Proof, are you suggesting the Canadians are ahead of all others then?

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).

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.

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.

I think we’re supposed to pretend they don’t want it so that they can blindside us with it sometime.

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?

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?

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.

Oh, jpe, what is the name of the Congress member who is pushing for a renewal of the draft? Charles who? Democrat from where?

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

r108…read what I have written and it should be clear.

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.

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.

R108, that is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe government is meant to serve and protect businesses as you stated:

“public services demanded by the doing of business”

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.

That should be: “I have advanced…”

Guttermouth, and your point is….

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.

…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…

Rob writes:

It’s a little sickening that you’d think the only people in America with rights are the people who work for business owners. Not the business owners themselves.

Never said that Rob, but let me try it this way. I am a stockholder and a citizen. However, my citizenship is not dependent upon my status as a stockholder and as a stockholder my rights as a stockholder are not dependent on my status as a citizen. My rights as a stockholder are defined by the laws of the state in which the corporation was incorporated and federal law. The two are separate identities although I can be a stockholder and a citizen.

But I know this is too difficult for you and Guttermouth to understand.

If that was the extent of your mischief then I wouldn’t have bothered putting up said volume. So, disagreeing with you is “mischief”? How snotty and dismissive of you. However, if you honestly don’t see the goal of Bozell’s letter writing campaigns as attempts to remove programming of which he doesn’t approve thus denying the ability to choose He can’t force anyone to make the choices he advocates; that’s the difference, and it is a profound one. Sorry you can’t see this obvious fact. from the individual viewer then we can agree to disagree. You are welcome to focus in on the nature of the tactic used to limit the choice in the cases of FD advocates and the anti-decency advocates but I am more interested in the fundamental positions common to both groups…that the people and the markets can not be trusted to make their own decisions. Bozell’s position is that, as a citizen activist, he has the right to express his opinion on those matters, and further, to gather support for that position from the rest of the pubic. I suspect you are uncomfortable with conservatives becoming activists, but it is our right in this country to do that. The FD, on the other hand, is fundamenatlly different, in that the heavy hand of govt is used to enforce the view of the faction that wishes to suppress conservative views. You seem to miss the profound difference between activism and legislation.

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.

Rob writes:

Corporations represent people? People who are, in fact, citizens?

……. and

So yes, businesses do have rights because the people that own them have rights

.

Businesses don’t represent citizens, Rob, that is just laughable. Businesses don’t have rights because the poeple that own them have rights. They have what privilege of operating that the citizens through their government give the business. Get the difference?

Your welcome, r108. My my you can get so whiny sometimes.

Yes, that is exactly what I said, businesses don’t represent citizens. Why is that so hard for you to understand? And yes there are business that are not corporations. My comments are directed toward corporations.

Now if you want to have a debate on the minimum wage,perhaps you should write another screed about it and then we can both say the exact same things we have already said about the minimum wage. You don’t like it, I do.

Business owners have rights given to them under state or federal law that apply to business. But their rights as citizens derive from the Constitution. I don’t believe that I read in the U.S. Consititution that Businesses have the same rights as citizens because they don’t.

And yet, the government can take her house. With no more justification than increasing the local tax revenues.

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.

No, you just pointed toward Bozell’s efforts to encourage others to express their opinion as being the same as elected Democrats using the power of government to enforce what they see as politcal “fairness” on talk radio. And you’ve been shown why that was an inane comparison.

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.

That is one of the differences that undermines your comparison.

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

You’ve provided exactly ZERO expamples of conservatives are

telling you what to watch

, inept.

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

Again, you’ve yet to provide such an example. Also, “some Senators” – HA!! You can’t even bring yourself to say it. DEMOCRATS!! DEMOCRATS want to bring back their precious Fairness doctrine. Call them “liberal” or call them “leftist”, they are the advocates of that particular course of action! Only an example of a “conservative” advocating bringing back the Fairness Doctrine would cast doubt on the statement that the left wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, BECAUSE IT’S A FACT!

then I think I’d have a legitimate argument.

It’s pretty clear you misfire on at least a few cylinders.

It’s not an earth shaking point on my part

No, but then it’s not a “point” at all. It’s idiocy.

and I admit it does play havoc with some people’s sensibilities.

I hope someone can help you slip your shoulder back into socket. Such stupidity plays havoc with fact, logic, validity, similiarity, the act of making a comparison. If only “some people” (in other words NOT YOU) take issue with such horse crap, they’re simply excerizing good judgement.

I agree of course but

You don’t agree. You don’t even grasp the subject matter at hand. As is demonstrated thusly:

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?

Misrepresentation. Bozell’s “idea” is that he as a citizen should encourage other citizens to express dissatisfaction. It isn’t “the public” they wish to shelter, but as a PARENT group, they seek to shelter chidren. On the other hand, it is exactly “the public” whom Democrats wish to control the free expression of by power of government.

If the bottom line issues are the individual’s right to choose what he watches

Who’s infringing up said “right”? No one. Bozell and those he’s encouraged expression from have sought restraint in regard to foul language, nudity, and inappropriate sexual content available to children.

and the right of radio stations to offer programming that the market demands

Probably the most accurate string of words you’ve laced together yet in this topic.

then what is the difference in the intent between FD types and Bozell types?

One seeks citizen action to expression of grievances, the other seeks to silence the free expression of citizens via the power of government.

I don’t see a fundamental difference.

That is why you fail.

Man Rob and Whitless are you guys whacked tonight? It is clear that you think business represents citizens in other words, you believe in a corporatocracy where the business decides what’s in the best interests of the citizens.

Most business incorporate in order to protect the citizen owners pure and simple from financial personal liability. For you to equate a business owner (who is also a citizen) as one and the same is absolutely whacked. Citizens are primary in this country and are protected by the Constitution, businesses are not. They are creations of the state. Not so with citizens.

But it is clear that you both can’t see the forest for the trees.

Gee, I’m a union member who both owns stock and property. Sort of shoots your stereotype all to hell,boys.

Crud:

No. Such a comparison….

Should have been:

Yes. Such a comparison….

Because collectively people don’t have rights to own property so collective rights don’t exist, at least according to Puzzled.

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.

Oh!!!!!! So you’re comparison is utterly inane! Like saying tomatos and watermelons are both f***ing fruit! Ask someone in your immediate presence to pat you on the head and say “Good job!”

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.

In this post you linked to this website. Take your time. Click through if you don’t believe me.

I said:

“Really? You’re the authority on Bozell’s “druthers”? He advocates using force of law to limit “choice of what program” people can watch?

I didn’t say:

“Blah blah blah…”

You said:

Maybe you should find somebody who is actually suggesting that rather than trying to argue the point with me.

In order to make a point, you have to have a point. What you’ve offered is inanity. For fun, you said:

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.

Inept – spokesman for the druthers of others. This strikes at the very heart of why your comparison is so bogus. You deny suggesting that Bozell would use the force of law just like elected Democrats are advocating if he “had his druthers” – just that he got parents to complain about stuff they don’t want their kids exposed to.

Just as an aside, do you think maybe a few of those agreeing with Mr. Bozell might consider themselves liberals? Democrats? Left-wingers? Or do they not have kids? Do they all think Janet’s exposed boobie was perfectly acceptable free expression given the medium?

In fact, maybe you should argue the point with somebody who thinks that the Fairness Doctrine is a good idea

I’m arguing with a simp who’s drawing inane comparisons between people and behaviors that really have no bearing on the subject matter presented for debate in the first place. Why, you may ask? Because ****ing with you is making my day!

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…

We are all capable of lots of things. HOWEVER! In this discussion the evidence presented shows only one political party/ideological group seems determined to use the power of government to silence their critics – which is the entire point of this particular topic. It really has nothing to do with the inane comparison you offered up and that I took exception to. Keep up!

and you still really should grow up.

Being able to comprehend complexity comes with maturity for most people, inept. Also, look up “projection”.

OO…is Mr. Bozell trying to persuade the FCC to remove programming from his tv or from everyone’s tv? If you grasp the question and the answer then you can grasp why removing an individual’s right to choose what he watches is not a conservative position. The conservative position is to let people choose what they want to watch.

Whatever “programming” contained foul language, sexual situations, or nudity could likely have edited out any of the above with little if any impact on whatever message the “programming” set out to convey. Is that the equivalent of “removal”? Techinically, yes. Is it inane to compare said “removal” to the stated intentions of elected Democrats to bring back an institution designed as they claim to mandate leftist talk radio at the expense of conservative talk radio? No. Such a comparison would be pure inanity. Yet your original comparison was exactly that inane, and you’ve yet to drag it out of that sludge and into something more reasoned in any subsequent contribution to this discussion. Occassionally, you’ll deny that your comparison encapsulates it’s logical conclusions, but then you make statements that prove you still believe the original premise. And if Bozell is advancing a leftist nanny-state type solution (and I agree that he is, as it appears you do as well), why would you conflate this aspect of his personality with the more conservative whole of his beliefs and intentions? Why didn’t you throw some scare quotes around “conservative”? Maybe snipe that Bozell was acting like a liberal/leftist? Instead, you tried to equate his letter writing campaigns with the left’s desire to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. An utterly inane comparison.

I oppose the Fairness Doctrine and I support Mr. Bozell’s right to advance his viewpoint with the FCC. Some Democratic Senators want to impose the Fairness Doctrine and I hope they fail.

My, that was unequivocal. Impressive.

So let the parents shelter their children but why do they need the State to do it?

That is the course of action I would advocate as well. I notice that you failed to answer my hypothetical questions about left leaning parents joining Bozell in his quest for decency on the public airwaves.

I’m told that we should rely on ourselves and get rid of the nanny State.

What. You don’t believe in self reliance? You’re just “told” you should? Are you actually hedging on that point?

Why don’t parents exercise a little gumption and control on their own?

Some do. Bozell and those who support his cause seem to desire restricted access to material they consider to be inappropriate for children (sexual situations, nudity, foul language), they do NOT desire to restrict the right of an individual to choose to see sexual situations, nudity, or foul language. This is not a “conservative” point of view either as extreme leftist Senator Hillary Clinton advocates restricting childrens’ access to words and images she feels are inappropriate for them. AGAIN. In neither instance is the stated goal to reduce what PARENTS or ADULTS or CITIZENS or THE PUBLIC has access to. It is to reduce easy access to material many parents find unsuitable for their children to be exposed to. Fairness Doctrine enforcement, it ain’t!

Both FD and Bozell’s desire to restrict a viewer’s choice both restrict delivery of the message and so I oppose them both.

FD does restrict choice; Bozell does not. That’s the difference. It’s the difference between a guy knocking on your door and asking you to turn down your music(Bozell), and a guy with a gun knocking on your door and telling you to turn down your music, or else(the FD). You seem to have a problem understanding this profound difference between the two. And, of course, since you persist in saying that Bozell wants to restrict anyone(even though he has no power to do so), you are uncomfortable with his activism. Let’s not split rhetorical hairs here.
It’s the difference between persuasion(Bozell) and coercion(the FD). They are not the same thing.

My logic makes perfect sense with your earlier statement, but if you now have changed your tune, a different conclusion is warrented.

My tune is the same…if you’d bother to read what I have written then you would see that.

You have made numerous statements about Bozell that were negative, so my statement about your being uncomfortable with Bozell’s activism is true, unless you are now OK with what he is doing.

This is where your partisanship lets you down. I have no problem with Bozell and his group writing millions of letters of complaint to the FCC but I don’t agree with his position on what constitutes appropriate programming and thus I oppose him on this issue. You insist on confusing opposition to the message with opposition to the right to bring the message and this tendency is very common among so called “conservatives” in my experience. Both FD and Bozell’s desire to restrict a viewer’s choice both restrict delivery of the message and so I oppose them both.

If Bozell was a liberal then you’d oppose him too.

That is because liberals are wrong and Americans are right. Just like your party, the Democrat Party, is wrong about bowing down to terrorists instead of killing them. Did you go to Yon’s page? Did you look at the results of your parties, the Democrat Party, stupidity? Proud of your party, are you?

MikeA: You see, that’s the problem: I took your statement exactly as you wrote it, and didn’t attempt to make any “interpretation” of it. You said they were the same, and I disagreed. If you really didn’t mean that you think they are the same, why not just say so? Were you trolling?

Why is it you can understand my point while r108 can’t? I understand it quite well, which explains my subsequent comments. More dismissiveness from you. My brief initial comment was made in response to a single sentence in Rob’s post and should be taken as such. Now that you have finally said that, no problem. Virtually all of my subsequent comments should be read as attempted corrections of others’ interpretations of that initial comment. Why didn’t you just say that straight out in the first place? Why should it be up to us to “interpret” you? Honesty and plain speaking are definitely virtues here.

OO…such civility I hardly recognised you. Why is it you can understand my point while r108 can’t? My brief initial comment was made in response to a single sentence in Rob’s post and should be taken as such. Virtually all of my subsequent comments should be read as attempted corrections of others’ interpretations of that initial comment.

Cheers!

r108…you can skate all you want but I’ve told you repeatedly to read what I’ve written. I agree that honesty and plain speaking are virtues but so too is competent reading. Since you apparently won’t go back and read what I written I will give you my first two comments.

Here is my response to Rob:

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.

Here is my second comment written in response to OO and 2H9:

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.

You can disagree with my point but save the hogwash and read the stuff behalf you go off half cocked next time.

When someone clearly contradicts himself, like you did here, I take the first statement to be the honest one, and the second one to be ass-covering, especially when there is no clear repudiation of the first statement. That coupled with your attacks on me, my reading ability, my intelligence, accusing me of “mischief” by disagreeing with you, all lead me to believe that you are simply trying to save face. I don’t buy it. You meant what you wrote, and you were wrong, no matter how you tried to cover it up afterward. If you really misspoke the first time, or spoke out of emotional reaction, you owe me apologies for what you wrote since then. My position is consistent, and remains the same as when I first coommented. Conservatives and lefties are not simply two sides of the same coin; there are fundamental differences, which have been exhaustively enumerated here.

I realize I’m a bit late for the party, but I’d like to get back to some of the more idiotic remarks made earlier about business and corporations…

It would be easy to deride Puzzle’s view of economic and legal reality as some sort of naïve cross between Marxist theoretical drivel and bucolic Romanticism. Most of what we hear from Democrats fits just that description. But doing so ignores the inadvertent humor, and the danger, in what she says. Wikipedia, and any number of other more serious reference sources, list corporations, the objects of her ire, as a form of “juristic person,”

…an artificial entity through which the law allows a group of natural persons to act as if it were a single composite individual for certain purposes, or in some jurisdictions, for a single person to have a separate legal personality other than their own.[1] This legal fiction does not mean these entities are human beings, but rather means that the law recognizes them and allows them to act as natural persons for some purposes–most commonly lawsuits, property ownership, and contracts, …(I)t is also found in virtually every legal system.

Reading on, we find other examples of a “juristic person” include labor unions, trade associations, and even the 501-C(3) organizations that George Soros and other wealthy collectivist patrons of the Left use to funnel funds to their favorite liberal lemmings.

Nor would it do much good to point out to Ms. Puzzle that without corporations there would be no jobs for all those “workers” she likes to think she represents, no wages for her union bosses to extort their tribute from, and no “Big Business” entities for them to run into the ground in an orgy of self-congratulatory triumph (e.g. Ford, GM, Eastern Airlines).

Similarly, it would be easy to laugh at inane little talking points quotes like this,

Businesses don’t have rights because the poeple that own them have rights. They have what (?) privilege of operating that the citizens through their government give the business.

or this silly drivel,

…in other words, you believe in a corporatocracy (sic) where the business decides what’s in the best interests of the citizens.

Or this hackneyed talking point,

…your rightie philosophy only supports a government that supports business and not its citizens.

Making this distinction between the enumerated rights listed in the Constitution and those later discovered by the courts or imposed by legislation shows a dangerous misunderstanding about exactly what a “right” is, and the ultimate source of all our rights… particularly for someone whose fealty of choice, the Democrat party, is so vehement in defending the penumbras and emanations that buttress that most tenuous of “rights,” the right to terminate a human life at will via abortion. And so insistent on silence where public policy and God are concerned.

That sort of legalistic hair-splitting may work, somewhat, for those such as “Hawk” with some legal training, but Puzzle is flying solo here, and at least two of her four cylinders are in need of fresh spark plugs and new rings, while the rhetorical load she’s carrying is well beyond the recommended weight limit for her old and decidedly modest aircraft.

Bat: Like I said earlier, she’s in way over her head on this one. She simply ignored the simple truth that business is a normal human activity, and more freedom exists to go into business in the US than anywhere else. She is seriously confused on this subject.

In future, I recommend you say what you mean, and mean what you say.

R108,

As anyone who has read Dr. Seuss knows, your admonition is strictly Republican in nature,

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant:
An elephant’s faithful one hundred percent.

They’re still both human though with all of the foibles that being human entails and honest liberals and conservatives don’t swallow the trendy lines their sides put forth from time to time like the truly partisan do. Of course I’m talking about real flesh and blood humans now and not the cartoon characters who inhabit the worlds of partisan consciousness.

Ahh! Galloping moral relativism! Now I understand. Unfortunately, you are trying to hoodwink someone who knows that there is an underlying truth in every situation, and that it can be determined. You obviously don’t.

When someone clearly contradicts himself, like you did here, I take the first statement to be the honest one, and the second one to be ass-covering, especially when there is no clear repudiation of the first statement.

Where’s the contradiction? Are you serious or is this your way of confessing to incompetent reading in which case I’ll say nothing more about this.

If you really misspoke the first time, or spoke out of emotional reaction, you owe me apologies for what you wrote since then. My position is consistent, and remains the same as when I first coommented.

Consistent in its wrongness perhaps…I really did detect a change in tone at the very least with your comment after my last exchange with OO but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt if it makes it easier. I’m not even looking for an apology…just read my comments and admit your dishonesty or incompetent reading of them or else drop this.

Conservatives and lefties are not simply two sides of the same coin; there are fundamental differences, which have been exhaustively enumerated here.

They’re still both human though with all of the foibles that being human entails and honest liberals and conservatives don’t swallow the trendy lines their sides put forth from time to time like the truly partisan do. Of course I’m talking about real flesh and blood humans now and not the cartoon characters who inhabit the worlds of partisan consciousness.

…when conservatives plainly do the same thing…

While your opinion of Mr Bozell might be somewhat accurate, your generalization about “conservatives” is not accurate. I don’t agree that conservatives and “liberals” are the same, at all. “Liberals” tend to be ideoogically driven, while conservatives tend to be individualistic. I wouldn’t do what Mr Bozell is doing, but I support his free speech right to do it.
The “Fairness Doctrine” is a restriction of free speech, so your comparison is faulty.
Mr Bozell, no matter how passionate or opinionated, can only try to persuade others to his point of view. Even if your accusation against him is true in any way, he has no power to enforce his views on others.
The “Fairness Doctrine”, on the other hand, is legislation, not opinion, and would have the force of law(including possible criminal penalties) behind it. I see only the faintest of similarities between Mr Bozell and the FD, and none whatsoever between the FD and most conservatives.

MikeA: Thanks for your honest and straightforward reply.

puzzledfuck, I can not help but notice your deafening silence. Got not a thing to say in defense of your party, the Democrat Party, steadfastly insisting that terrorists can be negotiated with? Why am I not surprised?

Unfortunately, you are trying to hoodwink someone who knows that there is an underlying truth in every situation, and that it can be determined.

I’ll certainly agree that underlying truth exists so I can’t admit to moral relativism but we do part ways on man’s ability to uncover and understand it in every situation. Your statement does explain why you cling to your views so tenaciously but it doesn’t explain or excuse your dishonesty or your incompetence, whichever applies in the subject at hand.

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?

Puzzled:

I’m a union member who both owns stock and property.

Right the constitution protects your right of property. We can’t just steal that property that belongs to you through you stockholdings anymore than we can just take your house.

Could be, and if so I like what I see.

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.

Given that citizens own businesses I don’t get the difference.

Consider this: I am a citizen. I own a business. When you curtail my ability to freely engage in business you curtail some of my freedom.

Which isn’t to say that our business environment should be anarchy. Some regulations are necessary, but ultimately businesses are people.

It’s a little sickening that you’d think the only people in America with rights are the people who work for business owners. Not the business owners themselves.

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.

I just don’t believe that our country is here to serve the business interest, it is here to serve the citizens.

Except that business interests are people interests, because citizens own businesses.

I’m not surprised that a union lackey would think that only labor has rights in America, but business owners have equal rights.

It’s about equality, Puzzled, not supremacy.

Man Rob and Whitless are you guys whacked tonight? It is clear that you think business represents citizens in other words, you believe in a corporatocracy where the business decides what’s in the best interests of the citizens.

I fail to see how believing that business owners have the same rights as employees means that we think corporations, and not elected leaders, should set the laws.

It really takes a rather shallow mind to make that sort of leap.

Do you never stop to consider, puzzled, where all the world’s jobs come from? Business. America would never survive without business, and yet you and the rest of you union goons seem to feel as though business is nothing more than a gigantic cash cow to be milked dry.

Pathetic.