Seems to me, the "fairness doctrine" wasn't all that "fair" back when it was in use. All I recall was mostly leftwing propaganda and even Reagan's old movies couldn't be shown unless Democrats received equal time to spew their Political tripe.

The lefts "fairness" seems pretty lopsided, to me.

Lew,

They were just afraid that they'd be compared unfavorably to Bonzo.

You all complain about bias in the media.

The fairness doctrine would certainly go along way to eliminatng the "liberal" slant in the MSM you always complain about.

Ruch Limbaugh is possible only because the political discussion in this country has been lowered to the level of an elementary school snadbox squabble.

Perhaps with a little comptetition on the airwaves, the product will improve.

Are you conservatives so afraid of having opposing viewpoints on the air?

Wade

The article states a lie; the fairness doctrine does not require any radio talk show host to balance their comments or guests. That would be an obvious violation of the first amendment.

Where it did apply was to obvious political news shows interviewing real politicians or people who promote real politicians or a political party, Fox news comes to mind. Before stations had to provide equal time to the Political opposition since they are using our public airwaves to promote a political agenda.

In the spirit of fairness, any controversial idea used to be balanced by someone in opposition; e.g. pro/against death penalty.

This promotes the public good because many people, like the present neo-conservatives(actually I am afraid not conservatives at all) who only watch Fox or listen to Rush. As citizens, you have an obligation to consider all the facts before you decide on an issue. Considering all the facts is a conservative virtue, isn't it?

The biggest impediment to 'free speech' on our public airwaves(remember we, the people own them)is the media consolidation of well over 80% of radio and tv stations in the hands of only five large corporations and the elimination of the requirement that to own a license using our Public Airwaves that the station seek out and report local news. I was taught conservatives are for competition ala Adam Smith by definition. I am.

Our airwaves are not just a venue for corporate profit but intended to be used for public benefit.

In short, when the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, we is supposed to win; not personal greed.

Enough of your self serving lies.

It's all about (un)fairness--Hannity's been all over this issue since the '06 campaign kicked in. "Fairness" to the left means the same as bipartisanship--if it's fair to them, then it's fair to all. Did you hear the exchange between Barney Frank and Patrick McHenry on the House floor. McHenry was shut down for posing a question about Piglosi's "Samoa exception" in the minimum wage bill. Talk about suppression of free speech...

I'm not, by nature, a violent person, but I think it's "fair" to remind the Left just who it is that possesses most of the firearms in this country, and why it is that we are allowed to possess them. Big hint -- it isn't about hunting or target shooting.

These Dems and other lefties love to say how "dissent is the highest form of patriotism", as long as it's dissent that they agree with.

Big

"These Dems and other lefties love to say how "dissent is the highest form of patriotism", as long as it's dissent that they agree with."

It also proves that their constituency isn't listening, and if they did listen, in a non-partisan manner, they would cleary hear that the left is trying to stiffle dissent when in power and promote it when not in power....hypocrites!!

The left is very much like GTgrad. They start off rational and then they can't contain their hatred for the right and GW and their true colors finally surface at some point...especially when they're called on the carpet as Franks and Boxer were.

If this comes to pass, I wonder if Rush will be allowed to have a half hour on CBS, NBC, and ABC to respond to their "news" broadcasts. They could even split it up, Rush taking on NBC, Sean taking on CBS, Levin taking on ABC, and Michael Savage taking on CNN. We do have a slight advantage in the Supreme Court now, and they may side with a challenge to the idea of objective news broadcasts.

My,
There is certainly a shift toward not even thinly veiled threats of violent, assaultive behavior appearing with increasing frequency at this site.
Just this weekend we had Mr. Noonan openly threatening to inflict random violence on members of Congress (if his name was Abdul, he'd probably have had a visit from the FBI by now) -- I'd watch out for Sen. Boxer, Mark; she may be small, but some of those California women take self-defense classes.
Now we are reminded just who owns most of the weapons that float around in our society -- just in case you had any doubt.
It seems that the rhetoric about the liberating fun of being the minority only lasted a week.
Will one of this site's regulars have a psychotic episode right here, or will we have to read about it in the MSM?

Soros is the money man behind Kucinich; Kucinich is absolutely pathetic!

Sal,
Perhaps you might be reminded from whence all other rights come. Rights aren't guaranteed just because they're in the Constitution. They're guaranteed by the use of force against those who would deprive other citizens of their rights. If another generation of American men become wussies, your rights to speech and property won't have much to stand on.

Do you remember that small island nation in the Mediterranean that Greeks conquered a few thousand years ago? They had morality and reasoned argument on their side, but the Greeks had the soldiers and the weapons. I guess I don't have to tell you who won that negotiation.

People in our nation are given the liberty to own guns so that no enemy, domestic or foreign, can take away the rights guaranteed. Conservatives have a voice, and your Mr. Barney Frank and his pack of thugs who are coming up on their first 100 lies will not silence our voice. Voters were lied to, about implementing all 9/11 report suggestions, about bipartisanship, etc, and your new batch of kings might remember they rule at the discretion of the people, not the other way around. To call such a reminder a threat is itself a threat to liberty and free speech.

Morris,
Somehow I don't feel a whole lot safer because you own a gun, nor do I believe the founders considered that armed opposition to the government was a beneficial function of an armed citizenry. I don't really care one way or the other -- that's why we have laws -- to keep the nuts off the streets.
Do stay away from fertilizer though.

nor do I believe the founders considered that armed opposition to the government was a beneficial function of an armed citizenry.

You might believe that, Sal, but by all historical accounts, you would be wrong. I don't know, maybe "wrong" is the wrong word -- maybe "ignorant" is more accurate. That's OK, though, because another of the fundamental rights we have is the right to be both wrong and ignorant.

One of the most comprehensive articles I've read on the history of The Second Amendment says:

The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government. (emphasis - mine)

If you've read any of the writings of the Founders, you know this principle to be true. Those of you on the Left are naive if you think that through your proxies in the press, the courts and groups like the ACLU, you can forever chip away the the rights and freedoms our fore fathers bled and died for and never reach a day of reckoning. This is not a threat, but I'll predict that there will be another American Revolution some day, if the Left doesn't succeed in disarming the population first. The one thing that those on both sides of the politcal spectrum realize is that the Second Amendment is the ultimate check and balance. For much of our history, the Right has sought to preserve it, and the Left has sought to destroy it. Which side, I ask, should we most fear?

Sal writes: "nor do I believe the founders considered that armed opposition to the government was a beneficial function of an armed citizenry"

Public schools today don't teach this anymore?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security...."

Public schools today don't teach this anymore?

I hadn't thought of it in that light, Morris, but I'll bet they don't. It is one of, if not the most, fundamental premises of our Republican form of government.

Morris

I don't get it. Are you saying that if a government goes against the wishes of the people, armed revolt against that government is sanctioned? You can probably guess where I'm going with this.

I don't get it. Are you saying that if a government goes against the wishes of the people, armed revolt against that government is sanctioned? You can probably guess where I'm going with this.

CO, I don't even have to guess where you're going with this, and, yes, I believe that is exactly what Morris is saying. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that a bunch of Leftists decide they are so dissatisfied with the policies of the Bush Administration that they are going to change our government by force of arms. There are several problems with this. First, their party just won control of 1/3 of government in a fair and open election, just as the Founders envisioned. Second, on a good day their party (ideology) controls the judicial branch (another 1/3) of government. Chances are, after they think it over a bit, they'll decide that taking out the Executive Branch (the branch, BTW, that controls the military) without touching the other two is probably biting off their nose to spite their face. Lastly, even if they decide to eliminate the Executive Branch by force, they lack both the weapons and the guts to pull it off. A few of them tried it back in the 60's and ended up either dead, in jail or spending the rest of their lives on the run.

The fairness doctrine would certainly go along way to eliminatng the "liberal" slant in the MSM you always complain about.

It would not, Wade, because the (un)Fairness Doctrine would not cover the nightly news, the liberal print media, or the op-ed pages. It would only cover talk radio, which, for some unknown(?) reason, you libs do so poorly on.

Why, Wade, do you offer nothing but moronic b/s?

You're right, keefer, Wade really doesn't have a clue.

Perhaps with a little comptetition on the airwaves, the product will improve.

Actually, Wade, there is more competition on AM radio now than at any time in the history of radio. Unfortunately for your side, it's most conservative or libertarian in nature. Liberal ideas, when expressed over radio, just don't seem to resonate with very many people. I wonder if you can explain to the rest of us just exactly why that is.

"I don't get it. Are you saying that if a government goes against the wishes of the people, armed revolt against that government is sanctioned? You can probably guess where I'm going with this."

CO,
America was founded by people with guns whose government wasn't listening to its people. I would like to believe our government could never be so out of touch, distant from American people that such action would never be called for again. But then I listen to the Dems who seem intent on doing exactly the opposite of what they promised to do. If they seek to rip the teeth that defend us from our country and silence our voices (shout down) when we question them, I don't think everybody's going to wait until we actually suffer a nuclear attack (or a series of them) before we recognize the threat these libs pose.

We continue to have faith in democracy for now, but if our voices are silenced, we always have the option of starting our country over again. The power is as it has been in the hands of the people. Sun Tzu said war is the last option of diplomacy, and for the American people, guns are our last option of diplomacy with our own government as well as with the governments of other nations.

Liberal ideas, when expressed over radio, just don't seem to resonate with very many people.

Exactly, Spook--have you ever listened to any of these kooks on the radio? It's all negative, hate-Bush, blame-America b/s. One day, I was sitting here listening to Rush, and since I had him 24/7, I decided to give Franken a try over at ScAir America. His exchange, with David Brock, went something like this:

Welcome to the show David; what about that lying president?

That's all I needed.

Actually, whenever I listen to Hannity, which is often, I get to hear a lot of libs. Too many, because they sound just like the ones who troll here. But hey, there's lots of AM stations, and many FM talkers too, so there's plenty of room for dissenting opinions. We just don't need any point/counterpoint formats.

Morris,
Not all "framers" found armed insurgency against the lawfully elected government an acceptable expression of the Second Amendment.
Note that Washington and Hamilton led a force of 13,000 militia into western Pennsylvania to put down the 1794 "Whiskey Rebellion."
Needless to say, most of the insurgents escaped though 20 were arrested and two sentenced to death, by hanging, for treason -- they were later pardoned by Washington, who thought them feeble minded.
The lunatic fringe that contemplates armed insurgency can generally be dismissed -- unless they pull a Timothy McVeigh.
Spook, you base your interpretation of the Second Amendment on the opinion of a single law professor at a right-leaning university -- last I knew, there was no concensus among law professors on the proper interpretation -- he's trying to read a lot into a paragraph.

Sal,

No one's forcing you to own a firearm, in fact, I would prefer that people like you don't. The only thing more dangerous than Left-wingers is armed Left-wingers.

The ever increasing problem I find with leftists and the first amendment, is they want to use it to advance their own agendas, which leads to, and as has already been sated, to silence conservatives, and then on top of that to use it as a cover up for evil, such as in the film industry.

It's just an absolute OUTRAGE!

Jeremiah