• 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!

The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

If you believe that this is about a few complaints to the FCC, then I cannot help you with REALITY or FACTS.

Oh wow. You completely missed the reason why I cited it.

You claimed that a majority of people agree with your position. Based on the complaint rate and where those complaints are coming from on the things you feel are indecent, you are completely wrong.

Do you think that insulting people will get you anywhere other then closer to a banning? Furthermore, do you think that deliberately avoiding discussing what they wrote makes you look like you add any value here?
 
Prove it.

Ok show me how many liberal groups were up in arms over the tit shot compared to conservative groups.

Two years after beginning a campaign against sexually explicit and violent lyrics on record albums, Tipper Gore has moderated her tone but expanded her scope to include music videos, television programming and video cassettes.

Tipper Gore Widens War on Rock - The New York Times

You sure run your mouth alot, but never back up your codswallup with any tangible proof.

Put up, or shut up.

Tipper gore? That is your proof tipper gore? Tell me who is up in arms over ****, ****, goddamn, *****, dick, clitoris, etc.

It is ALWAYS conservatives as a majority that is against these.

Sorry, but your **** holds no weight.

Are you serisoulsy telling me that as a MAJORITY a liberal is going to have a hissy fit over P....U...S...S...Y being broadcast over the air as much as a conservative does?

Gimme a break.
 
Last edited:
Still waiting for TD (Truth Detector) to weigh in when I ever supported a censorship of Fox News or Limbaugh like he accused me of.

I'm guessing the liar known as TD won't ever show his face in this thread again since he can't man up and admit he is wrong.
 
Seriously...what purpose does the FCC serve? Anyone?

If there were no laws at all governing what could appear on television, what's the worst that could happen? I doubt Nickelodeon would start showing hardcore pornography just because it was legal.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC"]FCC Mission and strategy[/ame]
As specified in section one of the Communications Act as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) it is the FCC's mission to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[4]

Consistent with the objectives of the Act as well as the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the FCC has identified six long-term strategic goals in its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. These are:

Broadband: "All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services."
Competition:"Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services."
Spectrum:"Efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and internationally promotes the growth and rapid development of innovative and efficient communication technologies and services."
Media:"The Nation's media regulations must promote competition and diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery"
Public Safety and Homeland Security:"Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defence, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable."
Modernize the FCC:"The Commission shall strive to be highly productive, adaptive, and innovative organization that maximises the benefits to stakeholders, staff, and management from effective systems, processes, resources, and organizational culture."[5]


Seems like mostly a crock of shiite so far.
 
Now America obviously has constitutional issues but I for one am always a bit put off by talk of the unrestrained corporate media. We are after all not talking about individual rights but those of corporations given personhood and privilege by the state and exerting a massive, and I mean massive(Anthony Sampson in his Who Rules this place puts the mainstream media as number one influence.) influence over our societies. I could care less about about swearing and porn but the issue of the influence of a relatively small amount of centralised corporate and state media outlets in many Western societies is quite disturbing to me.
 
Ok show me how many liberal groups were up in arms over the tit shot compared to conservative groups.



Tipper gore? That is your proof tipper gore? Tell me who is up in arms over ****, ****, goddamn, *****, dick, clitoris, etc.

It is ALWAYS conservatives as a majority that is against these.

Sorry, but your **** holds no weight.

Are you serisoulsy telling me that as a MAJORITY a liberal is going to have a hissy fit over P....U...S...S...Y being broadcast over the air as much as a conservative does?

Gimme a break.

I can't think of a better example of why we need a minimum level of public decency standards.

Some people seem to get a kick out of pushing the limit to the extreme.

And you couldn't be more right about liberals tending to having foul mouths.

;)
 
I see no reason to view frequencies as being any different than land. Both are constrained and defined by the same basic principles: neither can be utilized simultaneously by different people with divergent interests, and both are finite resources.

If I purchase a specific frequency - just as I would purchase a specific piece of land - I should be able to transmit whatever I like, just as I should be able to build whatever I like on my land. Obviously, the manner in which one utilizes their frequency or land would necessarily be constrained by the rights of others but anything beyond that is an infringement. The FCC should protect property rights and nothing more. Censorship is the responsibility of parents.
 
I can't think of a better example of why we need a minimum level of public decency standards.

Some people seem to get a kick out of pushing the limit to the extreme.

And you couldn't be more right about liberals tending to having foul mouths.

;)


translation: You are for big brother government involvement because YOU disagree with the speech.

Classical conservatism.
 
Ok show me how many liberal groups were up in arms over the tit shot compared to conservative groups.



Tipper gore? That is your proof tipper gore? Tell me who is up in arms over ****, ****, goddamn, *****, dick, clitoris, etc.

It is ALWAYS conservatives as a majority that is against these.

Sorry, but your **** holds no weight.

Are you serisoulsy telling me that as a MAJORITY a liberal is going to have a hissy fit over P....U...S...S...Y being broadcast over the air as much as a conservative does?

Gimme a break.

I provided a link debunking your bull**** claim. Typical response from TheNextEra, shows up with nothing but more bull****.
 
I provided a link debunking your bull**** claim. Typical response from TheNextEra, shows up with nothing but more bull****.


The bull**** is you claiming one person is the majorty. Your link showed tipper GORE,. ONE PERSON.

Sorry you have debunked nothing.

Conservatives have a problem with the tit shot as a majority, not liberals.
 
The bull**** is you claiming one person is the majorty. Your link showed tipper GORE,. ONE PERSON.

Sorry you have debunked nothing.

Conservatives have a problem with the tit shot as a majority, not liberals.

This was your statement:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra
CONSERVATIVES have lead the battle over MORALITY talk on T.V.

Really, Tipper Gore lead the battle back in the mid 80's. I provided a link to back up my argument.

You provide nothing but bull****.

Now, prove the following claim that you made here:

Originally Posted by TheNextEra

The majority of people that got uupset over the tit shot WERE conservatives.

Prove it, show us the proof that this statement of yours is factual.

Otherwise you're just trying to bull**** your way through another thread.
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
My first comment was merely to explain why doing away with the FCC was an idiotic assertion made in a vacuum of the facts and reality of unregulated airwaves and to defend what has been a majority opinion for some time; that content supplied over the airwaves be moderated for the times they are aired to protect children from potentially being exposed to that content and many of the adults who would be offended even by accidental access.




So you didn’t make this comment?



What about this comment?



How about this one from your ole pal Kandahar who also has very confused ideas about raising children?



But here is the doosie that prompted my original response:



One thing is certain, for a physicist you show an incredible propensity for forgetting what was typed only a few threads back and dragging a debate into never ending circles of futility.

Carry on.

What do my quotes say? Can you read? Is that within your intellectual prowess? I said the FCC should be all but abolished. What does that mean? It means, that the vast majority of its power should be stripped, the power to censor should be taken from away from the FCC. The FCC exists still, but only as property management. And if you read what people say, while they are pissed that the FCC has censorship capabilities and want them gone, we've agreed that the FCC needs to exist in some part to enforce property rights.

But if you want to lie, use spin and hyperbole, and engage in intellectual dishonest debate to get your point across go right ahead. It's not like none of us have seen that before out of you.
 
I see no reason to view frequencies as being any different than land. Both are constrained and defined by the same basic principles: neither can be utilized simultaneously by different people with divergent interests, and both are finite resources.

If I purchase a specific frequency - just as I would purchase a specific piece of land - I should be able to transmit whatever I like, just as I should be able to build whatever I like on my land. Obviously, the manner in which one utilizes their frequency or land would necessarily be constrained by the rights of others but anything beyond that is an infringement. The FCC should protect property rights and nothing more. Censorship is the responsibility of parents.

AS much as I don`t like, about what I see and hear, on different frequencies, You are right again sir. The FCC does a pathetic enough job (as a federal tyrrant), without the additional difficult task of mediating, moderating , and littigating morality, and ethics. The worst way to morality and ethics is via a tyranical BIG BROTHER.
 
This was your statement:



Really, Tipper Gore lead the battle back in the mid 80's. I provided a link to back up my argument.

You provide nothing but bull****.

Now, prove the following claim that you made here:



Prove it, show us the proof that this statement of yours is factual.

Otherwise you're just trying to bull**** your way through another thread.

Prove that right wingers don't want swearing? That is common sense, the fact you think LIBERALS want censorship of swearing and tit shots is amazingly FALSE as usual.

Yes, A PERSON on the left was against it and probably some more, but the MAJORITY of conservatives are FOR censorhipo of the airwaves. DEAL WITH IT.

Talking to you is like talking to my 4 year old neice when she goes NUH UH.

Grow up and deal with the FACTS, the majority of conservatives NOT liberals are for censoring the airwaves of swear words and tit shots.
 
What do my quotes say? Can you read? Is that within your intellectual prowess? I said the FCC should be all but abolished. What does that mean? It means, that the vast majority of its power should be stripped, the power to censor should be taken from away from the FCC. The FCC exists still, but only as property management. And if you read what people say, while they are pissed that the FCC has censorship capabilities and want them gone, we've agreed that the FCC needs to exist in some part to enforce property rights.

But if you want to lie, use spin and hyperbole, and engage in intellectual dishonest debate to get your point across go right ahead. It's not like none of us have seen that before out of you.

...all but abolished,...10/4. :2wave:
 
I see no reason to view frequencies as being any different than land. Both are constrained and defined by the same basic principles: neither can be utilized simultaneously by different people with divergent interests, and both are finite resources.

If I purchase a specific frequency - just as I would purchase a specific piece of land - I should be able to transmit whatever I like, just as I should be able to build whatever I like on my land. Obviously, the manner in which one utilizes their frequency or land would necessarily be constrained by the rights of others but anything beyond that is an infringement. The FCC should protect property rights and nothing more. Censorship is the responsibility of parents.

Exactly! That is the only reasonable and rightful job of the FCC,nothing more than that. All these "Won't someone please think of the children!" responses are nothing more than appeal to emotion. I don't care how hard it is to be a parent, that was the choice of the parent deal with it. I don't think it's proper to infringe upon property and speech rights because someone can't control their kid all the time and wants the government to help them out. Bunch of idiots who can't figure out how to regulate electronic devices.
 
Last edited:
Prove that right wingers don't want swearing? That is common sense, the fact you think LIBERALS want censorship of swearing and tit shots is amazingly FALSE as usual.

Yes, A PERSON on the left was against it and probably some more, but the MAJORITY of conservatives are FOR censorhipo of the airwaves. DEAL WITH IT.

Talking to you is like talking to my 4 year old neice when she goes NUH UH.

Grow up and deal with the FACTS, the majority of conservatives NOT liberals are for censoring the airwaves of swear words and tit shots.


The onus is on you to substantiate your statement. You've not done that.

This time you cower behind your niece as you try and spin your bull**** once more.
 
The onus is on you to substantiate your statement. You've not done that.

This time you cower behind your niece as you try and spin your bull**** once more.

So you are saying the majority of the left is against swearing and tit shot censorship and the right isn't. Sorry, but frankly you have not proven that.

Deal with the facts, the right is ALWAYS the majority in the censorship of swearing and tit shots.

The fact you are denying the obvious is amazing.

Let me guess you don't believe in gravity either, you call it intelligent falling right?

Stop spouting your bull****.
 
Last edited:
So you are saying the majority of the left is against swearing and tit shot censorship and the right isn't. Sorry, but frankly you have not proven that.

Deal with the facts, the right is ALWAYS the majority in the censorship of swearing and tit shots.

The fact you are denying the obvious is amazing.

I think both sides get off on telling the People what they can and can't see and hear.
 
I think both sides get off on telling the People what they can and can't see and hear.

Sorry, but on the topic of swearing and tit shots, the majority of people complaining are on the right.

The left has it's fault with wanting to enact the fair doctrine which I disagree with, but not swearing and tit shots.

I will agree both sides have their faults on the issue of censorship though.
 
Sorry, but on the topic of swearing and tit shots, the majority of people complaining are on the right.

The left has it's fault with wanting to enact the fair doctrine which I disagree with, but not swearing and tit shots.

I will agree both sides have their faults on the issue of censorship though.

I don't care which side it comes from, it is improper use of force and power to use the FCC to enforce censorship on private property and speech rights.
 
I don't care which side it comes from, it is improper use of force and power to use the FCC to enforce censorship on private property and speech rights.

Don't have any disagreement there.
 
So you are saying the majority of the left is against swearing and tit shot censorship and the right isn't. Sorry, but frankly you have not proven that.

Deal with the facts, the right is ALWAYS the majority in the censorship of swearing and tit shots.

The fact you are denying the obvious is amazing.

Let me guess you don't believe in gravity either, you call it intelligent falling right?

Stop spouting your bull****.

Then you'll have no problem providing a link to substantiate your claim.

The only thing amazing here, is your unwillingness to substantiate your claim.

I'll be more than happy to deal with the facts, when you provide some.
 
translation: You are for big brother government involvement because YOU disagree with the speech.

Classical conservatism.

Mistranslation.

I'm all for free speech and free expression of ideas. I'm also for some minimum level of public decency standards.

What I'm opposed to are misguided souls who believe that stringing together as many foul words as possible in one post is an exercise in free speech. And that somehow banning the F-word on The Academy Awards broadcast represents a deep, dark threat to their liberty. Though I suspect your ardent support of the first amendment here might earn you an A+ in a 10th grade civics class.

:2wave:
 
Mistranslation.

I'm all for free speech and free expression of ideas. I'm also for some minimum level of public decency standards.

What I'm opposed to are misguided souls who believe that stringing together as many foul words as possible in one post is an exercise in free speech. And that somehow banning the F-word on The Academy Awards broadcast represents a deep, dark threat to their liberty. Though I suspect your ardent support of the first amendment here might earn you an A+ in a 10th grade civics class.

:2wave:

I try to stay off the fence on most issues, but in this case I agree with you.... still, I do not want the present encroaching government to get any further up my rectum. Concider this, "WE the People", (as our government defines us)... :(
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom