"Fairness Doctrine" -- Feinstein Outlawing Talk Radio

Evidently, a 99% Democrat media isn't enough for Democrats. The pesky "problem" is that reality sometimes seeps in through the remaining 1%.

Evidently, reality is the "unfair" advantage that Democrats keep trying to snuff out.

"Putting Money Where Mouths Are: Media Donations Favor DEMs 100-1"
-- Investors Business Daily, 23 July 2008

99% Democrat is a GAG ORDER on the opposition, not just a "bias".

(B. Hussein won by 53%-46%.)

To the dismay and frustration of fascists, we peasants retain the residual liberty to tune out stations we don't like, and we overwhelmingly tune out the gospel of modern Liberalism.

"This must be stopped!"

Democrats can't stand the FACT that Americans prefer classical Liberalism over the modern sort -- its polar opposite;

prefer LEGAL aliens over the illegal sort;

prefer American victory over that of Islamic fascism;

prefer sound business practices over Fannie Mae, FFIEC CRA, & ACORN setting lending standards;

prefer liberty over big gov't;

prefer self reliance over gov't-pimps.

Americans prefer logic & reason over the dogma & mantras proselytized by FDR devotees and other such fascists who now fraudulently claim ownership of the liberal label.

Liberals love "free speech" only as long as only they have it.
***

Here, Feinstein (D) resurrects the Democrats 'Fairness Doctrine' (a.k.a. Federal Law) in the renewed hope of silencing dissenters ABSOLUTELY (again).

The state sponsored religion of Liberalism gives them quite an edge -- they just outlaw all other religions and enforce their doctrine by court order, whilst forcing you to pay for it all.

The last time I heard this devout Liberal proselytize, she was enforcing the (now infamous) kill-zones of schools & post offices, which such fascists call 'Gun Free Zones'.

(Democrats STILL haven't learned that criminals don't obey laws.)

Contrary to popular myth, as this video clearly reveals, the beast is obviously alive and well.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Witch
• Feinstein
• Democrat
• Fairness
• Doctrine
• Liberalism
• state
• sponsored
• religion
• law
• Ann
• Coulter

[tvspnd1228]

1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". so why are we even talking about this?

[DiscoveringReason]

The Fairness Doctrine is a huge limit on free speech, which is why they got rid of it... idiots

[dbsommers1]

translation: They don't say what I want them to say, so they have to be silenced. Basically, the exact opposite of freedom of speech.

[TylerNull]

@Distortion0

Monopolies like the teachers' labor unions?

As I pointed out in my previous reply, to the extent there's a straw man here, it's your false depiction of the article and the many articles to which it linked as if they are but one, specific, technical concern. And that's obviously just one such link that I found in a matter of seconds.

The relevant question is where is the evidence to suggest there's a need for the new nest of gov't mandates & bureaucrats & their costs?

[Distortion0]

@TylerNull I didn't say I agreed with the proposed solution, what I was trying to say is that it's a valid concern. Business has its inefficiency, bureaucracy and greed as well. Often times government intervention has as its cause bribery from monopolies. I read the article and it did nothing but present strawmen for the real concern of leftists. Again, I don't necessarily support the solution, but a refutation of them should address their concerns.

[TylerNull]

@Distortion

Your confirmed inability to forecast a specific problem resulting from this new labyrinth of gov't mandates isn't much of an argument for them, nor for its requisite army of gov't bureaucrats, nor for its costs.

The "basic concern" is that greedy political hustlers have made yet another claim of authority. This time over the citizens who provide all our internet services.

The article, and those to which it linked, elaborated on several of its issues, and from various perspectives.

[Distortion0]

@TylerNull The article doesn't seem to address the point being raised by Net Neutrality supporters. The basic concern is that large companies will be able to buy the ability to essentially shut down their opponents websites by cutting bandwidth from them. I don't see how preventing this from happening is any different from preventing other forms of monopoly creation. (Again, maybe I'm just personally missing information.)

[TylerNull]

@Distortion0

The title I just posted (in quotes, above) references a link to such an article, and it too contains many links.

[Distortion0]

@TylerNull I'm interested in hearing some criticisms of Net Neutrality. So far I've only heard the opinions of advocates. Do you have any good links to anti-Net Neutrality info?

[TylerNull]

@Distortion0

"Forget the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine – Net Neutrality is the Future of Censorship"

Liberals NEVER dump ANY of their totalitarian plans. They simply change their marketing and other tactics. You know, like hiding all their brands and wings and branches of socialism behind a happy sounding L-word.

[Distortion0]

@MHawk01 Obama has actually openly stated that he opposes the fairness doctrine.

[stephenabm]

The Fairness Doctrine is Unconstitutional and violates "Free Speech"