• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine


Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine



Although a spokesman for President Barack Obama said the administration wouldn’t pursue the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, S.C., wants Senate Democrats to go on the record one way or another on the issue.



DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said on Feb. 19 he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill next week. The Broadcaster Freedom Act was introduced by Republican lawmakers last month and prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine.



“I’m glad President Obama finally confirmed his opposition to the Fairness Doctrine, which attacks the right of free speech on talk radio, but many Democrats in Congress are still pushing it,” DeMint said. “With the support of the new administration, now is the time for Congress to take a stand against this kind of censorship. I intend to seek a vote on this amendment next week so every senator is on record: Do you support free speech or do you want to silence voices you disagree with?”





This is the right move. The unconstitutional Fairness doctrine has been bubbling under the surface, from Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and even though Obama says he is not for its reinstatment, he can't stop himself from talking about radio personalities like Rush...


So lets put the banning of the idea to a vote.


This is something I fully support. The abolishment of anything pertaining to stifling political talk in violation of the 1st amendment.


What say you?
 
This is the right move. The unconstitutional Fairness doctrine has been bubbling under the surface, from Reid, Pelosi, Schumer, and even though Obama says he is not for its reinstatment, he can't stop himself from talking about radio personalities like Rush...

What does Obama saying that Rush is an idiot who shouldn't be listened to have to do with Obama's on record opposition to the Fairness doctrine?
 
I have no love for the Fairness Act. I find it funny that the second time around, the sides are reversed though. It shouldn't be around. Though I also think we should go back to not allowing one person to own more than one media outlet as well. That's more a press/news thing than a political commentator thing though.
 
The fairness doctrine is retarded. Good move on Obama's part.
 
Why is the far right so scared of the FD?
 
What does Obama saying that Rush is an idiot who shouldn't be listened to have to do with Obama's on record opposition to the Fairness doctrine?




simple. Obama has shown that what he says, does not always match up to what he will do.


Take the stimulous bill for example. There was a promise that all bills would be available for public review for 5 days before signing. It showed up the day he signed it.


I hope he keeps his promise. However, Given his complete failure to live up to many of his campaign promises, I look at him suspect.
 
This is something I fully support. The abolishment of anything pertaining to stifling political talk in violation of the 1st amendment.


What say you?

It's already been abolished. So what good is it bringing to a vote something that is already gone? This is simply partisan politics being played by the right and is a waste of time.
 
It's already been abolished. So what good is it bringing to a vote something that is already gone? This is simply partisan politics being played by the right and is a waste of time.




If you read, you would see that this would make it not able to come up again.
 
simple. Obama has shown that what he says, does not always match up to what he will do.

So nothing? Noted.

Take the stimulous bill for example. There was a promise that all bills would be available for public review for 5 days before signing. It showed up the day he signed it.

Copies of the stimulus bill had been around LONG before he signed the final piece of legislation. Acting like huge changes were made on the day Obama signed it or for that matter 2-3 days before is non-sense.

I hope he keeps his promise. However, Given his complete failure to live up to many of his campaign promises, I look at him suspect.

So saying Rush Limbaugh is an idiot has what to do with Obama's opposition to the Fairness Doctrine?
 
So nothing? Noted.


One would have to be intellectually bankrupt to pontificate this non response of yours..


Copies of the stimulus bill had been around LONG before he signed the final piece of legislation. Acting like huge changes were made on the day Obama signed it or for that matter 2-3 days before is non-sense.


Wrong. This is a lie. Show me where. Thanks. :2wave:


So saying Rush Limbaugh is an idiot has what to do with Obama's opposition to the Fairness Doctrine?



Lets have him sign a bill if he is against it. Do you agree?
 
Why is the far right so scared of the FD?

In The Constitution (paraphrasing) it says Congress shall make no laws abridging the free speech of individuals. They wrote this with an eye on political speech... not porn.

When you start dictating what a private businessman must do with his business... (for the public good)... you are interfering with his business and the competitive nature of it. If he doesn't want to hire libs because they don't draw audiences or advertisers... why should he be forced to have his profits plundered and his business programmed by the government?

When Reagan got the FD eliminated, the radio industry was a shell of what it is today. There was not talk radio as we have. People complained that eliminating the FD would help THE LEFT!

Reagan believed in free speech and free markets and let the chips fall where they may.
Amazing to those on the left... in a market the Dems cannot control, they lose big time.

The Dems talk about fear... fairness... equal results (not opportunity)... which is all a ploy for more socialism and control over free people and markets. Republicans talk about The Constitution. Dems cannot because they usurp it with regularity. The Constitution is a bit like a toilet, maybe more like toilet paper... they twist it, roll it up in a wad, crush it... so they can smear it full of crap.
 
Last edited:
In other words, you wish to play partisan politics and waste time.




Partisan?


Yeah. I am apart from anti-constitutionalist prohibitionists. I want thier anti freedom stances on record.


Who is partisan? I am protecting freedom, You are protecting your party.
 
Who is partisan? I am protecting freedom, You are protecting your party.

It's partisan because there is no majority support for the FD in congress or the President.

It's a waste of time and a witch hunt by the right. Purely partisan.
 
When you start dictating what a private businessman must do with his business... (for the public good)... you are interfering with his business and the competitive nature of it. If he doesn't want to hire libs because they don't draw audiences or advertisers... why should he be forced to have his profits plundered and his business programmed by the government?

Aheeemmmm the airwaves are public property not private property.
 
One would have to be intellectually bankrupt to pontificate this non response of yours..

So you can't say what one has to do with the other? Or are you just drawing conclusions?

Wrong. This is a lie. Show me where. Thanks. :2wave:

How is it a lie? Lawmakers were discussing the drafts for the bill weeks before a final copy was made. You're acting like 100 billion were added the day Obama signed the bill.

Lets have him sign a bill if he is against it. Do you agree?

Banning the bringing up a law is anti-democratic in and of itself. So no. I don't agree.
 
Back
Top Bottom