Clinton shows that she is a Liberal

[Midnight Mike]

This is scary when a member of our Government is talking about taking profits away from a private company to use for something that they feel like it.


j1PfE9K8j0g

[hiss srq]

Ha ha ha and things like this are the reason why this retard will not get elected. Either that or the oil companies will pay someone to ensure that idea goes out the window and I am personally fine with it. Seriously though. Is this lady out of her bird? Come on now. Capitalisim is a basis for this nation and one of the things that the many peoples of the world come to America for. Once we lose freedom of profitability than well we may as well declare ourselves the USSRA. If she thinks this is a good idea well she has another thing coming. To recover money the oil companies will simply jack our prices even higher thus forcing people into an even tighter money situation. This is an expensive state for a reason and that reason is asswipes like this lady.

[T-Bird76]

Well if you’re following it Mike that moron from Ohio Dennis However the **** he spells his last name... is trying to push through that program content bill that would force networks to air both sides of the political table. It’s simply BS and a breach of our freedom of speech. I understand the airwaves are public but let the networks show what they want and we'll decide what to watch. This moron is running for President to, can someone sit him down and tell him an Elvis look alike has a better chance of winning!

[pgengler]

Well if you’re following it Mike that moron from Ohio Dennis However the **** he spells his last name... is trying to push through that program content bill that would force networks to air both sides of the political table. It’s simply BS and a breach of our freedom of speech. I understand the airwaves are public but let the networks show what they want and we'll decide what to watch. This moron is running for President to, can someone sit him down and tell him an Elvis look alike has a better chance of winning!

That actually makes sense to me (and it used be law, as the Fairness Doctrine). The airwaves are, as you admit, public, so what public benefit is there to having all or a portion thereof monopolized by a single candidate or political viewpoint? Now, as long as it's not been extended to cable or satellite (private services), I could support it.

[nwafan20]

The Fairness Doctrine is nothing but BS. They are just upset because Air America failed completely.

Let the people choose to support a network or not. The Fairness doctrine will only tie up funds (everything needs to be reported) and cause stations to loose ratings.

[T-Bird76]

Well if you’re following it Mike that moron from Ohio Dennis However the **** he spells his last name... is trying to push through that program content bill that would force networks to air both sides of the political table. It’s simply BS and a breach of our freedom of speech. I understand the airwaves are public but let the networks show what they want and we'll decide what to watch. This moron is running for President to, can someone sit him down and tell him an Elvis look alike has a better chance of winning!

That actually makes sense to me (and it used be law, as the Fairness Doctrine). The airwaves are, as you admit, public, so what public benefit is there to having all or a portion thereof monopolized by a single candidate or political viewpoint? Now, as long as it's not been extended to cable or satellite (private services), I could support it.


Fairness Doctrine is a nice way of saying "Censorship." Let the public decide what they want to see. If you like a liberal viewpoint watch a liberal channel if you like conservative viewpoints watch that channel. I don't need the gov't telling me what I have to watch. This will also put an extra burden on networks to fund opposing shows that might not be popular.

[pgengler]

Fairness Doctrine is a nice way of saying "Censorship." Let the public decide what they want to see. If you like a liberal viewpoint watch a liberal channel if you like conservative viewpoints watch that channel. I don't need the gov't telling me what I have to watch. This will also put an extra burden on networks to fund opposing shows that might not be popular.

What you need to consider here is that the public broadcast airwaves (i.e., over-the-air, channels 2-13) are controlled by the government, who licenses operators to use them. CBS, NBC, ABC and FOX are all enjoying this privilege that, if the government felt so inclined, it could chose to revoke. So, it's perfectly within the power of the government (now, we can argue whether it should be, and I might think it shouldn't) to put conditions on this sort of thing. We already have it with the indeceny rules so this wouldn't be precedent-setting.

Free speech is guaranteed, but it's not free speech in any form you want, and I fail to see how something like this would amount to censorship. Censorship is when the government intervenes and prohibits something from saying something; this doesn't fit that. Furthermore, the broadcasters aren't being forced to broadcast; if they don't like the rules, they're more than welcome to stop. They continue to broadcast for the same reason other companies operatte, because there's money in it, not out of some noble purpose. They still have the right to speech; they're guaranteed the right to speak, but not the right to any particular medium.

[Tom_Turner]

Perhaps the "fairness doctrine" could be brought to bear on "Public Television". I think WNET would rather go off the air.... :)

[Matt Molnar]

Kudos to Hill for stealing Hugo Chavez' speech writer.

[mirrodie]

Bring back Monica Lewinsky

I love hte big women. They need lovin too.


In fact, I'll vote for hilary if she runs with Monica as VP.

And Bill as chief of staff ;)

[Matt Molnar]

Castro can bring the cigars.