Obama's Big Government News-Media Complex

[MioMyo]

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get into a fight with the person
who buys ink by the barrel?

Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big liberal press Government
News-Media Complex between bamby's administration and his more favored media
whores. I suppose the only reason NBC's MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a
town hall news conference is because everyone already knows this affiliate
is in the tank for bamby- either that or bamby is tire of Olbermann sucking
his dick and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job experience.

One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and can't handle criticism
whether it's legitimate or not. George Bush was quantum light-years ahead of
bamby on his ability to take criticism.

Here's but one recent example of bamby having a staged White House press
conference moment:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html


Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event unfolds when bamby and ABC
is denying any opposition points of view, see:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1

President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" expects to achieve health care
reform by the end of this year because he believes the American people share
his urgency.

"The reason it's going to get done is because the American people understand
it has to get done," Obama said in an exclusive interview with ABC's Diane
Sawyer airing Wednesday on "Good Morning America."

Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President Obama on "Good Morning
America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. ET

Obama would not consider what it means for his domestic agenda if he does
not sign health care legislation this year. Despite recent partisan setbacks
on Capitol Hill, the president said he is confident a solution can be
achieved.

"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous federal deficit and debt
that is largely driven by health care costs. So, whether it's families,
business or government, we know that we're going to have to reform this
system," he said.

Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the President -- Prescription for
America," Wednesday, June 24, at 10 p.m. ET

Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail and the personal stories
Americans share with him solidify his belief that putting off this issue is
non-negotiable.

"I travel all across the country and I've done so for the last two years
now. Every town I visit, every city I go, people ask me, 'Why is it that my
premiums have gone up two, three times in the last nine, 10 years? What can
I do when my employer says to me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.

Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging health care plan but stopped
short of saying that he would veto any plan that does not include the widely
pilloried "public option" he has been pushing.

"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to control
costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have health
insurance or are under-insured," the president said at a White House press
conference.

Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is non-negotiable, the
president said that it was not, at least not yet.

"You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed. There are a
whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion, and
I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up. It's too
early to say that. Right now, I will say that our position is that a public
plan makes sense."

[Doomsday 2010]

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get into a fight with the
person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's administration and his more
favored media whores. I suppose the only reason NBC's MSNBC isn't doing
this charade of a town hall news conference is because everyone already
knows this affiliate is in the tank for bamby- either that or bamby is
tire of Olbermann sucking his dick and wants a fresh new news-media
blow-job experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and can't handle criticism
whether it's legitimate or not. George Bush was quantum light-years ahead
of bamby on his ability to take criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a staged White House press
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event unfolds when bamby and
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" expects to achieve health care
reform by the end of this year because he believes the American people
share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an exclusive interview with
ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday on "Good Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President Obama on "Good Morning
America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his domestic agenda if he does
not sign health care legislation this year. Despite recent partisan
setbacks on Capitol Hill, the president said he is confident a solution
can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous federal deficit and
debt that is largely driven by health care costs. So, whether it's
families, business or government, we know that we're going to have to
reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the President -- Prescription for
America," Wednesday, June 24, at 10 p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail and the personal stories
Americans share with him solidify his belief that putting off this issue
is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so for the last two years
now. Every town I visit, every city I go, people ask me, 'Why is it that
my premiums have gone up two, three times in the last nine, 10 years? What
can I do when my employer says to me we just can't afford to provide
health care anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging health care plan but
stopped short of saying that he would veto any plan that does not include
the widely pilloried "public option" he has been pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to
control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have
health insurance or are under-insured," the president said at a White
House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is non-negotiable, the
president said that it was not, at least not yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed. There are
a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion,
and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up.
It's too early to say that. Right now, I will say that our position is
that a public plan makes sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's time to
have free airwaves again in America.

[kujebak]

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get into a fight with the
person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's administration and his more
favored media whores. I suppose the only reason NBC's MSNBC isn't doing
this charade of a town hall news conference is because everyone already
knows this affiliate is in the tank for bamby- either that or bamby is
tire of Olbermann sucking his dick and wants a fresh new news-media
blow-job experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and can't handle criticism
whether it's legitimate or not. George Bush was quantum light-years ahead
of bamby on his ability to take criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a staged White House press
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event unfolds when bamby and
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" expects to achieve health care
reform by the end of this year because he believes the American people
share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an exclusive interview with
ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday on "Good Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President Obama on "Good Morning
America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his domestic agenda if he does
not sign health care legislation this year. Despite recent partisan
setbacks on Capitol Hill, the president said he is confident a solution
can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous federal deficit and
debt that is largely driven by health care costs. So, whether it's
families, business or government, we know that we're going to have to
reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the President -- Prescription for
America," Wednesday, June 24, at 10 p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail and the personal stories
Americans share with him solidify his belief that putting off this issue
is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so for the last two years
now. Every town I visit, every city I go, people ask me, 'Why is it that
my premiums have gone up two, three times in the last nine, 10 years? What
can I do when my employer says to me we just can't afford to provide
health care anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging health care plan but
stopped short of saying that he would veto any plan that does not include
the widely pilloried "public option" he has been pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to
control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have
health insurance or are under-insured," the president said at a White
House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is non-negotiable, the
president said that it was not, at least not yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed. There are
a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong opinion,
and I will express those to members of Congress as this is shaping up.
It's too early to say that. Right now, I will say that our position is
that a public plan makes sense."

Good for Obama.  After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's time to
have free airwaves again in America.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth around.
He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler. Now he
wants to wipe out private health care. How much more
proof do you need?

[Lamont Cranston]

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate is in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not. George Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a staged
White
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year because he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by health care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government, we know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24, at 10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city I go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public option" he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide relief to
people who
don't have health insurance or are under-insured," the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth around.

LIE.

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

How much more
proof do you need?

Much more than your lies.

[kujebak]

On Jun 24, 10:40 am, "Lamont Cranston"

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate is in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not. George Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a staged
White
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year because he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by health care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government, we know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24, at 10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city I go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public option" he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide relief to
people who
don't have health insurance or are under-insured," the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth around.

LIE.

http://tinyurl.com/3swrud

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Is it not true that after U.S. Treasury the UAW is going
own the largest single block of common stock in both
companies?

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

The reason why the so called public option seems to
be sort of off the table in the current Congressional debate
is that almost everyone realizes that it would eventually
dilute the value of employer provided health insurance
currently enjoyed by three out of every four working Ame-
ricans. Taxpayer funded health care for some will eventually
turn into tax payer funded health care for all, and that is
really the only substantive issue in the current health care
reform discussion. No one seems to be able to figure out
how prevent private employers from dumping their emp-
loyees onto the public system, and saving a ton of money
in the process. Very few in Congress (including the majo-
rity of Democrats) seem to be willing to take credit for
that actually happening. However, there is no question
where Obama stands on single payer health insurance:

http://tinyurl.com/lsfrjc

How much more
proof do you need?

Much more than your lies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Lamont Cranston]

On Jun 24, 10:40 am, "Lamont Cranston"

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get
into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate is
in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job
experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and
can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not. George
Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a
staged
White
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely"
expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year because
he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday
on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m.
ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this
year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by health
care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government, we
know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24, at
10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail
and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his
belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so
for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city I
go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging
health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public option"
he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than
that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide relief
to
people who
don't have health insurance or are under-insured,"
the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan
is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was
not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that
we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to
say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth
around.

LIE.

http://tinyurl.com/3swrud

Your URL proves that you lied.

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Is it not true that after U.S. Treasury the UAW is going
own the largest single block of common stock in both
companies?

It is not true that the unions have been put in charge of GM
and Chrysler.

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

The reason why the so called public option seems to
be sort of off the table in the current Congressional
debate
is that almost everyone realizes that it would eventually
dilute the value of employer provided health insurance

Health insurance is not "health care."

currently enjoyed by three out of every four working Ame-
ricans. Taxpayer funded health care for some will
eventually
turn into tax payer funded health care for all, and that
is
really the only substantive issue in the current health
care
reform discussion. No one seems to be able to figure out
how prevent private employers from dumping their emp-
loyees onto the public system, and saving a ton of money
in the process. Very few in Congress (including the majo-
rity of Democrats) seem to be willing to take credit for
that actually happening. However, there is no question
http://tinyurl.com/lsfrjc

Obama does not want to wipe out private health care.
Unfortunately, he doesn't even want to wipe out private
health care insurance.

How much more
proof do you need?

Much more than your lies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[kujebak]

On Jun 24, 12:36 pm, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

On Jun 24, 10:40 am, "Lamont Cranston"

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get
into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate is
in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job
experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and
can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not. George
Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a
staged
White
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely"
expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year because
he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday
on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m.
ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this
year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by health
care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government, we
know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24, at
10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail
and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his
belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so
for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city I
go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging
health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public option"
he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than
that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide relief
to
people who
don't have health insurance or are under-insured,"
the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan
is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was
not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that
we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to
say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth
around.

LIE.

http://tinyurl.com/3swrud

Your URL proves that you lied.

In what way?

Post by Lamont Cranston

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Is it not true that after U.S. Treasury the UAW is going
own the largest single block of common stock in both
companies?

It is not true that the unions have been put in charge of GM
and Chrysler.

The union got more from Obama in the settlements than
it was entitled to under existing bankrupcy laws. Why?
Because just like you (apparently) Obama is a Marxist.

Post by Lamont Cranston

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

The reason why the so called public option seems to
be sort of off the table in the current Congressional
debate
is that almost everyone realizes that it would eventually
dilute the value of employer provided health insurance

Health insurance is not "health care."

Really? See below.

Post by Lamont Cranston

currently enjoyed by three out of every four working Ame-
ricans. Taxpayer funded health care for some will
eventually
turn into tax payer funded health care for all, and that
is
really the only substantive issue in the current health
care
reform discussion. No one seems to be able to figure out
how prevent private employers from dumping their emp-
loyees onto the public system, and saving a ton of money
in the process. Very few in Congress (including the majo-
rity of Democrats) seem to be willing to take credit for
that actually happening. However, there is no question
http://tinyurl.com/lsfrjc

Obama does not want to wipe out private health care.
Unfortunately, he doesn't even want to wipe out private
health care insurance.

But you obviously do, because you have no understanding
of the inextricable nature of the relationship between private
health insurance and private health care. Fortunately, most
of our federal legislators do seem to have some level of un-
derstanding of that relationship. Obama has not changed
his position on single payer. He merely became more care-
ful referring to it, given its increasing level of political liabi-
lity ;-)

Post by Lamont Cranston

How much more
proof do you need?

Much more than your lies.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Lamont Cranston]

On Jun 24, 12:36 pm, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

On Jun 24, 10:40 am, "Lamont Cranston"

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't
get
into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding
big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the
only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall
news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate
is
in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of
Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job
experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned
and
can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not.
George
Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to
take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having
a
staged
White
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big
event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points
of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely"
expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year
because
he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because
the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in
an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing
Wednesday
on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with
President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00
a.m.
ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this
year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an
enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by
health
care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government,
we
know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24,
at
10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign
trail
and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his
belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done
so
for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city
I
go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up
two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging
health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto
any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public
option"
he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other
than
that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide
relief
to
people who
don't have health insurance or are
under-insured,"
the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public
plan
is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was
not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that
we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express
those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early
to
say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a
public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.-
Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He
said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth
around.

LIE.

http://tinyurl.com/3swrud

Your URL proves that you lied.

In what way?

Obama did not say that he would spread Joe's wealth around.
Joe doesn't have any wealth to spread around. What he said
was that things worked better when "you spread the wealth
around," and that is absolutely true. Economies in
countries with a large middle class work much better than
those without a large middle class. "Spreading the wealth
around" has always meant creating a large middle class, has
always been the guiding principle of taxation in this
country, and is the major reason for our economic success.

Post by Lamont Cranston

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Is it not true that after U.S. Treasury the UAW is
going
own the largest single block of common stock in both
companies?

It is not true that the unions have been put in charge
of GM
and Chrysler.

The union got more from Obama in the settlements than
it was entitled to under existing bankrupcy laws. Why?

Because the union made many, many concessions.

Because just like you (apparently) Obama is a Marxist.

You don't even know what a Marxist is. Obama and I are both
capitalists. Obama is currently attempting to save
capitalism in this country.

Post by Lamont Cranston

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

The reason why the so called public option seems to
be sort of off the table in the current Congressional
debate
is that almost everyone realizes that it would
eventually
dilute the value of employer provided health insurance

Health insurance is not "health care."

Really? See below.

Really.

Post by Lamont Cranston

currently enjoyed by three out of every four working
Ame-
ricans. Taxpayer funded health care for some will
eventually
turn into tax payer funded health care for all, and
that
is
really the only substantive issue in the current
health
care
reform discussion. No one seems to be able to figure
out
how prevent private employers from dumping their emp-
loyees onto the public system, and saving a ton of
money
in the process. Very few in Congress (including the
majo-
rity of Democrats) seem to be willing to take credit
for
that actually happening. However, there is no question
http://tinyurl.com/lsfrjc

Obama does not want to wipe out private health care.
Unfortunately, he doesn't even want to wipe out private
health care insurance.

But you obviously do, because you have no understanding
of the inextricable nature of the relationship between
private
health insurance and private health care.

I would be more than happy to see every health care
insurance company in the U.S. go out of business. Private
health care is in no way dependent on private health
insurance.

Fortunately, most
of our federal legislators do seem to have some level of
un-
derstanding of that relationship.

Since there is no relationship, your statement is untrue.
Private healthcare insurance is one of the biggest scams in
history.

Obama has not changed
his position on single payer. He merely became more care-
ful referring to it, given its increasing level of
political liabi-
lity ;-)

Obama's position on single-payer is that he would consider
it only after his plan for broader coverage evolves over
time.

[kujebak]

On Jun 24, 2:42 pm, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

On Jun 24, 12:36 pm, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

On Jun 24, 10:40 am, "Lamont Cranston"

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't
get
into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding
big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the
only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall
news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate
is
in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of
Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job
experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned
and
can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not.
George
Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to
take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having
a
staged
White
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big
event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points
of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely"
expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year
because
he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because
the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in
an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing
Wednesday
on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with
President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00
a.m.
ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this
year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an
enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by
health
care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government,
we
know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24,
at
10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign
trail
and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his
belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done
so
for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city
I
go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up
two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging
health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto
any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public
option"
he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other
than
that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide
relief
to
people who
don't have health insurance or are
under-insured,"
the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public
plan
is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was
not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that
we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express
those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early
to
say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a
public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.-
Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He
said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth
around.

LIE.

http://tinyurl.com/3swrud

Your URL proves that you lied.

In what way?

Obama did not say that he would spread Joe's wealth around.
Joe doesn't have any wealth to spread around.  What he said
was that things worked better when "you spread the wealth
around," and that is absolutely true.  Economies in
countries with a large middle class work much better than
those without a large middle class.  "Spreading the wealth
around" has always meant creating a large middle class, has
always been the guiding principle of taxation in this
country, and is the major reason for our economic success.

You are making a distinction without a difference. Any
time you take the product of someone's effort (through
progressive income tax, death taxes, etc.) and you are
giving it to someone else to make them wealthier without
requring them to give up something of value in return
(money, labor), you are simply spreading the wealth for
the sake of spreading the wealth. You are creating arti-
ficial economic homogeneity, but you are not creating
a better economy. I could give you plenty of examples
of bizarre anomalies created by artificial economic equality.
The notion of economic equality as a requirement for a good
economy is totally unfounded in reality. Inspite of the
substantial differences between the rich and poor in the
U.S. compared to some of the European "nanny states",
our economy has always been the most adaptable, and
the most dynamic. Why? Because of the heretofore largely
unmuddled relationship between capital and labor. Then
there are the examples of the utter failure of the ultimate
egalitarian societies of Eastern Europe. The notion of
economic homoneneity as a means to a better society is
a philosophical construct, not an economic one. You can
call it what you want. I call it what I recognize it as ;-)

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Lamont Cranston

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Is it not true that after U.S. Treasury the UAW is
going
own the largest single block of common stock in both
companies?

It is not true that the unions have been put in charge
of GM
and Chrysler.

The union got more from Obama in the settlements than
it was entitled to under existing bankrupcy laws. Why?

Because the union made many, many concessions.

Because just like you (apparently) Obama is a Marxist.

You don't even know what a Marxist is.  Obama and I are both
capitalists.  Obama is currently attempting to save
capitalism in this country.

I am amused, but not surprised, that someone, like
yourself, who has not had a chance to experience real
socialism, has entirely no idea what capitalism is ;-)

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Lamont Cranston

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

The reason why the so called public option seems to
be sort of off the table in the current Congressional
debate
is that almost everyone realizes that it would
eventually
dilute the value of employer provided health insurance

Health insurance is not "health care."

Really? See below.

Really.

Post by Lamont Cranston

currently enjoyed by three out of every four working
Ame-
ricans. Taxpayer funded health care for some will
eventually
turn into tax payer funded health care for all, and
that
is
really the only substantive issue in the current
health
care
reform discussion. No one seems to be able to figure
out
how prevent private employers from dumping their emp-
loyees onto the public system, and saving a ton of
money
in the process. Very few in Congress (including the
majo-
rity of Democrats) seem to be willing to take credit
for
that actually happening. However, there is no question
http://tinyurl.com/lsfrjc

Obama does not want to wipe out private health care.
Unfortunately, he doesn't even want to wipe out private
health care insurance.

But you obviously do, because you have no understanding
of the inextricable nature of the relationship between
private
health insurance and private health care.

I would be more than happy to see every health care
insurance company in the U.S. go out of business.  Private
health care ...

Any form of single payer legislation will eventually lead
to Canadian and British-style health care. That is the
stated intent of its advocates - eliminate economic choice
and create an entirely new government bureaucracy de-
signed to provide the same level of service based purely
on need rather than the ability to pay. For everyone, in-
cluding those who have the ability to pay for something
better. Just like your county social services. If you think
different, you are a fool.

Post by Lamont Cranston
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Talk-n-dog]

Post by Lamont Cranston

On Jun 24, 10:40 am, "Lamont Cranston"

Post by MioMyo

On Jun 24, 5:43 am, "Doomsday 2010"

Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get > > > > into a
fight with
the person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big
liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's
administration and
his more favored media whores. I suppose the only
reason NBC's
MSNBC isn't doing this charade of a town hall news
conference is
because everyone already knows this affiliate is > > > > in
the tank for
bamby- either that or bamby is tire of Olbermann
sucking his dick
and wants a fresh new news-media blow-job > > > > experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and > > > > can't
handle
criticism whether it's legitimate or not. George > > > > Bush
was quantum
light-years ahead of bamby on his ability to take
criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a > > > > staged
White

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_Hu...

Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event
unfolds when
bamby and ABC is denying any opposition points of
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" > > > > expects to
achieve
health care reform by the end of this year because > > > > he
believes
the American people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the
American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an
exclusive
interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday > > > > on
"Good
Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President
Obama on "Good
Morning America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. > > > > ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his
domestic agenda if
he does not sign health care legislation this > > > > year.
Despite
recent partisan setbacks on Capitol Hill, the
president said he
is confident a solution can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous
federal
deficit and debt that is largely driven by health > > > > care
costs. So,
whether it's families, business or government, we > > > > know
that we're
going to have to reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the
President --
Prescription for America," Wednesday, June 24, at > > > > 10
p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail > > > > and
the personal
stories Americans share with him solidify his > > > > belief
that putting
off this issue is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so > > > > for
the last
two years now. Every town I visit, every city I > > > > go,
people ask
me, 'Why is it that my premiums have gone up two,
three times in
the last nine, 10 years? What can I do when my
employer says to
me we just can't afford to provide health care
anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging > > > > health
care plan
but stopped short of saying that he would veto any
plan that does
not include the widely pilloried "public option" > > > > he
has been
pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than > > > > that
reform has
to control costs and that it has to provide relief > > > > to
people who
don't have health insurance or are under-insured," > > > > the
president
said at a White House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan > > > > is
non-negotiable, the president said that it was > > > > not, at
least not
yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that > > > > we've
discussed.
There are a whole host of other issues where
ultimately I may
have a strong opinion, and I will express those to
members of
Congress as this is shaping up. It's too early to > > > > say
that. Right
now, I will say that our position is that a public
plan makes
sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's
treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.- Hide
quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

And Obama will bring power to the proletariat. He said
to Joe the Plumber that he will spread his wealth > > around.

LIE.

http://tinyurl.com/3swrud

Your URL proves that you lied.

Post by MioMyo

He put the unions in charge of GM and Chrysler.

LIE.

Is it not true that after U.S. Treasury the UAW is going
own the largest single block of common stock in both
companies?

It is not true that the unions have been put in charge of GM and Chrysler.

Post by MioMyo

Now he
wants to wipe out private health care.

LIE.

The reason why the so called public option seems to
be sort of off the table in the current Congressional debate
is that almost everyone realizes that it would eventually
dilute the value of employer provided health insurance

Health insurance is not "health care."

currently enjoyed by three out of every four working Ame-
ricans. Taxpayer funded health care for some will eventually
turn into tax payer funded health care for all, and that is
really the only substantive issue in the current health care
reform discussion. No one seems to be able to figure out
how prevent private employers from dumping their emp-
loyees onto the public system, and saving a ton of money
in the process. Very few in Congress (including the majo-
rity of Democrats) seem to be willing to take credit for
that actually happening. However, there is no question
http://tinyurl.com/lsfrjc

Obama does not want to wipe out private health care. Unfortunately, he
doesn't even want to wipe out private health care insurance.

And yet that is what his plan will do...

He doesn't want to run GM, but he's running GM.

[MioMyo]

Post by Doomsday 2010

Post by MioMyo
Wasn't it Mark Twain who said you shouldn't get into a fight with the
person who buys ink by the barrel?
Well now there's no pretense of a pen wielding big liberal press
Government News-Media Complex between bamby's administration and his more
favored media whores. I suppose the only reason NBC's MSNBC isn't doing
this charade of a town hall news conference is because everyone already
knows this affiliate is in the tank for bamby- either that or bamby is
tire of Olbermann sucking his dick and wants a fresh new news-media
blow-job experience.
One thing is for sure, bamby is thin skinned and can't handle criticism
whether it's legitimate or not. George Bush was quantum light-years ahead
of bamby on his ability to take criticism.
Here's but one recent example of bamby having a staged White House press
http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0609/Obama_calls_on_HuffPost_for_Iran_question.html
Tonight of course is the buzz when the big event unfolds when bamby and
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Politics/story?id=7907112&page=1
President Barack Obama said he "absolutely" expects to achieve health
care reform by the end of this year because he believes the American
people share his urgency.
"The reason it's going to get done is because the American people
understand it has to get done," Obama said in an exclusive interview with
ABC's Diane Sawyer airing Wednesday on "Good Morning America."
Watch Diane Sawyer's full interview with President Obama on "Good Morning
America" Wednesday, June 24, at 7:00 a.m. ET
Obama would not consider what it means for his domestic agenda if he does
not sign health care legislation this year. Despite recent partisan
setbacks on Capitol Hill, the president said he is confident a solution
can be achieved.
"We're dealing here in Washington with an enormous federal deficit and
debt that is largely driven by health care costs. So, whether it's
families, business or government, we know that we're going to have to
reform this system," he said.
Watch "ABC News Primetime: Questions for the President -- Prescription
for America," Wednesday, June 24, at 10 p.m. ET
Obama said his experiences on the campaign trail and the personal stories
Americans share with him solidify his belief that putting off this issue
is non-negotiable.
"I travel all across the country and I've done so for the last two years
now. Every town I visit, every city I go, people ask me, 'Why is it that
my premiums have gone up two, three times in the last nine, 10 years?
What can I do when my employer says to me we just can't afford to provide
health care anymore?'" he said.
Earlier today, Obama defended his wide-ranging health care plan but
stopped short of saying that he would veto any plan that does not include
the widely pilloried "public option" he has been pushing.
"We have not drawn lines in the sand, other than that reform has to
control costs and that it has to provide relief to people who don't have
health insurance or are under-insured," the president said at a White
House press conference.
Pressed on the question of whether a public plan is non-negotiable, the
president said that it was not, at least not yet.
"You know, those are the broad parameters that we've discussed. There are
a whole host of other issues where ultimately I may have a strong
opinion, and I will express those to members of Congress as this is
shaping up. It's too early to say that. Right now, I will say that our
position is that a public plan makes sense."

Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's time
to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers believed
in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing force to an
autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they immortalized it in the first amendment.

Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

[Bill Z.]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.

With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.

The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a broadcaster's
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.

Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's
treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's
fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an
essential
stabilizing force to an autocratic, over-burdening
onerous
government. They believed in it so much, they
immortalized it in
the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not
need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another way of
handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of
anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government
interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not interfere
with other
legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate
function of
government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be
punished.

Since there are exceptions to the general protection of
speech (regulation of commercial speech, obscenity, child
pornograpy, etc.), policing the content of a broadcast is a
legitimate function of government.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a broadcaster's
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.

If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

[kujebak]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Good for Obama.  After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.  Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a broadcaster's
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource.  What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed.  How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

With the exception of the aforementioned areas (commercial
speech, obscenity, child pornography etc.) it is not the function
of the government to prescribe the content of commercial broad-
cast media. That is because in doing so the government would
have to take a position in the discourse. That would clearly be
unconstitutional. I would not count on the return of the "fairness
doctrine" legislation any time soon ;-)

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource.  What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed.  How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

With the exception of the aforementioned areas (commercial
speech, obscenity, child pornography etc.) it is not the function
of the government to prescribe the content of commercial broad-
cast media.

Requiring more access to a scarce resource is "prescibing content"?
You can't be serious.

[kujebak]

Post by kujebak

Post by Orval Fairbairn
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource.  What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed.  How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

With the exception of the aforementioned areas (commercial
speech, obscenity, child pornography etc.) it is not the function
of the government to prescribe the content of commercial broad-
cast media.

Requiring  more access to a scarce resource is "prescibing content"?
You can't be serious.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Of course I am. In order to conclude that a particular per-
spective is not represented fairly in a broadcast medium,
such as the AM radio, one would have to surmise the pre-
vailing set of views is flawed and unfair. That would constitute
taking side of the underserved minority opinion. Equality for
equality's sake. Who's business would it be to decide who
gets more air time, and how much? The FCC? Some local
commissariat? Would that not be the same as censorship?

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak

Post by kujebak
With the exception of the aforementioned areas (commercial
speech, obscenity, child pornography etc.) it is not the function
of the government to prescribe the content of commercial broad-
cast media.

Requiring  more access to a scarce resource is "prescibing content"?
You can't be serious.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Of course I am. In order to conclude that a particular per-
spective is not represented fairly in a broadcast medium,
such as the AM radio, one would have to surmise the pre-
vailing set of views is flawed and unfair. That would constitute
taking side of the underserved minority opinion.

No, it means that people with large amount of money don't get
the right to buy exclusive access to a public resource - access to
the radio spectrum - and turn it into a propaganda tool.

Post by kujebak
Equality for equality's sake. Who's business would it be to decide
who gets more air time, and how much? The FCC? Some local
commissariat? Would that not be the same as censorship?

The fairness doctrine worked fine for years, with opposing viewpoints
getting aired by being given a short time slot. All opposing viewpoints
were treated equally. It took up a miniscule portion of a station's
airtime.

[kujebak]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by kujebak
With the exception of the aforementioned areas (commercial
speech, obscenity, child pornography etc.) it is not the function
of the government to prescribe the content of commercial broad-
cast media.

Requiring  more access to a scarce resource is "prescibing content"?
You can't be serious.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Of course I am. In order to conclude that a particular per-
spective is not represented fairly in a broadcast medium,
such as the AM radio, one would have to surmise the pre-
vailing set of views is flawed and unfair. That would constitute
taking side of the underserved minority opinion.

No, it means that people with large amount of money don't get
the right to buy exclusive access to a public resource - access to
the radio spectrum - and turn it into a propaganda tool.

And the self-evident fact that conservative talk radio stations
would most likely lose listenership by the inclusion of unpo-
pular programming, of course, would mean nothing to someone,
like youself, who believes that private business' ability to make
money is a qualified privilege only to be granted in exchange
for some sort of non-profit motivated service to society ;-)

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
Equality for equality's sake. Who's business would it be to decide
who gets more air time, and how much? The FCC? Some local
commissariat? Would that not be the same as censorship?

The fairness doctrine worked fine for years, with opposing viewpoints
getting aired by being given a short time slot.  All opposing viewpoints
were treated equally.  It took up a miniscule portion of a station's
airtime.- Hide quoted text -

The fairnes doctrine was conceived in an era
of far fewer information venues than we have today.
There is absolutely no reason to consider reimpo-
sing something like the fairness doctrine on the
grounds that it was originally applied. The reason
why it lasted for forty years is that it was never
challenged in court. Not once. There is absolutely
no way such patent government involvement in
broadcast media content would stand up in court
today.

Post by Bill Z.
- Show quoted text -

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
No, it means that people with large amount of money don't get
the right to buy exclusive access to a public resource - access to
the radio spectrum - and turn it into a propaganda tool.

And the self-evident fact that conservative talk radio stations
would most likely lose listenership by the inclusion of unpo-
pular programming, of course, would mean nothing to someone,
like youself, who believes that private business' ability to make
money is a qualified privilege only to be granted in exchange
for some sort of non-profit motivated service to society ;-)

Oh come off it. When the fairness doctrine was in place, the
alternate point of view on TV was usually expressed in a few
minutes, taking up an inconsequential fraction of the station's
programming time. Think of it as the cost of doing business - part
of the fee to use a scarce public resource.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
The fairness doctrine worked fine for years, with opposing viewpoints
getting aired by being given a short time slot.  All opposing viewpoints
were treated equally.  It took up a miniscule portion of a station's
airtime.- Hide quoted text -

The fairnes doctrine was conceived in an era
of far fewer information venues than we have today.

There aren't far more frequencies than we have today for radio
or TV. You can get more on cable TV, but that doesn't use
the radio spectrum.

Post by kujebak
There is absolutely no reason to consider reimpo-
sing something like the fairness doctrine on the
grounds that it was originally applied. The reason
why it lasted for forty years is that it was never
challenged in court. Not once.

If it wasn't challenged in court, it was because the
stations knew they would have no chance of winning,
or that the cost was so low as to be a non issue.

[kujebak]

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
No, it means that people with large amount of money don't get
the right to buy exclusive access to a public resource - access to
the radio spectrum - and turn it into a propaganda tool.

And the self-evident fact that conservative talk radio stations
would most likely lose listenership by the inclusion of unpo-
pular programming, of course, would mean nothing to someone,
like youself, who believes that private business' ability to make
money is a qualified privilege only to be granted in exchange
for some sort of non-profit motivated service to society ;-)

Oh come off it.  When the fairness doctrine was in place, the
alternate point of view on TV was usually expressed in a few
minutes, taking up an inconsequential fraction of the station's
programming time.  Think of it as the cost of doing business - part
of the fee to use a scarce public resource.

I don't quite know what you're talking about, but
I know that is not what the proponents of the fair-
ness doctrine want. They want more radio stations
to carry Air America programming, and more cable
channels to carry the kind of far-left political com-
mentary you only find on MSNBC. Instead of con-
templating why you only hear such opinions on
a few obscure radio stations and one cable chanenl,
they are scheming to use new government regu-
lation to abridge the expression of consevrative ideo-
logy, because that is the only way to bring ideolo-
gical balance to the few remaining predominanly
conservative media, such as the AM radio.

BTW, have you personally ever contemplated why
AM radio has become such a popular venue for
conservative talk show content? What is it about
AM radio audience that makes it gravitate towards
conservative political opinion?

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
The fairness doctrine worked fine for years, with opposing viewpoints
getting aired by being given a short time slot.  All opposing viewpoints
were treated equally.  It took up a miniscule portion of a station's
airtime.- Hide quoted text -

The fairnes doctrine was conceived in an era
of far fewer information venues than we have today.

There aren't far more frequencies than we have today for radio
or TV.  You can get more on cable TV, but that doesn't use
the radio spectrum.

Post by kujebak
There is absolutely no reason to consider reimpo-
sing something like the fairness doctrine on the
grounds that it was originally applied. The reason
why it lasted for forty years is that it was never
challenged in court. Not once.

If it wasn't challenged in court, it was because the
stations knew they would have no chance of winning,
or that the cost was so low as to be a non issue.

That's BS. It was never challenged, because it
was never really enforced.

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak

Oh come off it.  When the fairness doctrine was in place, the
alternate point of view on TV was usually expressed in a few
minutes, taking up an inconsequential fraction of the station's
programming time.  Think of it as the cost of doing business - part
of the fee to use a scarce public resource.

I don't quite know what you're talking about, but
I know that is not what the proponents of the fair-
ness doctrine want.

<snip>

What I'm "talking about" is what actually happened before the
fairness doctrine was eliminated. What you need is a dose of
reality, not what you read or hear on some right-wing propaganda
rag or station.

Post by kujebak

If it wasn't challenged in court, it was because the
stations knew they would have no chance of winning,
or that the cost was so low as to be a non issue.

That's BS. It was never challenged, because it
was never really enforced.

You mean you think the TV stations would actually pay those dull,
boring guys offering opposing opinions in an occasional one or two
minute spiel? ROTFLMAO!

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
No, it means that people with large amount of money
don't get
the right to buy exclusive access to a public
resource - access
to
the radio spectrum - and turn it into a propaganda
tool.

And the self-evident fact that conservative talk radio
stations
would most likely lose listenership by the inclusion
of unpo-
pular programming, of course, would mean nothing to
someone,
like youself, who believes that private business'
ability to make
money is a qualified privilege only to be granted in
exchange
for some sort of non-profit motivated service to
society ;-)

Oh come off it. When the fairness doctrine was in place,
the
alternate point of view on TV was usually expressed in a
few
minutes, taking up an inconsequential fraction of the
station's
programming time. Think of it as the cost of doing
business - part
of the fee to use a scarce public resource.

I don't quite know what you're talking about, but
I know that is not what the proponents of the fair-
ness doctrine want. They want more radio stations
to carry Air America programming, and more cable
channels to carry the kind of far-left political com-
mentary you only find on MSNBC. Instead of con-
templating why you only hear such opinions on
a few obscure radio stations and one cable chanenl,
they are scheming to use new government regu-
lation to abridge the expression of consevrative ideo-
logy, because that is the only way to bring ideolo-
gical balance to the few remaining predominanly
conservative media, such as the AM radio.
BTW, have you personally ever contemplated why
AM radio has become such a popular venue for
conservative talk show content? What is it about
AM radio audience that makes it gravitate towards
conservative political opinion?

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
The fairness doctrine worked fine for years, with
opposing
viewpoints getting aired by being given a short time
slot. All
opposing viewpoints were treated equally. It took up
a miniscule
portion of a station's airtime.- Hide quoted text -

The fairnes doctrine was conceived in an era
of far fewer information venues than we have today.

There aren't far more frequencies than we have today for
radio
or TV. You can get more on cable TV, but that doesn't
use
the radio spectrum.

Post by kujebak
There is absolutely no reason to consider reimpo-
sing something like the fairness doctrine on the
grounds that it was originally applied. The reason
why it lasted for forty years is that it was never
challenged in court. Not once.

If it wasn't challenged in court, it was because the
stations knew they would have no chance of winning,
or that the cost was so low as to be a non issue.

That's BS. It was never challenged, because it
was never really enforced.

It was both enforced and challenged. In Red Lion
Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the
constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by kujebak
With the exception of the aforementioned areas
(commercial
speech, obscenity, child pornography etc.) it is
not the
function of the government to prescribe the content
of
commercial broad- cast media.

Requiring more access to a scarce resource is
"prescibing
content"? You can't be serious.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Of course I am. In order to conclude that a particular
per-
spective is not represented fairly in a broadcast
medium,
such as the AM radio, one would have to surmise the
pre-
vailing set of views is flawed and unfair. That would
constitute
taking side of the underserved minority opinion.

No, it means that people with large amount of money
don't get
the right to buy exclusive access to a public resource -
access to
the radio spectrum - and turn it into a propaganda tool.

And the self-evident fact that conservative talk radio
stations
would most likely lose listenership by the inclusion of
unpo-
pular programming, of course, would mean nothing to
someone,
like youself, who believes that private business' ability
to make
money is a qualified privilege only to be granted in
exchange
for some sort of non-profit motivated service to society
;-)

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
Equality for equality's sake. Who's business would it
be to decide
who gets more air time, and how much? The FCC? Some
local
commissariat? Would that not be the same as
censorship?

The fairness doctrine worked fine for years, with
opposing
viewpoints getting aired by being given a short time
slot. All
opposing viewpoints were treated equally. It took up a
miniscule
portion of a station's airtime.- Hide quoted text -

The fairnes doctrine was conceived in an era
of far fewer information venues than we have today.
There is absolutely no reason to consider reimpo-
sing something like the fairness doctrine on the
grounds that it was originally applied. The reason
why it lasted for forty years is that it was never
challenged in court. Not once.

Untrue, of course. In Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395
U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of
8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine.

Post by kujebak
There is absolutely
no way such patent government involvement in
broadcast media content would stand up in court
today.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a broadcaster's
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they can
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure. It
doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc. they
want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV
news/comment network.

I prefer to refer to the "Progressives" as "Oppressives," since that
term is a better description of their philosophy and objectives.

Your same argument holds for the press. If a newspaper has a dominant
circulation, does the government have a right to step in and tell them
what they can print?

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did
not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government
interference in the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every day.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <h20j8n$qbo$***@news.datemas.de>,
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did
not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government
interference in the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did
not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government
interference in the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

I guess you have no real comment, so a dumbass one has to suffice.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Roy Blankenship

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

wrote in

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in
America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so
much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and
TV did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and
did
not need a
government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the
FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is
another way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch
much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to
assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is
a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was
the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions
from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content
of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what
they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station
will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every
day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

I guess you have no real comment, so a dumbass one has to
suffice.

Wingnuts never have a real comment after they have been
caught lying.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
in

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in
America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV
did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and
did
not need a
government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another
way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch
much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was
the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every
day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <h22jbd$nq6$***@news.datemas.de>,
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
in

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in
America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV
did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and
did
not need a
government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another
way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch
much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was
the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every
day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

Like a typical liberal retard, you don't know the difference between a
lie and a common mistake. I thought that AA had died.

BTW -- what ever happened to the AA exec who embezzled millions from a
poor children's charity to run operations for AA? Did they get some of
the stimulus package?

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
in

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in
America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV
did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and
did
not need a
government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another
way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch
much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was
the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every
day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

Like a typical liberal retard, you don't know the difference between a
lie and a common mistake. I thought that AA had died.

That is because you are limiting your sources of information to right wing
liars. Try the BBC or some foreign source. I have foreign clients who tell
me all kinds of stuff we never hear becasue our media is so spineless right
now..

Post by kujebak
BTW -- what ever happened to the AA exec who embezzled millions from a
poor children's charity to run operations for AA? Did they get some of
the stimulus package?

Nice try at a diversion.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Roy Blankenship

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in
America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and
did
not need a
government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is another way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch
much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was
the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every
day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

Like a typical liberal retard, you don't know the difference between a
lie and a common mistake. I thought that AA had died.

That is because you are limiting your sources of information to right wing
liars. Try the BBC or some foreign source. I have foreign clients who tell
me all kinds of stuff we never hear becasue our media is so spineless right
now..

Post by kujebak
BTW -- what ever happened to the AA exec who embezzled millions from a
poor children's charity to run operations for AA? Did they get some of
the stimulus package?

Nice try at a diversion.

Answer the question, fool!

[Roy Blankenship]

So, let me guess, you were the kid in grade school who would repeat the
punch line of a joke until everyone had walked away from you.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Roy Blankenship

Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article

So, let me guess, you were the kid in grade school who
would repeat
the punch line of a joke until everyone had walked away
from you.

Irony, anyone?

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
in

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's treason,
it's time to have free airwaves again in
America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press
to be an
essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening
onerous government. They believed in it so
much,
they
immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and
TV
did
not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish
and
did
not need a
government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the
FCC.
Perhaps you'd
like that requirement eliminated, which is
another
way
of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations
interfering with
each other and nobody getting to listen or watch
much
of anything
other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to
assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That
is a
legitimate
function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and
should
be
punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a
limited
resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was
the
public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for
1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions
from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions
the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable --
witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content
of
the media.
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what
they
say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station
will
fail. Just look
at what happened to "Air America."

Nothing happened to Air America. I listen to it every
day.

That figures. Which of the ten listeners are you?

Thanks for admitting that you lied.

Like a typical liberal retard, you don't know the
difference between a
lie and a common mistake. I thought that AA had died.

OK. Thanks for admitting that you are stupid.

Post by kujebak
BTW -- what ever happened to the AA exec who embezzled
millions from a
poor children's charity to run operations for AA? Did they
get some of
the stimulus package?

You just couldn't go another second without telling another
lie, could you? You're pathetic.

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic

society........

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a

broadcaster's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing in this country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they can
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please explain how "Air
America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It

Post by Orval Fairbairn
doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc. they >

want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV

Post by Orval Fairbairn
news/comment network.

Who is "they" in this sentence? Who, in your esstimation, has the power to
censor Fox News?

Post by Orval Fairbairn
I prefer to refer to the "Progressives" as "Oppressives," since that
term is a better description of their philosophy and objectives.
Your same argument holds for the press. If a newspaper has a dominant
circulation, does the government have a right to step in and tell them
what they can print?

You are constructing a strawman here, interlaced with real stuff. Can you
pick out the bullshit from the reality?

Post by Orval Fairbairn
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Nobody really wants to talk to you, but we don't want other posters to think
you are going to get away with your bullshit posts.

[kujebak]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Good for Obama.  After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason,

it's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential

stabilizing

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first

amendment.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic

society........

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.  Perhaps you'd

like

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with

each

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a

broadcaster's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Orval Fairbairn
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource.  What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed.  How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing in this country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

Let me get one thing straight - is it the low intelligence level
of the average FNC viewer that necessitates moderation of its
programming? What an arrogant fucking thing to say? This
is the sort of intellectual elitism MSNBS vomits 24 hrs a day,
when not glorifying life in the slammer. This is why it gets no
ratings.

Post by MioMyo
 Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they can
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please explain how "Air
America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

Air America has no influence because it has no audience,
which is why it wants to force itself into conservative radio
station programming by means of new "balanced-content"
government regulation.

Post by MioMyo
 It> doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc. they >
want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV

Post by Orval Fairbairn
news/comment network.

Who is "they" in this sentence? Who, in your esstimation, has the power to
censor Fox News?

You, and all the other intolerant Marxists who per-
meate the government media, education, and en-
tertainment industry.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
I prefer to refer to the "Progressives" as "Oppressives," since that
term is a better description of their philosophy and objectives.
Your same argument holds for the press. If a newspaper has a dominant
circulation, does the government have a right to step in and tell them
what they can print?

You are constructing a strawman here, interlaced with real stuff. Can you
pick out the bullshit from the reality?

Very easy - look for lines beginning with single
right angle bracket :-)

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
--
Remove _'s  from email address to talk to me.

Nobody really wants to talk to you, but we don't want other posters to think
you are going to get away with your bullshit posts.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason,

it's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential

stabilizing

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first

amendment.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic

society........

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd

like

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with

each

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a

broadcaster's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing in this country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after all, the voters
elected Obama.

Post by MioMyo
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they can
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please explain how "Air
America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about talk radio
and Fox News.

Post by MioMyo
It

Post by Orval Fairbairn
doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc. they >

want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV

Post by Orval Fairbairn
news/comment network.

Who is "they" in this sentence? Who, in your esstimation, has the power to
censor Fox News?

You know damn well "who!" It is the oppressive Leftists who try to
stifle any challenge to their political views. They want to do
everybody's thinking for them and don't want any challenges.

You simply cannot STAND it that a TV network challenges Leftist mantra,
can you?

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
I prefer to refer to the "Progressives" as "Oppressives," since that
term is a better description of their philosophy and objectives.
Your same argument holds for the press. If a newspaper has a dominant
circulation, does the government have a right to step in and tell them
what they can print?

You are constructing a strawman here, interlaced with real stuff. Can you
pick out the bullshit from the reality?

Post by Orval Fairbairn
--
Remove _'s from email address to talk to me.

Nobody really wants to talk to you, but we don't want other posters to think
you are going to get away with your bullshit posts.

Written like a true Leftist, Oppressive elitist!

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason,

it's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential

stabilizing

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first

amendment.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic

society........

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd

like

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with

each

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government

interference in

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a

broadcaster's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing in this country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after all, the voters
elected Obama.

Post by MioMyo
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they can
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please explain how "Air
America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about talk radio
and Fox News.

Name one.

It

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc. they >

want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV

Post by Orval Fairbairn
news/comment network.

Who is "they" in this sentence? Who, in your esstimation, has the power to
censor Fox News?

You know damn well "who!" It is the oppressive Leftists who try to
stifle any challenge to their political views. They want to do
everybody's thinking for them and don't want any challenges.
You simply cannot STAND it that a TV network challenges Leftist mantra,
can you?

They AREN'T challenging anything, they are TELLING LIES. They are NOT BEING
TRUTHFUL, THAT is the real problem, you fucking idiot!!! The real censors
are the right!!! Bush was famous for not having opposing viewpoints at his
speeches, Bill O'Reilly cuts off people's microphones, and Rush cuts off
anyone who offers another viewpoioit. Are you really so stupid you don't see
that? Or are you just going to continue projecting for the rest of your
life?

You are describing the right's actions and attributing it to the left.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason,

it's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's

fore-fathers

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential

stabilizing

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first

amendment.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic

society........

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd

like

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with

each

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything

other

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government

interference in

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a

broadcaster's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate

users

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing in this

country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after all, the voters
elected Obama.

Post by MioMyo
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they

can

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please explain how "Air
America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about talk radio
and Fox News.

Name one.
It

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc.

they >

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo
want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV

Post by Orval Fairbairn
news/comment network.

Who is "they" in this sentence? Who, in your esstimation, has the power

to

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo
censor Fox News?

You know damn well "who!" It is the oppressive Leftists who try to
stifle any challenge to their political views. They want to do
everybody's thinking for them and don't want any challenges.
You simply cannot STAND it that a TV network challenges Leftist mantra,
can you?

They AREN'T challenging anything, they are TELLING LIES. They are NOT BEING
TRUTHFUL, THAT is the real problem, you fucking idiot!!! The real censors
are the right!!! Bush was famous for not having opposing viewpoints at his
speeches, Bill O'Reilly cuts off people's microphones, and Rush cuts off
anyone who offers another viewpoioit. Are you really so stupid you don't see
that? Or are you just going to continue projecting for the rest of your
life?
You are describing the right's actions and attributing it to the left.

Roy,

How long have you been entertaining these delusions of omniscience? Have
you sought help from a mental health professional? Did you get these
delusions from Air America, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, Huffington Post or
some other source of left-wing bile and vitriol?

You are aware that prolonged exposure to those sources will turn your
brain to mush, you will be unable to think for yourself and you will
claim that everybody who disagrees with you is lying?

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason,

it's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's

fore-fathers

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential

stabilizing

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first

amendment.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic

society........

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd

like

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with

each

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything

other

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government

interference in

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a

broadcaster's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate

users

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource.

What

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing in this

country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they say, they will
abandon the offensive programming and the station will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after all, the voters
elected Obama.

Post by MioMyo
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled "Progressives" want
to be able to control the mass media (especially talk radio) so they

can

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
censor free speech, since THEIR message has been an abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please explain how "Air
America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about talk radio
and Fox News.

Name one.
It

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo

Post by Orval Fairbairn
doesn't matter that they already control ABC,NBS, CBS, MSNBC, etc.

they >

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo
want to be able to censor Fox News, which is the most popular TV

Post by Orval Fairbairn
news/comment network.

Who is "they" in this sentence? Who, in your esstimation, has the power

to

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by MioMyo
censor Fox News?

You know damn well "who!" It is the oppressive Leftists who try to
stifle any challenge to their political views. They want to do
everybody's thinking for them and don't want any challenges.
You simply cannot STAND it that a TV network challenges Leftist mantra,
can you?

They AREN'T challenging anything, they are TELLING LIES. They are NOT BEING
TRUTHFUL, THAT is the real problem, you fucking idiot!!! The real censors
are the right!!! Bush was famous for not having opposing viewpoints at his
speeches, Bill O'Reilly cuts off people's microphones, and Rush cuts off
anyone who offers another viewpoioit. Are you really so stupid you don't see
that? Or are you just going to continue projecting for the rest of your
life?
You are describing the right's actions and attributing it to the left.

Roy,
How long have you been entertaining these delusions of omniscience? Have
you sought help from a mental health professional? Did you get these
delusions from Air America, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, Huffington Post or
some other source of left-wing bile and vitriol?
You are aware that prolonged exposure to those sources will turn your
brain to mush, you will be unable to think for yourself and you will
claim that everybody who disagrees with you is lying?

You just tried this on Lamont and here you are again with the "you must be
mentally ill" ploy. When you realize you have been on the wrong path and you
suddenly have clarity, don't dig yourself deeper into a hole, just don't
respond. If you do not respond, the thread is over, you can take on a new
sock-puppet name and reinvent yourself.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article

Post by Roy Blankenship

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's
treason, it's time to have free airwaves again
in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press to be
an essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening onerous government. They believed
in it so
much, they immortalized it in the first
amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV
did not
exist, so anyone with a printing press could
publish and did
not need a government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps
you'd like that requirement eliminated, which is
another way
of handling "fairness", but at the cost of
radio/TV stations
interfering with each other and nobody getting to
listen or
watch much of anything other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is
a
legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource.
What the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide
was the
public's access to as many points of view as
possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable -- witness
Iran, China, etc.) to be involved in the political
content of the
media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing
in this
country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they
will abandon the offensive programming and the station
will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after
all, the
voters elected Obama.

Post by Roy Blankenship
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled
"Progressives"
want to be able to control the mass media (especially
talk radio)
so they can censor free speech, since THEIR message has
been an
abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please
explain how
"Air America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who
wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about
talk radio
and Fox News.

The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <h22k06$oqf$***@news.datemas.de>,
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article

Post by Roy Blankenship

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's
treason, it's time to have free airwaves again
in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press to be
an essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening onerous government. They believed
in it so
much, they immortalized it in the first
amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV
did not
exist, so anyone with a printing press could
publish and did
not need a government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps
you'd like that requirement eliminated, which is
another way
of handling "fairness", but at the cost of
radio/TV stations
interfering with each other and nobody getting to
listen or
watch much of anything other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is
a
legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource.
What the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide
was the
public's access to as many points of view as
possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable -- witness
Iran, China, etc.) to be involved in the political
content of the
media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing
in this
country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they
will abandon the offensive programming and the station
will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after
all, the
voters elected Obama.

Post by Roy Blankenship
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled
"Progressives"
want to be able to control the mass media (especially
talk radio)
so they can censor free speech, since THEIR message has
been an
abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please
explain how
"Air America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who
wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about
talk radio
and Fox News.

The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

They also regularly invite Democrats on to air their viewpoints. I don't
see Olberman at MSNBC doing the same.

Please tell me, "Lamont," how long have you shown the symptoms of
socialist dementia, and did you get it from Air America, Daily Kos,
MoveOn.org, Huffington Post or some other source of vitriol and bile, or
some combination of those?

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.

Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.

It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

I have no idea, as I don't watch it that much. Go ask some of your
Democratic Underground media police. All they ever do is monitor Fox
News, talk radio, etc.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

I have no idea, as I don't watch it that much. Go ask some of your
Democratic Underground media police. All they ever do is monitor Fox
News, talk radio, etc.

In other words, you had no reason to comment on what Fox News reported
since you don't watch it enough to say that it "reported Mark Sanford
and Ensign the sam way that they report Democrat miscreants".

You were caught lying, or at least guessing and stating a guess as a
fact.

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

I have no idea, as I don't watch it that much. Go ask some of your
Democratic Underground media police. All they ever do is monitor Fox
News, talk radio, etc.

That was a copout and you are a liar. You parrot the right wing bullshit and
act as if you know exactly what is going on, then claim to not watch it? You
are a liar, and a transparent one at that.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk
radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism
thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies
is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a
Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is
nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for
braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the
same way
that they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported
Mark
Sanford's scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats
even
though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating
on his
wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand
information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other
poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a
Democrat when
reporting his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford
was a
Republican?

I have no idea,

I do. It reported that Sanford was a Democrat.

[kujebak]

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told.  Conservatism thrives
on lies.  For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example.  Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

It was actually Savage, who said he was glad Sanford
was *not* a Democrat, and that he was found to be with
a woman, rather than with another man :-)

http://www.politicususa.com/en/Savage-Sanford

[Bill Z.]

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told.  Conservatism thrives
on lies.  For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example.  Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told.  Conservatism thrives
on lies.  For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example.  Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

[Bill Z.]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told.  Conservatism thrives
on lies.  For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example.  Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

He did not answer the question, and you apparently can't either, which
is why your post is yet another content-free personal attack.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told.  Conservatism thrives
on lies.  For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example.  Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

He did not answer the question, and you apparently can't either, which
is why your post is yet another content-free personal attack.

Well, if you hadn't accused me of being a liar, I would not have pointed
out that you appear to be a simpleton.

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Â Conservatism thrives
on lies. Â For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Â Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

He did not answer the question, and you apparently can't either, which
is why your post is yet another content-free personal attack.

Well, if you hadn't accused me of being a liar, I would not have pointed
out that you appear to be a simpleton.

Another non-answer and non-sequiter. GO AWAY.

[Roy Blankenship]

Since you seem starved for the truth, check out this site for the Fox News
picture of Sanford being identified as a Democrat. Maybe this will give you
a clue as to who is attempting to mislead the public.

www.leftake.com

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Roy Blankenship
Since you seem starved for the truth, check out this site for the Fox News
picture of Sanford being identified as a Democrat. Maybe this will give you
a clue as to who is attempting to mislead the public.
www.leftake.com

A big "SO, WHAT?" Do you spend your entire life pondering what some
alleged "right wing conspirators" are doing?

As I said before, "Blankenship," seek professional help and get a damn
life!

[Fredric L. Rice]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Roy Blankenship
Since you seem starved for the truth, check out this site for the Fox News
picture of Sanford being identified as a Democrat. Maybe this will give you
a clue as to who is attempting to mislead the public.
www.leftake.com

A big "SO, WHAT?"

Yeah, who cares if the Republinazi Party's propaganda machine constantly
lies to iots Republidiot followers and piles of shit like you don't care,
huh?

---
Holy shit! http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2009/reports/project/

[Bill Z.]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told.  Conservatism thrives
on lies.  For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example.  Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

He did not answer the question, and you apparently can't either, which
is why your post is yet another content-free personal attack.

Well, if you hadn't accused me of being a liar, I would not have pointed
out that you appear to be a simpleton.

Since I didn't explicitly call you a liar in any of the quoted text,
we can surmise that your personal attacks are the result of a childish
grudge. If you were called a liar in some other discussion, it was
because you in fact lied.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"
Â

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about
talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Â
Conservatism thrives
on lies. Â For example, one of Fox News favorite
lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as
a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Â Fox News
is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for
braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and
Ensign the same
way that they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly
reported Mark
Sanford's scandal "the same way" by blaming the
Democrats even
though Sanford is a Republican and made his own
decision
regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand
information about what was said, but at least talk
about what
the other poster actually claimed instead of
dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a
Democrat
when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a
Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a
reason you are
not answering it and trying a chidish counter attact
to cover up
that you guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a
simple person!

He did not answer the question, and you apparently can't
either,
which is why your post is yet another content-free
personal attack.

Well, if you hadn't accused me of being a liar, I would
not have
pointed out that you appear to be a simpleton.

If you hadn't lied, he would not have accused you of being a
liar.

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Â Conservatism thrives
on lies. Â For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Â Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark Sanford's
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when reporting
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

You are the simpleton here, you have been busted. You should just shut-up
now and change your screen sig, because you will never be able to post under
your current sock-puppet and be taken seriously....not that you ever were.

[MioMyo]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Â Conservatism thrives
on lies. Â For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Â Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way

that

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark

Sanford's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford

is

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his

wife.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when

reporting

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

You are the simpleton here, you have been busted. You should just shut-up
now and change your screen sig, because you will never be able to post under
your current sock-puppet and be taken seriously....not that you ever were.

To believe your above nonsense, one would need to assume you speak from a
position of credible authority, yet you never have.

Even in this thread, your first and ultimately your every posting is nothing
but an array of personal attacks. Furthermore when doing a short cursory
search of most all your postings, Blank, that is your sole & only purpose in
participating on Usenet, which is to have a venue for posting substance
less, vitriolic attacks toward posters who dare disagree with leftist
ideology.

Then again, you're the only one who has constructed this fantasy presuming
you had any credibility in the first place to start with.

[Orval Fairbairn]

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

 "Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Â Conservatism thrives
on lies. Â For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Â Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way

that

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported Mark

Sanford's

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
scandal "the same way" by blaming the Democrats even though Sanford

is

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
a Republican and made his own decision regarding cheating on his

wife.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand information about
what was said, but at least talk about what the other poster actually
claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a Democrat when

reporting

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.
his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford was a Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

Hey moron, I asked a simple question. There's a reason you are not
answering it and trying a chidish counter attact to cover up that you
guys don't know what you are babbling about.

He gave a simple answer to a simple question from a simple person!

You are the simpleton here, you have been busted. You should just shut-up
now and change your screen sig, because you will never be able to post under
your current sock-puppet and be taken seriously....not that you ever were.

Sorry, Blankenship, but you have ZERO authority to tell me, or anybody
else, for that matter, what to do.

As I recommended before, since you appear to entertain delusions of
omniscience and authority, you NEED to seek professional mental health
help.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak

Post by Bill Z.

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston
The only complaints that the left makes about talk
radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism
thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies
is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a
Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is
nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for
braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign
the same way
that they report Democrat miscreants.

.... the complaint was that Fox News allegedly reported
Mark
Sanford's scandal "the same way" by blaming the
Democrats even
though Sanford is
a Republican and made his own decision regarding
cheating on his
wife.
Now, I don't watch Fox News so I have no first-hand
information
about what was said, but at least talk about what the
other poster
actually claimed instead of dodging it.
It's very simple. Did Fox News claim Sanford was a
Democrat when
reporting his sex scandal or did Fox News claim Sanford
was a
Republican?

Perhaps you *should* watch Fox, then you would
know what youre talking about :-)

I do watch Fox and I do know what I am talking about. Fox
News showed a picture of Sanford with a "(D)" under his
name.

Loading Image...

[Roy Blankenship]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article

Post by Roy Blankenship

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's
treason, it's time to have free airwaves again
in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press to be
an essential stabilizing force to an autocratic,
over-burdening onerous government. They believed
in it so
much, they immortalized it in the first
amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV
did not
exist, so anyone with a printing press could
publish and did
not need a government license to distribute their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC.
Perhaps
you'd like that requirement eliminated, which is
another way
of handling "fairness", but at the cost of
radio/TV stations
interfering with each other and nobody getting to
listen or
watch much of anything other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That is
a
legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should
be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited
resource.
What the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide
was the
public's access to as many points of view as
possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable -- witness
Iran, China, etc.) to be involved in the political
content of the
media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right wing
in this
country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what they
say, they
will abandon the offensive programming and the station
will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after
all, the
voters elected Obama.

Post by Roy Blankenship
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled
"Progressives"
want to be able to control the mass media (especially
talk radio)
so they can censor free speech, since THEIR message has
been an
abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet. Please
explain how
"Air America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who
wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left about
talk radio
and Fox News.

The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

Google up "Mark Sanford" or go to Facebook and look at the articles posted
that show a Fox News broadcast with Mark Sanford standing at a podium and
his name followed by a (D). This is not the first time this has happened. Do
n't you think it is a little odd that a "news channel" with billions of
dollars behind it can't get these little details right?

Post by kujebak
Please tell me, "Lamont," how long have you shown the symptoms of
socialist dementia, and did you get it from Air America, Daily Kos,
MoveOn.org, Huffington Post or some other source of vitriol and bile, or
some combination of those?

Yeah, the old, "You must be mentally ill because I can't refute what you
say" ploy.

[Lamont Cranston]

Post by kujebak
"Lamont Cranston"

Post by Lamont Cranston

Post by Orval Fairbairn
In article

Post by Roy Blankenship
in

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool
Reagan's
treason, it's time to have free airwaves
again
in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why
America's
fore-fathers believed in a free & independent
press to be
an essential stabilizing force to an
autocratic,
over-burdening onerous government. They
believed
in it so
much, they immortalized it in the first
amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free
democratic
society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and
TV
did not
exist, so anyone with a printing press could
publish and did
not need a government license to distribute
their
publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the
FCC.
Perhaps
you'd like that requirement eliminated, which
is
another way
of handling "fairness", but at the cost of
radio/TV stations
interfering with each other and nobody getting
to
listen or
watch much of anything other than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent
government
interference in the content of distributed
information.
The only purpose of the license should be to
assure
that a
broadcaster's equipment and frequency band not
interfere with
other legitimate users of the RF spectrum. That
is
a
legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross
misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and
should
be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a
limited
resource.
What the "fairness doctrine" was designed to
provide
was the
public's access to as many points of view as
possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for
1
slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions
from
being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9
opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and
undesirable -- witness
Iran, China, etc.) to be involved in the political
content of the
media.

Yet Fox News is undisputedley the voice of the right
wing
in this
country.

Post by Orval Fairbairn
If the sponsors (and the audience) don't like what
they
say, they
will abandon the offensive programming and the
station
will fail.

You overestimate the intelligence of the audience.

I cannot underestimate the total audience, since, after
all, the
voters elected Obama.

Post by Roy Blankenship
Just look

Post by Orval Fairbairn
at what happened to "Air America." The self-styled
"Progressives"
want to be able to control the mass media
(especially
talk radio)
so they can censor free speech, since THEIR message
has
been an
abject failure.

That is about the biggest lie you have told yet.
Please
explain how
"Air America" had enough power to censor ANYTHING!

It doesn't. It is Air America's elitist audience who
wishes to censor
everybody else. Hence the loud whining from the Left
about
talk radio
and Fox News.

The only complaints that the left makes about talk radio
and
Fox News are the lies that are told. Conservatism
thrives
on lies. For example, one of Fox News favorite lies is
to
identify any politician involved in a scandal as a
Democrat.
Mark Sanford is the latest example. Fox News is nothing
more than a purveyor of conservative lies for braindead
sheep like you.

IIRC, Fox News has reported Mark Sanford and Ensign the
same way that
they report Democrat miscreants.

Fox News reported that Mark Sanford was a Democrat. That,
mon moron, is a lie. Fox News regularly reports Republicans
involved in scandals as Democrats. Fox News lies with
abandon and has gone to court to protect its right to lie.

[Bill Z.]

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by Orval Fairbairn

Post by Bill Z.

Post by MioMyo

Post by Doomsday 2010
Good for Obama. After 30 years of that fool Reagan's treason, it's
time to have free airwaves again in America.

Then you certainly couldn't understand why America's fore-fathers
believed in a free & independent press to be an essential stabilizing
force to an autocratic, over-burdening onerous government. They
believed in it so much, they immortalized it in the first amendment.
Then again maybe your purpose is not a free democratic society........

When the first amendment was written, radio and TV did not exist,
so anyone with a printing press could publish and did not need a
government license to distribute their publications.
With radio or TV, you need a license from the FCC. Perhaps you'd like
that requirement eliminated, which is another way of handling
"fairness", but at the cost of radio/TV stations interfering with each
other and nobody getting to listen or watch much of anything other
than static.

The First Amendment was designed to prevent government interference in
the content of distributed information.
The only purpose of the license should be to assure that a broadcaster's
equipment and frequency band not interfere with other legitimate users
of the RF spectrum. That is a legitimate function of government.
Policing content of the broadcast is a gross misapplication of
government authority and responsibility and should be punished.

In case you don't know, the RF spectrum is a limited resource. What
the "fairness doctrine" was designed to provide was the public's
access to as many points of view as possible.
If you have 10 broadcasters who are contending for 1 slot, giving
a license to just one precludes up to 9 opinions from being
expressed. How do you propose to give those 9 opinions the same
right to be distributed?

It is unnecessary for the government (and undesirable -- witness Iran,
China, etc.) to be involved in the political content of the media.

Non sequitur + strawman - the fairness doctrine does not tell anyone
what to say. If the Iranians had it, they would not be able to
censor supporters of Mousavi for the benefit of Ahmadinejad.

If China had it, supporters of Falun Gong would be able to make a
short statement on Chinese TV (and Chinese TV viewers would have a
similar right to make a run to the kitchen to get some snacks during
said statement - i.e., to ignore it).