| Author |
Message |
    
Frankfast
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 05:35 pm: | 
|
Mike - Glad to see your taste for beef is still intact. Gotta tell you though, you might as well be chewing on an ear of corn. |
Teddagreek
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 05:42 pm: |
|
The extreme left is just as Nasty as the right.... |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 06:56 pm: |
|
The only thing similar I can think of off the top of my head that republicans tried was when the government was going after people like Ice T for the "cop killer" song and 2 Live crew for their explicit lyrics. Around that era was when the explicit warning labels appeared on tapes. I dont think that makes them similar to nazis though. |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 07:36 pm: |
|
Didn't they burn CD's at the PMRC rallies? Nazi's burned books didn't they? Maybe not exact but closely related and all.Good 'ol Tipper and she is married to a democrat not a repub...see...bloods or crips..doesn't matter.. I love 2Live Crew...Luke Skywalker was an excellent album. Ice T was so good too...nothing like a live version of "cop killer" to make my day..even now  |
Teddagreek
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 08:12 pm: |
|
What about the PC Police left and Right trying to ban books in some schools..
"Of Mice and Men” by John Steinbeck
“The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain.
“Forever” by Judy Blume
“The Catcher in the Rye” by J.D. Salinger
“The Chocolate War” by Robert Cormier
“Whale Talk” by Chris Crutcher
“Detour for Emmy”
“What My Mother Doesn't Know”
"The Bible"
And many more...
The American Library Association since the early eighties has had a banned book week to bring attention to this problem of censorship.. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 08:14 pm: |
|
It does matter who you vote to represent you. This can be illustrated just by looking at various state laws around the US. Take for example the "duty to retreat" law Jeb Bush did away with making it legal to meet with force anyone who would harm you in Florida. You dont have to run anymore by law.
Florida has a track record as a gun-law trendsetter. In the mid-1980s, the NRA chose Florida to launch a push for "conceal carry" or "right-to-carry" laws, which allow states to issue permits for residents to carry firearms. Democrat Bob Graham, who was then governor, vetoed the measure, but it was resurrected after he left office and was signed in 1987 by Gov. Bob Martinez, a Republican.
At the time, fewer than a dozen states had right-to-carry laws. Now there are 38.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html
Dont let facts get in the way emotion though |
Buellshyter
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:05 pm: |
|
I do believe this is the second time around for the Fairness Doctrine. It was first instituted in the 1940's and went the way of the dinosaur in the 80's. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:13 pm: |
|
I do believe this is the second time around for the Fairness Doctrine. It was first instituted in the 1940's and went the way of the dinosaur in the 80's.
Thats correct. Dems tried to get it back in 87 I think and Reagan wouldnt let it happen. |
Cowtown
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Ted, thanks for mentioning Rush Limbaugh. Just goes to show you don’t have to be rich to be heard, but if enough people like your message, you can become rich. Isn’t capitalism great. |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, January 19, 2007 - 11:34 pm: |
|
If they apply the "fairness doctrine" to radio, it needs to apply to the print and television media too, and to all hollywood productions, and all celebrities in America.
Hey, there's a way to create a bunch of new government jobs...
The Federal Bureau of Fairness. LOL! |
Rainman
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 12:40 am: |
|
Remember that the Fairness Doctrine was devised as a way to prevent broadcasters from controlling public opinion at a time when access to the airwaves was severely limited. Now that anyone can access cable and there are thousands of ways to assault someone with opinion -- witness CNN and Fox -- the FCC decided that the doctrine was no longer needed. Personally, I tend to agree. I refuse to watch either. |
Mortarmanmike120
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 03:37 am: |
|
Wow, I miss alot of discussion while at work. Damn Toyota, not letting me web surf at work! How un-American.
Hey Frank, I like corn. It's the perfect side dish to ole Bessy.
Kelly LeBrock, ummm, I forgot about her. Good memories from puberty...
As far as the 2Live debate. I'm torn on that one. As a society we DO differentiate between what is allowable for children and what is acceptable for adults. I feel that as adults it is actually our RESPONSIBILITY to protect children from harm and provide an enviornment that will let them develop in a civilized manner. That responsibility even extends to protecting them from intellectual harm. Ask a hundred Americans where we should draw that line and you'll likely get a hundred responses. We may not agree on where that line is but I HOPE we can all agree that there should be A line.
Remember that the Fairness Doctrine was devised as a way to prevent broadcasters from controlling public opinion at a time when access to the airwaves was severely limited.
Very good point. So my question is: if it's no longer needed then why would SOME like to see it reinstated? You think there might be a ulterior motive? |
Rainman
| | Posted on Saturday, January 20, 2007 - 09:42 am: |
|
As my father would say, Damn straight. Who ever is not in power wants the power and who is in power will claw like hell to keep it.
The rest of us just pay bills and talk.
But then,I'm not getting older, I'm just getting bitter |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 23, 2007 - 05:54 pm: |
|
Once in a while, I check out the banned book lists. Just to see if I've missed one. Then I buy it. Reminds me....I've got to buy "Satanic Verses". |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Saturday, January 27, 2007 - 02:35 am: |
|
And who is paying for their "fair" air time? If it cant be supported by ads, or their own budget, then really does it have a market? It ranks right up there with the damn 1% for art that we got suckered into. Honestly I would rather see the govt waste the money on a $3000 hammer than some of the tripe that is called "art" at public expense. I would post an example, but this is a family web site. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 06:44 am: |
|
Actually, if the $3000 hammer is non sparking beryllium bronze, and you need one to defuse a bomb, it's not a waste.
I believe that restricting freedom of speech is un-good. Even for the "best" of reasons. Look at McCain-Fiengold, the anti bribery act of a few years back. I mean campaign finance reform. The law unconstitutionally interfered with free speech, so that groups like the NRA, and Planned Parenthood, were restricted from comment, while groups like Move On.org & Swift Boat Veterans for Truth got to speak out.
Never mind that this bill to cut spending & corruption had the opposite effect, the free speech restrictions are wrong. Of course, thats my opinion.
As far as crud art being payed for with my dollars... A religious symbol in a jar of urine, or a graphiti artist paid to tag subway cars beats most of the tax paid art they put up in my town, and public servants are going to put up ( and buy with your money )art some committee likes. ( a ruling master puts up art HE likes, which is worse? ) |
M2me
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 12:30 pm: |
|
So my question is: if it's no longer needed then why would SOME like to see it reinstated?
You simply have to ask, "Who decided it was no longer needed?", then you'll have your answer.
This brings up a question of my own. Is the mainstream media liberal or conservative? Conservatives say the media is controlled by liberals and has a liberal slant. But in the same breath they claim that the Fairness Doctrine isn't fair because there simply is no audience for liberal ideas. I'm sorry but I tend to think very logically and am often confused by conservative view points. |
Johnnymceldoo
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 01:21 pm: |
|
But in the same breath they claim that the Fairness Doctrine isn't fair because there simply is no audience for liberal ideas.
Thats pretty funny because Ive heard several conservatives talk about this issue and the main point they bring up is let the free market decide what to put on the radio. If no one listens it will go away for lack of advertising dollars.
So basically the listeners decide what survives on radio. Maybe most liberals get their information from sources like MTV and the clinton news network to be bothered with boring radio that doesnt have the cool colors and sounds that TV does? |
Rainman
| | Posted on Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 04:48 pm: |
|
After 30 years in the newspaper business -- and being yelled at by both sides of most issues for being biased toward the other side -- I can tell you the media ownership is extremely conservative and the reporters tend to be moderate Republican or moderate Democrat. When you're on the street, in the ghetto, going to shootings and stabbings and those god awful city council meetings, you tend to see both sides of an issue and stand on the double-yellow a lot.
That being said, I find a distinct liberal bias in CNN and conservative bias in Fox. |
|
