which we are still developing into a sharp definition.No, equality has always been a vague concept, and we are still fighting over radically divergent definitions.

Today we have people claiming that there is no equality unless everyone has the exact same type of property and the exact same type of outcomes.
I interpret the equality principle as it is found in the Declaration of Independence "that all men have the right to pursue happiness."Interestingly, it is widely agreed that Jefferson self-consciously echoed the Lockean "life, liberty, property" with his "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... but what's interesting about that is that he refused to enshrine property rights in the Declaration of Independence. Instead, he suggests that "the pursuit of happiness" is the more fundamental right. Interesting indeed.

This is where the American idea of "equal opportunity" comes from.You're on a somewhat more accurate track here. The Founding generation did believe in "equal opportunity"... but then, they also liked to say that they lived in a "one class" society (ignoring slavery). To a certain extent, this was true. But at the same time, they were looking at the hell that Europe was becoming under early capitalism, with widespread unemployment and poverty, and they hoped to avoid that fate. Of that generation, only Jefferson clearly saw how bad it could become, and only he proposed a real solution.

What did Jefferson propose, you ask? Why, a form of affirmative action! He actually had the audacity to suggest that property should be a positive rather than a negative right, such that anyone who had never owned a plot of land should be guaranteed one FOR FREE from the government!!

Surely this is NOT the "equal opportunity" you were thinking of? Don't conservatives interpret that today to mean "by your own bootstraps"?

THe problem is equality only to the extent of how much we've been ignoring the plight of schools in low income neighborhoods. Why should not the rich be required to pay for their own kids education so as to make more public money available to low income children (most of whome tend to be minority children).A simpler solution would be to pay for schools at the level of the state rather than the locality so that poor areas don't get screwed. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that states are under no obligation to do so in the name of "equality."

please that issue was such a made up waste of time. i bet most people never even heard of it till the talk radio guys got afraid it could be used to shut them down. quite frankly it was the fairness doctrine that allowed talk radeo to begin. then they realized that if they got it repealed they could take complete control of am with the help of their corperate sponsers. the facts are that the radio stations who play these shows are run by conservitives. so they chose conservitive talkers instaid of liberal ones. if a liberal talker ever pops his head up they either won't play the show,or charge to play the show instaid of pay for it like they do with conservitive shows. if a station picks up the show then all of the other conservitive talkers mock and ridicule the host and send their mind numbed flock to bombard the show with ridicule until the host stops taking calls. then as the show goes into a tailspin they sit back,laugh, and claim that this proves that liberals cannot put on a successful show. not that most of the lib radio talkers are any more intelligent then the conserv ones. the main differance is most cons actually need someone repeating their beleafs over and over so that they can feel like they have it all figured out.most people who listen to those shows cannot think for themselves,thats why they desperately need rush and hannity to do the thinking for them. too bad that seems to be most people these days of either politicle strip or the other. if they actually thought about it they would notice that they are just being played of on one another to keep them from seeing just how bad things really have gotten. funny how contalk was all up in arms over this when in fact the regulation was never repealed, they just stoped the enforcement of that perticular regulation. amazing how they don't want this regulation enforced but then they want all of the other laws and regs that they like enforced. pfft but sense when has any of them really gave two figs for real decent laws. the problem is that if you beleave in the absolute rule of law you must keep making new laws to feed the beast that you will created. just try to get a useless and unenforcable law repealed and listen to them screem like mad, thats why we have so many laws on the books that no one even knows half of them. i say either repeal all of the useless, unenforcible, expencive laws or quit talking about smaller government cause you really don't beleave in it yourselves. thats why this admin has spent more money passed more laws and created more government then any lib has ever done including FDR. conservitive republicans don't beleave in smaller government they just beleave in more of their own government and less of demacrat government.
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

Schwullunde;12828954']please that issue was such a made up waste of time. i bet most people never even heard of it till the talk radio guys got afraid it could be used to shut them down. quite frankly it was the fairness doctrine that allowed talk radeo to begin. then they realized that if they got it repealed they could take complete control of am with the help of their corperate sponsers. the facts are that the radio stations who play these shows are run by conservitives. so they chose conservitive talkers instaid of liberal ones. if a liberal talker ever pops his head up they either won't play the show,or charge to play the show instaid of pay for it like they do with conservitive shows. if a station picks up the show then all of the other conservitive talkers mock and ridicule the host and send their mind numbed flock to bombard the show with ridicule until the host stops taking calls. then as the show goes into a tailspin they sit back,laugh, and claim that this proves that liberals cannot put on a successful show. not that most of the lib radio talkers are any more intelligent then the conserv ones. the main differance is most cons actually need someone repeating their beleafs over and over so that they can feel like they have it all figured out.most people who listen to those shows cannot think for themselves,thats why they desperately need rush and hannity to do the thinking for them. too bad that seems to be most people these days of either politicle strip or the other. if they actually thought about it they would notice that they are just being played of on one another to keep them from seeing just how bad things really have gotten. funny how contalk was all up in arms over this when in fact the regulation was never repealed, they just stoped the enforcement of that perticular regulation. amazing how they don't want this regulation enforced but then they want all of the other laws and regs that they like enforced. pfft but sense when has any of them really gave two figs for real decent laws. the problem is that if you beleave in the absolute rule of law you must keep making new laws to feed the beast that you will created. just try to get a useless and unenforcable law repealed and listen to them screem like mad, thats why we have so many laws on the books that no one even knows half of them. i say either repeal all of the useless, unenforcible, expencive laws or quit talking about smaller government cause you really don't beleave in it yourselves. thats why this admin has spent more money passed more laws and created more government then any lib has ever done including FDR. conservitive republicans don't beleave in smaller government they just beleave in more of their own government and less of demacrat government.
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

Paragraphs, capitalization and sentence structure can be a good thing

It's un-American or something is my guess.

So, fairness is un-American. Yeah, well, the rest of the World would tend to agree, at the moment.

Also, could I ask where the "extreme Left" is in America? I thought that socialism was "un-American" too. Oh, you mean people like Hilary, who pander to special interest groups and PRETEND to be liberal? Now I gotcha!

ABH for President!

The House votes 309-115 for a Mike Pence amendment barring the FCC from imposing it.

So much for Pelosi's support for it - or Senator Boxer and Senator Clinton's wish that it be imposed.

I'm glad - I think the Fairness Doctrine is a violation of the First Amendment.
Yep, I wish I could have seen old Dennis Kucinich's face when that happened. He was so excited about the prospect of "fairness" on the "public" airwaves.

That's a matter of interpretation, isn't it?

Just for the record, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote "all men are created equal," and he wasn't invited to the constitutional convention. Just so we're all clear on our sources, okay?

The "equal" that matters for purposes of affirmative action is primarily the "equal" in the Fourteenth Amendment, which was drafted and ratified decades after every signer of the constitution was dead. It was drafted and ratified after the Civil War, a point at which America decided to pave a new way in matters of race.

NB: Whether we believe in God or not, some of us also believe that women are equal, too. ;)

You're trying to disguise a fallacy of equivocation here:

The founders believed in "equality."
The drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment believed in "equality."
The Supreme Court writing in Brown believed in "equality."
The Supreme Court striking down affirmative action believes in "equality."

But if each of these entities interprets the word differently, especially when they diverge in radical ways, then one cannot say that they believe in the same thing just because they use the same word for it. They believe in different principles which share the same name.

Again, you're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. While Jefferson was not in a position to "ban" slavery with the Declaration, he did try to include language that strongly suggested a condemnation of the institution, and it was defeated for fears that it would enshrine an abolitionist opinion in the nation's founding document.

Again, Jefferson was not involved in the Constitution in any way. He was in France at the time, and he was terribly offended that no one invited him to the party. Of course, they didn't want him there because he had this crazy alternative idea about what "equality" means.

No, equality has always been a vague concept, and we are still fighting over radically divergent definitions.

Interestingly, it is widely agreed that Jefferson self-consciously echoed the Lockean "life, liberty, property" with his "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... but what's interesting about that is that he refused to enshrine property rights in the Declaration of Independence. Instead, he suggests that "the pursuit of happiness" is the more fundamental right. Interesting indeed.

You're on a somewhat more accurate track here. The Founding generation did believe in "equal opportunity"... but then, they also liked to say that they lived in a "one class" society (ignoring slavery). To a certain extent, this was true. But at the same time, they were looking at the hell that Europe was becoming under early capitalism, with widespread unemployment and poverty, and they hoped to avoid that fate. Of that generation, only Jefferson clearly saw how bad it could become, and only he proposed a real solution.

What did Jefferson propose, you ask? Why, a form of affirmative action! He actually had the audacity to suggest that property should be a positive rather than a negative right, such that anyone who had never owned a plot of land should be guaranteed one FOR FREE from the government!!

Surely this is NOT the "equal opportunity" you were thinking of? Don't conservatives interpret that today to mean "by your own bootstraps"?

A simpler solution would be to pay for schools at the level of the state rather than the locality so that poor areas don't get screwed. Interestingly, the Supreme Court has ruled that states are under no obligation to do so in the name of "equality."

I sometimes use the Declaration and Constitution interchangeably. The Declaration is our founding document and the Constitution is our governing document.
I have a tendency to believe that as it developed, the Constitution was made to more and more reflect the principles of the Declaration.

The point about the 14th amendment changing the meaning of "equal" in this nation is interesting. I always thought it meant only political equality. Do you take it to mean the government can dictate to private businesses who they can do business with?
I am not sure I would support that interpretation. While it is immoral for a business to discriminate thus, it has a right to do so. Even though there are still consequences. Try being being a white business in East LA that refuses to deal with Mexicans. Then see how long you can stay open with the pathetically small amount of you bring in, which would be next to zero.
In most cases, racial discrimination in business dealings makes no financial sense since you would actually lose money.

I think God would agree that women are equal. Particularly since woman was supposedly made from man's rib and not man's foot.

Fallacy of equivocation? I think I know what you mean. It would probably be a difference of one group saying that people should be allowed to do what they want just because of their wealth (ie the Republicans) and an opposing group wanting establish a light form of socialism where you had a right to a job at a company rather than just a right to compete for the job. I know the Reps will claim that they oppose such a system but in practice, most business owners don't look at experience or skills. The first thing they check is who are you related and whose friend are you. When they don't have anyone in house or someone related or known to someone in house, then and only then do they open available slots to the general public. And even in those cases, the particular race that gets the job depends on the race of the boss. In my experience, hispanics tend to hire only hispanics, white prefer whites. The only group I've seen who have hired people in color blind sort of fashion have been the asians. It seems all they care about is whether you are going to be reliable enough to get the job done and how loyal they think you might be to the company.

I agree about Jefferson. He had some spirited arguments over the matter.

You know, I haven't thought about the governments land grants in that way. But then, when they did the majority of it, I believe it was only opened to whites. It was only after the passage of the 14th amendment that blacks became eligible to participate.

As for the schools, we need to fund No Child Left Behind. It is tragic that money that Bush promised would go to minority children is instead going to rich white kids who don't need it.

If you want people to compete on their own merit when they are adults, you have to make sure you give them a level playing field while they are children and still developing. You have to make sure that everyone has the critical thinking skills needed to compete successfully in the business world.

There can be no equal opportunity in adulthood until there is literal equality in the public schools at the elementary and secondary levels. (Of course that's not to say that kids should get A's in their classes just because another kid did).

Yep, I wish I could have seen old Dennis Kucinich's face when that happened. He was so excited about the prospect of "fairness" on the "public" airwaves.

Kucinich terrifies me.

Damn those left-wing bastards for trying to assault us with facts and logic! They should employ more unfounded, misinformed, biased slander like the right-wingers!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaaa.... :rolleyes: x1,000,000





Sorry, just couldn't help it, after reading that. Funny, funny stuff Tph.

Kucinich terrifies me.

He and Gavel are the only Primary candidates with any ounce of decency.

He and Gavel are the only Primary candidates with any ounce of decency.

Kucinich wants to ban handguns.

I wonder the same thing. I dunno.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahaaa.... :rolleyes: x1,000,000





Sorry, just couldn't help it, after reading that. Funny, funny stuff Tph.

:confused:

So, fairness is un-American. Yeah, well, the rest of the World would tend to agree, at the moment.

Duh.

Also, could I ask where the "extreme Left" is in America? I thought that socialism was "un-American" too. Oh, you mean people like Hilary, who pander to special interest groups and PRETEND to be liberal?

Are you on drugs?




Can I have some?
.
.
.

Are you on drugs?




Can I have some?
.
.
.
http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-redefeat.gif
Ask whoever made this, they got some good shit.

posted by Neo Bretonnia:

Paragraphs, capitalization and sentence structure can be a good thing



Maybe so but they are not necessarily important when expressing an opinion. Of course this kinda proves the point. If a conservitive cannot argue the factual points, Argue and mock the person, or in this case the linguistics.

Ahh well, personally I could care less about this whole subject anymore.
I think I will just find a better problem. Why waste my time with people who would reather argue the merit's,or lack of on such an utter waste of time.


see y'all catch ya in some other post

oh by the way there should be a coma between capitalization & and, as well as a period at the end. your post should read

Paragraphs, capitalization, and sentence structure can be a good thing.

Schwullunde;12833371']
Maybe so but they are not necessarily important when expressing an opinion.

Depends on whether or not you want people to read it.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-redefeat.gif
Ask whoever made this, they got some good shit.

I swear, I'll never understand why some people think HRC is a communist. She's a center-left panderer at best, who's willing to throw constituencies under the bus for the smallest advantage. Leftist? Hardly. She's not even a single-payer universal insurance advocate anymore.

I swear, I'll never understand why some people think HRC is a communist. She's a center-left panderer at best, who's willing to throw constituencies under the bus for the smallest advantage. Leftist? Hardly. She's not even a single-payer universal insurance advocate anymore.

Agreed.

She's mildly left-leaning on economic issues (and sometimes not even then), and a reactionary on social issues. Hardly a communist.

http://www.thoseshirts.com/images/square-large-redefeat.gif
Ask whoever made this, they got some good shit.

I fear the damage it could cause to my brain.

I sometimes use the Declaration and Constitution interchangeably.Well, you should stop that. It is almost certainly confusing to readers who can't tell the difference, and more importantly it is probably confusing you as well.

The Declaration is our founding document and the Constitution is our governing document.That's true, but nothing about that makes them in any way interchangeable. The Declaration of Independence was a rather revolutionary document, as were the original Articles of Confederation. The Constitution was an intentionally counter-revolutionary document that reigned in the democratic advances of roughly the previous fifteen years.

(That's why Jefferson wasn't invited.)

Of course, you will hear explanations that the Articles "didn't work," but in 1787-89 it certainly depended on who you asked. Hannah Arendt, for one, makes a very cogent case that the Articles "worked," just fine--the real issue concerned what kind of country we wanted to be: that is, "who" should it "work" for? With the passage of the Constitution we effectively decided that it would work primarily for the commercial class. Indeed, it was really the Constitution that determined that America would, in fact, become a class society (again, discounting slavery which already made it a class society).

I have a tendency to believe that as it developed, the Constitution was made to more and more reflect the principles of the Declaration.Only in the sense that it has expanded the electorate to include more classes of people. But the men who drafted and signed the Declaration of Independence thought that democracy is about more than who gets to vote. They thought it was fundamentally about bottom-up rather than top-down leadership--a concept that suffered its most fatal blow when the major political parties adopted the system of electoral primaries, which favors early, well-financed candidates over the creation of a meaningful convention platform. So in that sense we have certainly moved further away from the principles of the Declaration of Independence.

The point about the 14th amendment changing the meaning of "equal" in this nation is interesting. I always thought it meant only political equality. Do you take it to mean the government can dictate to private businesses who they can do business with?No, that power rests on the commerce clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3). The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to the states, not to private entities.

In most cases, racial discrimination in business dealings makes no financial sense since you would actually lose money.And do you really believe that Jim Crow had a lot to do with financial sense?

Agreed.

She's mildly left-leaning on economic issues (and sometimes not even then), and a reactionary on social issues. Hardly a communist.

I wouldn't call her even that. Let's recall if you will that her top campaign advisor, when not working for politicians works for a law firm that specializes in busting unions. Then let's remember that the "political genius" Bill Clinton managed exactly one feat in the two years his party had control of the executive and the legislative: NAFTA. Not universal health coverage. Not even open enlistment for gays in the military. No, creating the document that has resulted in Mexico importing more goods into the United States than the United States exports as a whole is the shining beacon of achievement for the 93-94 Dems.

I must say Hillary is a frontrunner for the Democratic Party only because the world has gone mad. But not because she's a communist; it's because she's a corporatist through and through, and we could generate quality electrical power from the spinning corpses of old Dems like William Jennings Bryan and FDR to see their party accepting that level of total defeat to the money power.

*snip*

True.