The Fairness Doctrine, why Liberals are doomed, and we with them

I am going to use the "Fairness Doctrine" to show why the stimulus bill just passed is doomed, why Obama will be a one term president on par with Jimmy Carter and the Democrat Party has condemned this country to failure.

Pretty nifty of me to use the Fairness Doctrine eh? Why that you ask? Well it's a good starting point for what drives the liberal mind, what pushed the Democrats and 3 traitors in the GOP (RINO's) to pass the Stimulus Bill and how it will be the albatross around Obama's neck.

We hear, that the airwaves require "Balance"

High-profile Democrats continue to stir the pot on the issue of re-imposing the fairness doctrine.

The latest was former President Bill Clinton, who said on The Mario Solis Marich radio show that something needed to be done to balance broadcasting.

Marich said progressive shows like his were being outgunned and asked whether it was time for some enforced media accountability.

"Well, you either ought to have the fairness doctrine or you ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there has always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows."

Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, saying it doesn't reflect economic reality.

"I think we need to have either more balance in the programs or some opportunity for people to offer counter-veiling opinions." He said he had not been in favor of getting rid of the fairness doctrine, which the FCC did back in 1987.

Click to expand...

Bill Clinton Talks of Re-Imposing Fairness Doctrine or At Least "More Balance" in Media - 2009-02-13 15:23:26 - Broadcasting & Cable

Now this spells it all out for us.

Democrats believe there is some inherent unfairness in the AM Talk radio market. That balance is needed.

What is the answer to that? Government intervention.

That sums it up people. Before the FD was dropped in 1987, talk radio was nothing. When Reagan and his people killed the FD.. a voice arose, Rush Limbaugh, and he ran away with it. Other voices followed the trail he blazed and now we have a robust, money making, entertainment sector dedicated to conservative ideals.

The Liberals have attempted to counter this phenomenon with their own brand of radio, and have failed miserably each time.

The market of Radio is pretty straight forward. If you have a program people will tune into, advertisers will pay you to air their ads, this in turn generates revenue and allows you to push your product into bigger and more diverse markets.

If your product isn't appealing, it fails. What could be more fair then that?

The Liberal Answer is GOVERNMENT.

Don't you guys see? Before 1987, Government restricted and hurt talk radio. Remove Government it took off like gang busters.


So the answer to fixing radio is to do... the exact thing that failed in the past?

This mentality is all over the Stimulus Bill, and the past is littered with the failures of such... why do people think it will succeed this time? Did the "New Deal" help the country? No it prolonged the Great Depression.
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Did the Great Society succeed or hurt in it's war on poverty?
War on Poverty Revisited by Thomas Sowell -- Capitalism Magazine

Now we have a New Deal II, a "Greater Society" all pushed through with little debate, no understanding, and pushed by people who think the answer to problems like liberal radio not competing is strong Government action... not better and more innovation with private investment and a product people actually want.

Obama is Cater II.

Hahahahaha. Are you kidding? Democrats love Rush and Sean. They are playing leading roles in destroying the Republican party. Why would we want to silence them?

LOL

Look, I realize that Republicans are never happy unless they are terrifying each other with imaginary boogeymen, so knock yourselves out....Forget I said anything...

HelloDollyLlama said:

Hahahahaha. Are you kidding? Democrats love Rush and Sean. They are playing leading roles in destroying the Republican party. Why would we want to silence them?

LOL

Look, I realize that Republicans are never happy unless they are terrifying each other with imaginary boogeymen, so knock yourselves out....Forget I said anything...

Click to expand...

Uhm, Dolly...

So far we've had a number of Democrats out saying it's time to bring back the FD, including just recently former President Bill Clinton. Your response lacks any credibility as it's your party saying they want to bring it back...

HOWEVER, if you had actually... read the thread, you'd realize I wasn't talking about the FD and why it's bad to bring back or anything like that. So why not actually read what was written instead of just assuming based on the title?

The Fairness Doctrine is anti-first amendment bar none. I really hope liberals and those who support this piece of crap legislation realize that it WILL and I repeat WILL come back to haunt them.

It is not as if our current is not awash with centralised, overbearing and bureaucratic gov't anyway, I really think the fairness doctrine is far from the top of the evils of modern liberalism.

Wessexman said:

It is not as if our current is not awash with centralised, overbearing and bureaucratic gov't anyway, I really think the fairness doctrine is far from the top of the evils of modern liberalism.

Click to expand...

Your wrong, the FD is a prime example of what is wrong, entirely wrong with the liberal mentality

MrVicchio said:

Your wrong, the FD is a prime example of what is wrong, entirely wrong with the liberal mentality

Click to expand...

No really. What is wrong with liberalism on a conceptual level, which unfortunately not enough Conservatives attack by far, is its political and social rationalism/constructivism and monism.

Here's what I'm curious about:

How many folks here, specifically those of you who are against the Fairness Doctrine, thought that the mushrooming of the government's ability under Bush to toss so many of our other fundamental liberties out the window was okay?

I'm just curious.

Wessexman said:

No really. What is wrong with liberalism on a conceptual level, which unfortunately not enough Conservatives attack by far, is its political and social rationalism/constructivism and monism.

Click to expand...

There is that, I won't argue with you, I'm merely talking about the execution/solution.

Living in the wilderness, prices go up... call Uncle Sam!

Someone breaks into your home? Hide and call the cops, don't defend yourself!

Business collapsing? Hold out your hands! The Government is here to help!

TacticalEvilDan said:

Here's what I'm curious about:

How many folks here, specifically those of you who are against the Fairness Doctrine, thought that the mushrooming of the government's ability under Bush to toss so many of our other fundamental liberties out the window was okay?

I'm just curious.

Click to expand...

I didnt but I was called a traitor, communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc when I said that.

chevydriver1123 said:

I didnt but I was called a traitor, communist, terrorist sympathizer, etc when I said that.

Click to expand...

Are those who called you these names now opposing the FD?

TacticalEvilDan said:

Here's what I'm curious about:

How many folks here, specifically those of you who are against the Fairness Doctrine, thought that the mushrooming of the government's ability under Bush to toss so many of our other fundamental liberties out the window was okay?

I'm just curious.

Click to expand...

Oh, this thread really wasn't meant to be a discussion about the FD per say...

BUT I'll play along, even though the FD and the PA are completely different animals and not at all analogous.

Wait, first, name me one personal liberty you personally lost because of the PA and I will. Not just lost, but show what part of the PA took away this liberty.

MrVicchio said:

Oh, this thread really wasn't meant to be a discussion about the FD per say...

Click to expand...

You named it in the title, and 99% of your OP talked about it.

MrVicchio said:

Wait, first, name me one personal liberty you personally lost because of the PA and I will. Not just lost, but show what part of the PA took away this liberty.

Click to expand...

False dilemma: I did not in fact speak specifically about the PA, but instead the Bush presidency in general.

TacticalEvilDan said:

You named it in the title, and 99% of your OP talked about it.

Click to expand...

My post was using the FD to explain the Liberal mindset and how government is their answer for everything.

TacticalEvilDan said:

False dilemma: I did not in fact speak specifically about the PA, but instead the Bush presidency in general.

Click to expand...

Fine then, name something President Bush did that restricted your personal freedom or liberty.

And I don't mean just "I cannot..." name the liberty or freedom lost and how Bush caused this, specifically what action is the root cause. The only I can think of is that damned campaign finance debacle, but to be fair Bush also stated he believed it would be over turned... that does not in fact excuse the actual signing.

MrVicchio said:

There is that, I won't argue with you, I'm merely talking about the execution/solution.

Living in the wilderness, prices go up... call Uncle Sam!

Someone breaks into your home? Hide and call the cops, don't defend yourself!

Business collapsing? Hold out your hands! The Government is here to help!

Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but it is more a symptom of deeper assumptions which themselves have to be dealt with to deal with liberalism

These are; one its commitment to rationalism/constructivism. Which means its conception of society as simple and easily understandable and able to remade according to the will of a generation, a few or even one very quickly based on some simple and predetermined, quite encompassing plan.

And two its commitment to political and social monism. Which means that liberalism tends to espouse a philosophy that greater unity and centralised control over the diverse political and social groups intermediate to the individual and the state(and sometimes between the individual and the supranational these days.). This is contrary to the ideas of political pluralists like Aristotle, the great 19th century Conservative and anarchist thinkers as well as more some more Conservative liberals like De Tocqueville and Lamennais who believed in the importance of giving sufficient functional and autonomy to many decentralised associations, like the family and church, between the individual and state.

These are the areas which we are at war over, although it is far from social liberalism today that contains too much of either or both of these unfortunately, things like FD are just the battles and skirmishes.

MrVicchio said:

My post was using the FD to explain the Liberal mindset and how government is their answer for everything.

Click to expand...

Okay, but that makes the FD and its broader implications the subject of this thread. That doesn't exclude the FD from the discussion.

MrVicchio said:

Fine then, name something President Bush did that restricted your personal freedom or liberty.

And I don't mean just "I cannot..." name the liberty or freedom lost and how Bush caused this, specifically what action is the root cause. The only I can think of is that damned campaign finance debacle, but to be fair Bush also stated he believed it would be over turned... that does not in fact excuse the actual signing.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the words "I can not" are rather central to a definition or explanation of a liberty or freedom which has been lost. Freedom, to a law-abiding citizen in a society of law, is inherantly the ability to say "I can."

Regardless, I'll go with my favorite example, free elections. I think it's safe to say that free elections are easily the second most important non-violent insurance policy a society has that their government will protect their interests and respect their liberties. Nothing says "don't tread on me" like a pink slip. A free press ranks first in my mind mainly because reporters and analysists can hold politicians to task even when it's not an election year.

We do not, at present, have free elections in the United States. You can thank George W. Bush, a permissive Republican Congress, and the Help Americans Vote Act of 2002 for that.

I realize that's quite a claim. I will explain in due course.

In short, this law is required (and funded) the acquisition and use of electronic voting systems in all 50 states. At present, New York is the only state still using the mechanical voting machines that were in use before the passage of this law, and Bush's administration made a point of dragging New York into court over this fact.

The voting technology that the federal government is requiring everyone to use has a variety of drawbacks:

• Prone to intermittant failure
• Incorrectly registers votes
• Does not always provide a paper trail
• Can be mass-hacked, from a distance, by as few as one lone hacker
• Can be hacked up-close with a PDA and a magnet

State legislatures have investigated electronic voting systems. Private interest groups have investigated electronic voting systems. Elections officials have investigated electronic voting systems. Despite the claims of the manufacturers of these systems, the fact remains:

• They are not secure
• They are not by any means failure-proof (or even failure-resistant)
• Their audit capabilities vary widely

Not only that, but the tracking and audit requirements vary state to state. Many states lack any audit requirements whatsoever.

Now, paper ballot systems are by no means perfect. Electronic voting activists argue (incorrectly) that the systems in use can prevent the incorrect completion of a ballot. Also, there's always stuffing of the ballot box. The fact is, however, that paper and mechanical ballot systems offer a level of openness and verifibility that proprietary (read: closed-source) systems being sold today simply never will. Elections officials from opposing parties, rather than being able to keep a hawk-eye on each other, the voters, and the voting machines, have to simply trust that the machines will work properly and remain secure throughought the election process.

How does all of this equate to the accusation I made above? Here comes the punchline.

Compare a jury trial to an election. Both involve voters (jurors), referees (judges), a decision (verdict), and a polling place (courtroom). In a jury trial, as in an election with a paper ballot system, you can:

• Compare the number of votes cast to the number of voters
• See verifiable evidence of the votes cast
• Insist on a recount if the results seem dubious
• Appeal the results to a higher authority if necessary
• Watch the entire process for undue influence or fraud

You can't verifiably do any of these things with an electronic voting system which has been proven to be unreliable, insecure, and in some cases completely untracable. Instead, a whole other sort of jury trial emerges.

In the version we have now, you never see a jury. Nobody sees the jury, in fact, aside from the judge. The judge alone communicates with, polls, and counts the votes of the jury. You can't really question the judge, because the entire process rests on his reliability and integrity.

In that case, you don't have a jury trial. You are only told that you have a jury trial, scout's honor, cross his honor's heart and hope to die, and so on.



I could keep going, I suppose, but I think I've made my point, and I could make even more about the Bush presidency. The list of rights which have suffered under his administration is rather long. I'm a little shocked that this very question hasn't been belabored at length here on DP, or that if it has you haven't noticed it.

If the details have been beaten to death on DP and you have noticed it, then I don't appreciate you wasting my time.


Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html?_r=1
Trial begins on NJ touch-screen voting machines -- Newsday.com
Serious Error in Diebold Voting Software Caused Lost Ballots in California County -- Update | Threat Level from Wired.com
Hack-a-vote: Students Learn How Vulnerable Electronic Voting Really Is
FOXNews.com - Touchscreen Hack Effort Called 'Monkey Business' - You Decide 2004
The Sci Fi Channel warns of voting machine hacking - Oct. 27, 2008
RAND Review | Summer 2008 | Issues over the Horizon: The Day After
VerifiedVoting.org*:*Index

it's not "nifty" of you at all to use the Fairness Doctrine, Vicchio. in fact it's a rather pathetic joke.

a handful of Democrats are on the record as saying they'd like to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. a handful. where does that leave the other 300 or so Democrats in congress on the matter? you have absolutely no idea.

In the 110th Congress (January 2007 to January 2009), where Democrats held a majority of both Houses, no legislation to restore the Fairness Doctrine was introduced.

let me repeat that.

In the 110th Congress (January 2007 to January 2009), where Democrats held a majority of both Houses, no legislation to restore the Fairness Doctrine was introduced.

what's that? you say, it's because Bush was POTUS?

Obama Does Not Support Return of Fairness Doctrine - 2008-10-25 16:25:00 - Broadcasting & Cable

you don't quote Obama. you quote Bill Clinton. (psssst. he is no longer the president.)

the argument you make against Liberalism is to pin a single issue on it. and you talk about that issue, rather than what Liberalism is. this is what is known as a straw man argument.

the dropping of the Fairness Doctrine gave rise to Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh blew wind into the sails of two colossal failures: the "Contract with America," and candidate Bush.

Liberalism has never had so much help! Liberals and Progressives would be crazy to want to bring back the FD.

you're kidding yourself if you think only the Liberal answer is government. Republicans and Democrats want to use the government for different things. if you think only Liberals use government, you're nuts.

TacticalEvilDan said:

Unfortunately, the words "I can not" are rather central to a definition or explanation of a liberty or freedom which has been lost. Freedom, to a law-abiding citizen in a society of law, is inherantly the ability to say "I can."

Regardless, I'll go with my favorite example, free elections.

[...]

Click to expand...

Bueler? Bueler?

TacticalEvilDan said:

Here's what I'm curious about:

How many folks here, specifically those of you who are against the Fairness Doctrine, thought that the mushrooming of the government's ability under Bush to toss so many of our other fundamental liberties out the window was okay?

I'm just curious.

Click to expand...

Oh I see, well in that case the Fairness Doctrine is okay now. :roll:

American said:

Oh I see, well in that case the Fairness Doctrine is okay now. :roll:

Click to expand...

Where did you see me say that?

TacticalEvilDan said:

Where did you see me say that?

Click to expand...

Well isn't that what you're implying. It was okay to do this, so why isn't it okay to do that?

American said:

Well isn't that what you're implying. It was okay to do this, so why isn't it okay to do that?

Click to expand...

I'm doing the exact opposite -- asking why this isn't okay, when the loudest opponents of the FD haven't had much to say about Bush's many forays into wiping his backside with the Constitution.

TacticalEvilDan said:

I'm doing the exact opposite -- asking why this isn't okay, when the loudest opponents of the FD haven't had much to say about Bush's many forays into wiping his backside with the Constitution.

Click to expand...

How many folks here, specifically those of you who are against the Fairness Doctrine, thought that the mushrooming of the government's ability under Bush to toss so many of our other fundamental liberties out the window was okay?

Click to expand...

Okay who do you think thought this was okay? There's also a presumption of lost liberties, but I'll wait for your post.

American said:

Okay who do you think thought this was okay? There's also a presumption of lost liberties, but I'll wait for your post.

Click to expand...

Oh, brother.

Did you notice the question I asked?

The one you just quoted?

I suspect that there are certain individuals who fit my description, but instead of making accusations I asked for them to show themselves.

Nobody's owned up yet, instead MrViccio asked me for a personal liberty I lost during Bush's Presidency, and I provided a fairly solid example.

from today

White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine -- a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
"As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.

Click to expand...