/dev/null Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/posto...ight_134399.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 The Fairness Doctrine is not a Sedition Act Redux. There is no restriction of speech. On the other hand, we were much closer to the a defacto Sedition Act Redux when Americans actually spoke out against the Iraqi invasion and were shouted down and accused of being traitors. (Remember that proud time in our Nation's history?) Having said that, I think it's rather doubtful this would be on the Congressional agenda and should be opposed simply on First Amendment principles. Stations should not be forced to have fair and balanced programming. I also think talk radio's influence has run its course for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 The Fairness Doctrine is not a Sedition Act Redux. There is no restriction of speech. On the other hand, we were much closer to the a defacto Sedition Act Redux when Americans actually spoke out against the Iraqi invasion and were shouted down and accused of being traitors. (Remember that proud time in our Nation's history?) Having said that, I think it's rather doubtful this would be on the Congressional agenda and should be opposed simply on First Amendment principles. Stations should not be forced to have fair and balanced programming. I also think talk radio's influence has run its course for the time being. I'm more worried about labor unions being formed without a secret ballot, simply by turning in a petition with enough signatures... Are you going to refuse to sign when the union goons corner you in a bar? Or if a petition is turned in with your signature, and you going to say "wait a minute, I didn't sign that!" and become an instant scab in the workplace? Obama supports this legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I'm more worried about labor unions being formed without a secret ballot, simply by turning in a petition with enough signatures... Are you going to refuse to sign when the union goons corner you in a bar? Or if a petition is turned in with your signature, and you going to say "wait a minute, I didn't sign that!" and become an instant scab in the workplace? Obama supports this legislation. You watch too many movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I'm more worried about labor unions being formed without a secret ballot, simply by turning in a petition with enough signatures... Are you going to refuse to sign when the union goons corner you in a bar? Or if a petition is turned in with your signature, and you going to say "wait a minute, I didn't sign that!" and become an instant scab in the workplace? Obama supports this legislation. Framed that way, this leg is a problem. I have only read anecdotal stuff about it, but would be hard pressed to see something like this make to the President under any circumstances without a major battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/posto...ight_134399.htm I could see a lot of lawsuits on this one, but the right wing ought to love it. They would finally get equal time on all the so called liberal media. The problem and suits would come as a result of defining who represented each side or a different side. Sounds like a cluster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boomer860 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 You watch too many movies. John Gotti would have liked a guy like you , Jimmy Hoffa also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Framed that way, this leg is a problem. I have only read anecdotal stuff about it, but would be hard pressed to see something like this make to the President under any circumstances without a major battle. If the Dems have the House (which they do), a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate (which they might), and the White House (which is probable right now); how does a bill (which proposes exactly that) that passed the House already not get reintroduced in January '09 and fly through both houses? That is one very plausible circumstance where there is no "major battle." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Right wing talk radio isn't going to be "silenced" by any legislation. It's already being muted by peoples' ability to instantly fact-check via the internet anything that the likes of Limbaugh or Savage spew. Truth, and the ease at which people can get the truth, has ushered in Right Wing radio's demise faster than anything the Dems could do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I could see a lot of lawsuits on this one, but the right wing ought to love it. They would finally get equal time on all the so called liberal media. The problem and suits would come as a result of defining who represented each side or a different side. Sounds like a cluster. It would be an absolutely horrible idea to reintroduce the "fairness doctrine", but it would probably have far more and different consequences than simply taking Rush Limbaugh off the air. That's assuming whatever Pelosi's crew dreamed up actually was deemed Constitutional by the 9 guys and gal in black robes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 If the Dems have the House (which they do), a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate (which they might), and the White House (which is probable right now); how does a bill (which proposes exactly that) that passed the House already not get reintroduced in January '09 and fly through both houses? That is one very plausible circumstance where there is no "major battle." Because labor doesn't control the Democratic Party and I am not sure there would be enough votes from the Dems. Plus, it is one thing to talk about and another to face their own mortality in Congress. The repigs would beat them on the head with this until the cows came home. The reason we did not see any real anti-abortion leg during a Republican controlled Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Because labor doesn't control the Democratic Party and I am not sure there would be enough votes from the Dems. Plus, it is one thing to talk about and another to face their own mortality in Congress. The repigs would beat them on the head with this until the cows came home. The reason we did not see any real anti-abortion leg during a Republican controlled Congress. I hope you're right on that one if we see the fillibuster-proof majority but I don't see how they don't bring that one up and get it passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 "They're coming to take away your Rush Limbaugh!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In-A-Gadda-Levitre Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 the entire basis for the writer's argument is "But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."" People should be saying in response: "what else you got?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 If the Dems have the House (which they do), a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate (which they might), and the White House (which is probable right now); how does a bill (which proposes exactly that) that passed the House already not get reintroduced in January '09 and fly through both houses? That is one very plausible circumstance where there is no "major battle." And which Obama has endorsed and say's he will sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I hope you're right on that one if we see the fillibuster-proof majority but I don't see how they don't bring that one up and get it passed. Yeah, there is no way they can turn around and deny labor this after the unions have come through financially for the Dems this year. *This* is the only piece of legislation that matters to unions right now - not NAFTA not Iraq not raising taxes on the rich and not taxing companies more. Turning back the clock on the decline of union membership is the single defining issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 I could see a lot of lawsuits on this one, but the right wing ought to love it. They would finally get equal time on all the so called liberal media. So NBC will be forced to hire someone other than left wing "journalists"? Great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Framed that way, this leg is a problem. I have only read anecdotal stuff about it, but would be hard pressed to see something like this make to the President under any circumstances without a major battle. How would you frame it? And where would the major battle come from with a fillibuster-proof majority? The Dems pushed it in the past, knowing that a presidential veto made it moot. Obama say's he'll sign it, and Pelosi say's congress will re-introduce it, so now it seems an open and shut case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202008/posto...ight_134399.htm More bull sh-- The idea Rush Limbo will be taken off the air by the government is silly. Only people that listen to right wing radio could believe this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Right wing talk radio isn't going to be "silenced" by any legislation. It's already being muted by peoples' ability to instantly fact-check via the internet anything that the likes of Limbaugh or Savage spew. Truth, and the ease at which people can get the truth, has ushered in Right Wing radio's demise faster than anything the Dems could do. I was gonna say... The left would be better served by encouraging right-wing talk-radio, seeing as how it's currently populated by loons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts