Here’s the vote summary.
Notice that all the people voting in favor of the Fairness Doctrine were Democrats. Not one single Republican voted for it.
Gotta love liberals. Always wanting to tell you what you can and cannot watch on tv or listen to on the radio.
Important test vote?
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Could be, and if so I like what I see.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
FD will never be imposed. It’s quite a bit like the rumors of Bush starting the draft: it’s totally unrealistic, and only designed to rile the base up. Good to see you’re playing your parts.
Then why is your party pushing it, jpe?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
jpe - FD will never be imposed. It’s quite a bit like the rumors of Bush starting the draft: it’s totally unrealistic, and only designed to rile the base up.
Wrong. The Democrats have been making noise about reenacting the “Fairness Doctrine”. A not insubstantial half of the House Democrats have voted against a law that would barred the practice.
It was also the Democrats who were making up rumors of Bush starting the draft. Contrary to the “Fairness Doctrine”, this one was a political rumor.
Good to see you’re playing your parts.
You don’t get it. You see a play where there is no play and you glibly write off the play where the feds are talking about restricting speech (which ends up chilling speech without any laws).
I think we’re supposed to pretend they don’t want it so that they can blindside us with it sometime.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Oh, jpe, what is the name of the Congress member who is pushing for a renewal of the draft? Charles who? Democrat from where?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Rob
Gotta love liberals. Always wanting to tell you what you can and cannot watch on tv or listen to on the radio.
You sure wouldn’t catch a conservative doing that, would you?
For the record, this liberal hopes that everybody can watch what he/she wants to watch.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
You sure wouldn’t catch a conservative doing that, would you?
Because everyone knows that an organization of individuals dedicated to pointing out instances of bias in powerful media organizations to any and all who would listen is just the same as a group of politicians from a certain political party trying to pass laws that appoint a small group of people to decide what’s fair and unfair for people to talk about and investing them with the power to revoke licences that enable citizens to broadcast their message. Inept!
Nice try Mike. Mediasearch does not have the force of law to stop or compel anyone to watch anything. The Democrat Party, on that other hand, wants to empower law enforcement to force their idea of “fairness” upon everyone who does not agree with them.
See that little difference?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Gentlemen...give me a little credit as I’m not saying that advocacy groups and political parties are the same thing. Sheesh.
What I am saying is how ridiculous it is to criticise liberals for wanting to decide what we watch when conservatives plainly do the same thing, as in the obvious case of Mr. Bozell. In fact, although I didn’t address it earlier, I would go so far as to say that not all liberals nor all conservatives want to control what you and I watch. Pretty daring of me to hold such an outlandish view I know but Bozell appears closer to Fairness Doctrine types than he does to open minded sorts like yourselves which leads me to believe that this issue isn’t a liberal/conservative thing.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
Mr Bozell does not have the power of Government force. The Democrat Party does.
Conservatives want people to chose not to watch or listen to certain ideologies, Democrats/Leftists want to force people not to watch or listen to certain ideologies. That is the difference. Choice. Force.
Democrats/Leftists desire to use force.
Conservatives/Centrists desire to expand choice.
Get it?
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
Mike,
Perhaps an analogy would help. It is one thing to criticize those who swear in public like drunken, f**king sailors. It is quite another to advocate for a government policy that establishes legal sanctions such as fines or jail terms for those who do so.
It is the Left’s rush to legal compulsion that is offensive, not just the silly notion that they should have the field all to themselves with no ideological competition.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
I’m really surprised how this conversation is going.
Pointing out bias is the right thing to do. You also have the opportunity to give the other side of the story while you do so. The public at that point has the ability to decide who’s right.
Restricting their right to say what they want is the wrong way to go.
Those two options are diametrically opposed and cannot be honestly confused.
What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity? I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.
Did you know that Canadians have to wait more than 19 years for a head transplant?
Funny! I’d heard Canadians gave head all the time! You wouldn’t think there’d be a shortage!
(It’s just a joke! Some of my best friends are Canandian!)
A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate. Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts. Heh. (From the LGF faq)
Proof, are you suggesting the Canadians are ahead of all others then?
2H9
Mr Bozell does not have the power of Government force. The Democrat Party does.
I’ve said that I understand the difference already.
Conservatives want people to chose not to watch or listen to certain ideologies, Democrats/Leftists want to force people not to watch or listen to certain ideologies. That is the difference. Choice. Force.
If Mr. Bozell’s letter writing campaigns were aimed at changing the public’s mind then I’d agree but I consider the goal of a letter writing campaign to the FCC an attempt to influence FCC policy. Wouldn’t you agree? Nothing wrong with citizens trying to influence and change public policy of course except that Mr. Bozell’s campaigns are aimed at removing programs that he and his group find objectionable...he doesn’t think that individual Americans should make the choice to watch or not watch but would rather make that choice for you on your behalf.
I know that Mr. Bozell doesn’t have the power to make the policy and that Democratic governments do and I know that he has the right to try to change policies with which he disagrees. My point is that Mr. Bozell is not a liberal but a conservative and he wants a say in deciding what programs are available to Americans...I’m not supportive of what Kerry proposes either but to say that limiting choice is a strictly liberal trait is not true especially when my example clearly demonstrates that conservatives can have the same agenda
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
Bat One...I don’t disagree with what you are saying but the point you are making is not a response to the point I’m making. Mr. Bozell wants to eliminate the right of individuals to choose what they watch and he’s not a liberal. I’m not sure why I’m getting grief for this to be honest with you.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
I think you guys are misunderstanding something…
Doesn’t the Fairness Doctrine mean that we create a governmentally funded conservative radio station to counter NPR?
And wouldn’t fair also mean that we would be able to convert 1/2 of network television like CBS and NBC to conservative networks to be fair to both sides? How about giving us the New York Time to counter the Washington Post and the inbalance of other liberal print media? Should I stop there, or is it possible to regulate the blogosphere too?
10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .
Mike,
I understand your point… and your frustration. You are, however, imputing too much equivalence here. Bozell is most certainly a conservative, and a prominent one. But as I understand his position, he advocates for decency (as he defines it, to be sure), limits on the language used to present ideas, and not necessarily on the ideas themselves.
What Congressional Democrats are proposing is just the opposite. They wish to limit the ideology that is publicly available. And of course there is no indication that Democrats are remotely concerned with the decency of the presentation. Heaven forbid that a Democrat should object if some critic should get over exuberant in blasting Bush, Cheney and Karl Rove for their Motherf**in’ war.
Finally, let me point out that the criticism here has been aimed at an announced policy objective of Congressional Democrats, both in the House and in the Senate. You, on the other hand have taken the stated position of Mr. Bozelle, and expanded it to include “conservatives” in general, which is hardly proper to this argument, is it? Its a neat rhetorical trick, particularly when an individual is as prominent as Bozelle. But his public prominence is no more or less than that of the head of any leftwing advocacy group such as PAW, ANSWER, or NOW.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Will,
If the so-called “fairness doctrine” was to become law, conservatives would have to insist on reparations based on all those years of taxpayer funded PBS and NPR. Just think how much 30 years of Bill Moyers alone would be worth in recompense.
“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”
Inept,
Which “letter writing campaigns” initiated by Brent Bozell set out “to eliminate the right of individuals to choose what they watch”? Cite!
will,
The FD would invest whoever holds the lion’s share of power in government at any given time with such decisions (think court appointments). They are certainly under no obligation to halve Democrat friendly media on behalf of Republicans. Hell, they (the media outlets you referenced) refuse to admit their political bias choosing instead to claim “objectivity”.
They are certainly under no obligation to halve Democrat friendly media on behalf of Republicans.
Osama, brother, seriously I was joking. I have no illusions such a thing could ever, ever, happen. 
This is the one sided-ness the democrats are famous for.
Just think how much 30 years of Bill Moyers alone would be worth in recompense.
lol
10-12-07
NARAL’s (abortion) political director Elizabeth Shipp acknowledged it “would help” the pro-choice movement if a Republican proved it was possible to win the presidency while still supporting abortion rights (ie… Rudy Giuliani) .
Bat One
Finally, let me point out that the criticism here has been aimed at an announced policy objective of Congressional Democrats, both in the House and in the Senate. You, on the other hand have taken the stated position of Mr. Bozelle, and expanded it to include “conservatives” in general, which is hardly proper to this argument, is it?
I was actually responding to Rob’s final sentence in his post. I certainly agree that lumping all conservatives into a homogeneous and like minded group would be as silly as lumping all liberals together in a similar manner...which is why I commented on this thread and is also one of my continuing themes generally.
OO...grow up.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
I certainly agree that lumping all conservatives into a homogeneous and like minded group would be as silly as lumping all liberals together in a similar manner…
You are mistaken in your attempt to make an equivalence here. Conservatives support individual independence, while lefties are collectivists. See the difference.
It is especially egregious to try to lump Conservatives together, but lefties are famous for their intolerance for diversity amongst their own; Joe Lieberman comes to mind, along with Zell Miller.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
I asked:
Which “letter writing campaigns” initiated by Brent Bozell set out “to eliminate the right of individuals to choose what they watch”? Cite!
Inept’s response:
OO...grow up.
Who’s the child? Without a cite a) you’re initial (idiotic) comparison of Fairness Doctrine promoting Democrats and Media Bias hilighting Republicans is...ahem...INEPT! b) without a cite, it’s fair to say that you were simply making things up in an attempt to bolster your previous failed comparison.
I’ll give you credit for mouthing the “I hope everyone can watch what they want to” platitude, BUT drawing a ludicrous comparison bewteen the MRC and attempts to bring back the fairness doctrine undermines said platitude. Couldn’t you just condemn your totalitarian minded ideological kin without slathering a failed attempt at “you do it too” on it?
r108
You are mistaken in your attempt to make an equivalence here. Conservatives support individual independence, while lefties are collectivists. See the difference.
Should I infer from this that you disagree with my identification of Mr. Bozell as a conservative? If I shouldn’t then I don’t understand your comment.
OO...sorry for my abrupt response. Your congenial and very thoughtful comments certainly deserved a better reply than I provided. According to Mediaweek, there were some 14,000 indecency complaints made to the FCC in 2002 and more than 240.000 indecency complaints made in 2003. According to a FCC estimate, 99.8% of the complaints received in 2003 originated from Mr. Bozell’s Parents Television Council.
I’m not familiar with the MRC so I’ll have to deny drawing any comparison between it and proponents of the Fairness Doctrine, ludicrous or otherwise. I can honestly plead guilty only to offering Bozell as an example of a well known conservative who would not leave the choice of what program to watch to the individual viewer if he had his druthers.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
Should I infer from this that you disagree with my identification of Mr. Bozell as a conservative? If I shouldn’t then I don’t understand your comment.
You can infer anything you like, Mike, but you would be wrong to infer that I implied anything of the kind. I merely said that you incorrectly made an equivalence between collectivists and an individual expressing his opinion. Understand?
Hint: The aforesaid “collectivists” are the lefties, and the “individualist” is Mr. Bozell. Clear?
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
r108...clear as mud. You seem to be saying that that we can lump all liberals together while we can’t lump all conservatives together. This seems too nonsensical to be believed so obviously I’m missing your point.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
r108...clear as mud. You seem to be saying that that we can lump all liberals together while we can’t lump all conservatives together. This seems too nonsensical to be believed so obviously I’m missing your point.
When discussing collectivists, it’s appropriate to lump them all together, because they are collectivists.
Mr Bozell was speaking for himself, and Conservatives tend to act on principle, so even if they happen to share a certain principle at a certain time, they aren’t in lockstep about everything all the time; otherwise they would be collectivists. Maybe you just don’t want to understand. There is a fundamental difference between Conservatives and collectivists, so trying to make an equivalence is not accurate. I don’t know why this simple concept is so difficult for you to grasp. It’s not “nonsensical”; it’s the essence of the difference between the two camps.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Mr Bozell was speaking for himself, and Conservatives tend to act on principle, so even if they happen to share a certain principle at a certain time, they aren’t in lockstep about everything all the time; otherwise they would be collectivists.
I don’t think you know what “collectivists” means which explains why I didn’t understand your point. The notion that “liberals” equals “collectivists” is laughable enough but if you’re saying that all liberals think in lockstep while all conservatives think individually then there’s no point in discussion between us. I enjoy debating issues and viewpoints but this latest contention of your’s has left me speechless. Good night.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
The notion that “liberals” equals “collectivists” is laughable enough…
I have no idea what you find funny, but that statement is true for the most part. Glad you finally got it.
I already gave two examples: Joe Lieberman, who was “purged” from the CT Dem primary because he differed on one issue from his collectivist brethren, and Zell Miller who was reviled for thinking for himself on some issues. The Dems act as if Zell no longer exists. This is typical collectivist(hive) behavior.
In addition, I made no statement that “all” of any group always does the same thing, only that it’s generally true. Your equivalence still doesn’t hold water. I find your endless nitpicking about a simple concept to be somewhat dismaying.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
MikeAdamson - The notion that “liberals” equals “collectivists” is laughable enough
I don’t know how you can find that laughable. It’s true.
The liberals aren’t liberal anymore Mike. They are big government, redistributionist, high tax loving collectivists.
Government knows best! Let them handle your retirement, health care and education. Remember: we must have high taxes so that we can redistribute wealth for the “common good”. If that isn’t collectivism, then I don’t know what is.
OO...sorry for my abrupt response.
It’s understandable given weakness of your argument.
Your congenial and very thoughtful comments certainly deserved a better reply than I provided.
Don’t yank your arm out of socket patting yourself on the back there, inept. The tone of my post is irrelevant.
According to Mediaweek, there were some 14,000 indecency complaints made to the FCC in 2002 and more than 240.000 indecency complaints made in 2003. According to a FCC estimate, 99.8% of the complaints received in 2003 originated from Mr. Bozell’s Parents Television Council.
Just so we’re clear here, you are comparing the expressed concerns of individual citizen parents who were informed of and encouraged to complain about the exposure of their children to indecent material being the same as one political organization in a constant power struggle with another political organization attempting to legislate into being an appointed body invested with the power to control what can be and can not be broadcast by individual citizens according to what they determine is and is not “fair” politically as being just the same thing? Right? Coordinated complaints are just the same as attempts to legally restrict free expression.
I’m not familiar with the MRC so I’ll have to deny drawing any comparison between it and proponents of the Fairness Doctrine, ludicrous or otherwise.
Brent Bozell, Media Research Center, you linked to them. And that’s exactly what you did.
I can honestly plead guilty only to offering Bozell as an example of a well known conservative who would not leave the choice of what program to watch to the individual viewer if he had his druthers.
Really? You’re the authority on Bozell’s “druthers”? He advocates using force of law to limit “choice of what program” people can watch? Or is that he feels some words and images are not meant for consumption by children and encourages like minded people to express dissatisfaction with those responsible for such exposures? Oh no! Lovers of freedom and democracy quake in fear, Bozell thinks exposing Janet Jackson’s breast on ABC during a major televized sporting event is inappropriate and he had the audacity to encourage others who agreed with him to write letters and make phone calls! NOOOOO! I hear the next thing he’s targeting is shouting “FIRE!” in crowded theaters and using bad language before 10:00 PM on cable! Will our democracy survive!? Nevermind that an extremely popular radio station in Florida is denied a government contract because it broadcasts the Rush Limbaugh show. Nevermind that tax dollars get shoveled toward left-wing National Public Radio or left-wing PBS television. Brent Bozell is worried about kids seeing boobies!!!! The horror!
likwid: Good points! Let me add a few; they want to tell us what kind of cars we can buy and drive, how much “carbon” we can emit, how much gasoline we can buy, and how much it “should” cost. How much more collectivist could they be?
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
MikeA: I would love to debate you on this topic, and have given both a logical argument and examples. You have not replied in kind, but have only used personal insult and have been dismissive, without any logical structure or facts. That’s not debate. For starters, you might make a case that the Dems aren’t being collectivist when they try to socialize talk radio.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
OhOh, I had meant to make those very points yesterday when I got home, other things intervened.
Bozell’s group advocates for reining in profanity,violence, and sexual content in TV shows directed at children/young adults(a job their parents should be doing), not the squelching of political/ideological content. Mike refuses to acknowledge this minor point because it undermines his premise that all conservatives support silencing political debate. That being his overarching theme.
Mike, when you advocate/support taking money/property from one individual and distributing it to others, that is collectivism, a primary component of Socialism/Communism. Then again, you are already fully cognizant of those facts.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
2H9
Mike, when you advocate/support taking money/property from one individual and distributing it to others, that is collectivism, a primary component of Socialism/Communism.
So because the Republicans haven’t eliminated taxes in America then they are collectivists as well....from Marx to Lenin to Mao to Bush. Too funny.
r108...I have no interest in discussing this issue with you because you have determined that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong and that the actual issue or act has no relevance to an assessment but rather only the political tag matters. It’s not possible to compare positions because that is a false equivalence in your mind. You’ve left no room for any measure except for those measures you decide are relevant to your liberal/conservative scheme. You complain of my nitpicking and not offering substance and then you declare my Bozell example invalid because he is a conservative, conservatives value individual choice and thus Bozell supports the ability of every American to watch what he wants so long as Bozell approves of the content.
I’m sorry but that’s just nuts.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
OO
Just so we’re clear here, you are comparing the expressed concerns of individual citizen parents who were informed of and encouraged to complain about the exposure of their children to indecent material being the same as one political organization in a constant power struggle with another political organization attempting to legislate into being an appointed body invested with the power to control what can be and can not be broadcast by individual citizens according to what they determine is and is not “fair” politically as being just the same thing? Right? Coordinated complaints are just the same as attempts to legally restrict free expression.
Of course that’s not right. What I’m comparing is the interest of so called liberals to determine what can and can not be watched with the interest of a so called conservative to determine what can and can not be watched. Read my first comment on this thread...it’s pretty obvious what my point is.
Brent Bozell, Media Research Center, you linked to them. And that’s exactly what you did.
What I did was link to a Mediaweek article posted on the Parents Television Council website. Click through and check if you don’t believe me.
Really? You’re the authority on Bozell’s “druthers”? He advocates using force of law to limit “choice of what program” people can watch? Blah blah blah…
Maybe you should find somebody who is actually suggesting that rather than trying to argue the point with me. In fact, maybe you should argue the point with somebody who thinks that the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea instead of arguing with somebody who believes that both liberals and conservatives are quite capable of attempting to impose their agenda on the rest of us...and you still really should grow up.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
lik...I missed your comment above. If taxation is taking money from some to distribute to others then that seems to fit your definition of collectivism. This is fair enough although there aren’t many people advocating the elimination of the payment of any taxes today...perhaps you find the Republicans less collectivist than the Democrats?
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
r108...I have no interest in discussing this issue with you because you have determined that conservatives are right and liberals are wrong and
that the actual issue or act has no relevance to an assessment but rather only the political tag matters. So, this is your excuse for not giving any facts or logic to support your position? Pretty weak, buddy. You blame me for your inability to debate your position. Very funny. It’s not possible to compare positions A misstatement on your part. My comparison of positions doesn’t involve claiming that the two sides are equivalent, because they are not. I have given both logical and factual support to my position, and all you have is personal attack. because that is a false equivalence in your mind. You’ve left no room for any measure except for those measures you decide are relevant to your liberal/conservative scheme. No I haven’t. I made my argument, now make yours, if you can abstain from your excuses long enough to formulate a logical/factual argument for your position. I’m still waiting. You complain of my nitpicking I simply pointed it out, as an example of your not responding to my arguments. and not offering substance and then you declare my Bozell example invalid I didn’t say it was invalid, I just didn’t agree with you about that. Can I disagree with you without getting you so upset? because he is a conservative, conservatives value individual choice and thus Bozell supports the ability of every American to watch what he wants so long as Bozell approves of the content. As someone else has already pointed out, the Dems have legislative power to impose their view on us, and Bozell does not. Big difference.I’m sorry but that’s just nuts. Another personal attack. Do you have a logical/factual argument, or are you limited to lame attempts to insult me?
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
perhaps you find the Republicans less collectivist than the Democrats?
Actually, yes, but that isn’t the subject here. When taxes are assessed for legitimate expenses of govt(national defense, infrastructure support, public services demanded by the doing of business), it isn’t redistributionist spending. When the govt sets out to ensure “fairness” or to “level the playing field” by taking from the achievers and giving to the non-achievers, that is entirely different. In fact, the line between the two is not entirely well-defined, which has led to the excess govt spending of the present day. It’s still collectivist, no matter who does it.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
R108, that is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe government is meant to serve and protect businesses as you stated:
government exists for the citizens not businesses. But again, your rightie philosophy only supports a government that supports business and not its citizens (save for security). typical right wing conservative claptrap.“public services demanded by the doing of business”
R108, that is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe government is meant to serve and protect businesses as you stated:
“publicYou could have asked me what I meant by that, but no. I’m referring to streets, signage, public utility hookups, and the like. government exists for the citizens not businesses. But again, your rightie philosophy
services demanded by the doing of business”
only supports a government that supports business and not its citizens (save for security). typical right wing conservative claptrap.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Let’s try again:
R108, that is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe government ismeant to serve and protect businesses as you stated:
“publicYou could have asked me what I meant by that, but no. I’m referring to streets, signage, public utility hookups, and the like. government exists for the citizens not businesses. People who own and run businesses(and employ your unionized workers) are citizens. But again, your rightie philosophy only supports a government that supports business and not its citizens They are not separate, unlike what your Marxist ideology dictates.(save for security). typical right wing conservative claptrap. Unless you think the Constitution of the United States is a “right-wing” document, you are wrong, as usual. Don’t mess with ideas you don’t understand.
services demanded by the doing of business”
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
As someone else has already pointed out, the Dems have legislative power to impose their view on us, and Bozell does not. Big difference.
Who cares? If I had suggested that the two were the same then your point about there being a difference would make sense but I haven’t so it doesn’t and that leaves us nothing to talk about in terms of Rob’s post and my comment on it. Clear?
As soon as you want to address the willingness of a specific conservative to impose his agenda on the viewing public and how the examples of a conservative (Bozell) and a liberal (me) provide evidence that the issue of personal choice as it applies to watching television may not be neatly compartmentalised on your liberal/conservative scheme as you and others wish to think. Failing that, we can banter back and forth on other topics so long as the spirit moves us.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
MikeA: Bozell is exercising his free speech right to express his opinion. The Dems want to restrict the free speech rights of conservative talk radio. There is no equivalence, which has been my point all along. Couple that with the fact that Bozell has no power to impose his standards on anyone else(your words), but the congressional Dems do have that power, further erodes your position that there is any similarity between the two.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
P: I want to commend you on slipping a few logical/factual comments into your usual personal attack screed against me. Try some more of that.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Maybe you can point out to me in the Constitution where it says a corporation is a citizen. They are not the same as citizens.
Without citizens there are no corporations.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
MikeA: Your original comment on this subject:
What I am saying is how ridiculous it is to criticise liberals for wanting to decide what we watch when conservatives plainly do the same thing, as in the obvious case of Mr. Bozell.
“do the same thing” sure sounds like a claim of equivalence to me. And, you specifically named Mr Bozell. Thus, my argument that the congressional Dems have legislative power that Mr Bozell lacks is definitely a refutation of your assertion that they “do the same thing”. Opinion is not the same thing as legislation at the Federal level, is it?
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Guttermouth, and your point is....
Your welcome, r108. My my you can get so whiny sometimes.
Bozell is exercising his free speech right to express his opinion. The Dems want to restrict the free speech rights of conservative talk radio. There is no equivalence, which has been my point all along.
Agreed.
Couple that with the fact that Bozell has no power to impose his standards on anyone else(your words), but the congressional Dems do have that power,
Agreed.
further erodes your position that there is any similarity between the two.
If I argued that the Democrats can impose the Fairness Doctrine because Bozell wants to determine what the public watches then I would have a weak position. If I argued that the Democrats and Bozell have the same ability to regulate or determine what is watched then I would have a weak position.
If I responded to the statement that liberals want to tell you what to watch with an example of a conservative who wants to tell you what to watch then some doubt might be cast on the proposition that some Senators want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine because that is a “liberal” position or its something that “liberals” would like to do while “conservatives” wouldn’t then I think I’d have a legitimate argument. It’s not an earth shaking point on my part and I admit it does play havoc with some people’s sensibilities.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
Maybe you can point out to me in the Constitution where it says a corporation is a citizen. They are not the same as citizens.
Glad you asked. In the first place, I said “businesses”, which you have apparently morphed into “corporations”. All corporations are businesses, but not all businesses are corporations.
In the second place, the word “corporation” is derived from the Latin corpore, meaning “body”. By Federal definition, a corporation is, in certain respects, a person.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
If I responded to the statement that liberals want to tell you what to watch with an example of a conservative who wants to tell you what to watch…
The congressional Dems want to legislate their doctrine, and Bozell is expressing his opinion. Big difference. He has the right to say what he thinks kids should watch on TV, but you don’t have to listen to what he says. With the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, we would have no such choice. Therein lies the difference. And you did say they were the same thing, so you are wrong.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Guttermouth, and your point is....
Corporations represent people? People who are, in fact, citizens?
I know the common liberal tactic is to attack corporations instead of business people because it’s easy to see a corporation as something inhuman, but given how many people corporations employ, and how many people are invested in them, that little left-wing tactic is becoming less and less effective.
It may have worked back when only 10% of the population had money invested in stocks, but now that 80% do when you rail about “corporate greed” you’re basically bitching about money some 80% of Americans are raking in.
The bottom line on the fairness doctrine is this: Broadcast stations should only have to put on the programming they believe the public wants. And given that these stations only make money if they give the public what they want, they will do that.
The government has no right to step in to tell some AM station what talkers it has to have on the air any more than it has a right to tell a business what products it must put on the shelves.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Here’s Puzzled’s original post on citizens and businesses:
government exists for the citizens not businesses. But again, your rightie philosophy only supports a government that supports business and not its citizens (save for security). typical right wing conservative claptrap.
I find it hilariously telling that she doesn’t get that businesses are just organizations owned by citizens. So yes, businesses do have rights because the people that own them have rights.
My goodness, it’s almost like Puzzle didn’t even take a civics or economics course in her life.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
The government has no right to step in to tell some AM station what talkers it has to have on the air any more than it has a right to tell a business what products it must put on the shelves.
Of course, that’s exactly what the collectivists want to do; it’s “for our own good”, of course, or “for the public good”, so they think we should be grateful they want to micromanage our lives. Lightbulbs, trans fats, etc, etc.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
r108
“do the same thing” sure sounds like a claim of equivalence to me.
It does to me as well.
Thus, my argument that the congressional Dems have legislative power that Mr Bozell lacks is definitely a refutation of your assertion that they “do the same thing”.
Since I’ve agreed several times that Congress can regulate what people watch while Bozell can not then perhaps you should look past that strawman argument, focus on what I have said and determine who is doing the same thing and what the same thing is.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
You sure wouldn’t catch a conservative doing that, would you?
For the record, this liberal hopes that everybody can watch what he/she wants to watch.
Mike, there’s a difference between a citizen using his/her free speech to influence the view/listening habits of others and a legislator using the power of government to do the same.
One allows us a choice. The other doesn’t.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
Thanks Rob, r108. I got 9 threads from 5 blogs going and things are getting a bit chaotic.
Mike, taxes for those purposes set forth by the Constitution are not collectivism, and Bozell does not have the force of government at his disposal. The Democrat Party does. You still have not grasped that very basic concept.
Una Salus Victus Nullam Sperare Salutem
MikeA: I quoted you, so the strawman is yours(if it’s really a “strawman”; it seems to be the crux of the argument to me). I welcome an explanation of what you meant by “do the same thing”, btw.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
And you did say they were the same thing, so you are wrong.
I didn’t and I’m not. The actual position I’ve advanced could be wrong although the only rebuttal you’ve provided is that liberals are collectivists while conservatives aren’t.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
Mike, there’s a difference between a citizen using his/her free speech to influence the view/listening habits of others and a legislator using the power of government to do the same.
One allows us a choice. The other doesn’t.
I agree of course but is there a difference between the idea that the public should be sheltered from material that the PTC finds offensive and the idea that the public should be exposed to exactly equal amounts of competing political viewpoints? If the bottom line issues are the individual’s right to choose what he watches and the right of radio stations to offer programming that the market demands then what is the difference in the intent between FD types and Bozell types?
I don’t see a fundamental difference.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
r108...read what I have written and it should be clear.
No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear
*Edmund Burke*
If the bottom line issues are the individual’s right to choose what he watches and the right of radio
stations to offer programming that the market demands then what is the difference in the intent between FD types and Bozell types?
The bottom line is the difference between suggestion(Bozell) and coercion(Fairness Doctrine). Many of us have repeated this over and over in a number of ways, and you don’t seem to get it, Mike. The bottom line is free speech(Bozell) and federally restricted speech(Fairness Doctrine). I think I know the part that hangs you up; Bozell is advocating personal restraint, which registers with you as coercion, which it isn’t. The Fairness Doctrine is coercion, pure and simple. Under our Constitution, Bozell(or anyone else) is free to advocate any standards he chooses, but has no right to compel others to either listen or comply. Not so with the federal govt. Bozell can’t fine you or imprison you for not following his standards; the feds will do both to those who don’t comply. That is the fundamental difference. Free speech in this country is primarily for the purpose of protecting unplesant or controversial speech, btw. You don’t like what Bozell is advocating, so you don’t have to either listen to it or follow it. Bozell can’t do anything to you if you ignore him. Not so with the feds.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
r108...read what I have written and it should be clear.
What is clear to me in reading what you have written is that you don’t see the danger in the “Fairness Doctrine” because lefties could use it to silence Bozell, and other conservatives, from expressing what they think. So sad.
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
I agree of course but is there a difference between the idea that the public should be sheltered from material that the PTC finds offensive and the idea that the public should be exposed to exactly equal amounts of competing political viewpoints?
Fair point about the PTC, who do lobby the government on decency standards. Clearly, if the FCC has no business instituting the Fairness Doctrine they have no business applying decency standards either.
I’m jumping in late on this thread, so that’s why I maybe wasn’t grasping your point.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
-- Thomas Jefferson
Rob’s recently listened-to songs:
...the only rebuttal you’ve provided is that liberals are collectivists while conservatives aren’t.
No, it isn’t. I have advance a number of logical/factual arguments against your position, and all you offer is dismissive denial and avoidance. Misstating the totality of what I have written on the subject is not an argument. Besides the statement you mention was a general one, not an absolute one. I’m sure there are lefties who are somewhat less collectivist than others, and some conservatives who might be slightly collectivist, especially when they have been drinking…
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
That should be: “I have advanced...”
If you don’t know by now, don’t mess with it.
Rob writes:
....... andCorporations represent people? People who are, in fact, citizens?
So yes, businesses do have rights because the people that own them have
