Watch As Obama Tries To Eliminate Free Speech

[checkymcfold 0]

Although I think that was sort of sarcastic, I'm going to address it anyway because I've heard people legitimately call that bipartisan. If McCain appointed Lieberman to his cabinet, would that be bipartisan? Or Zell Miller?The way you guys feel about those guys is how Republicans feel about Chuck Hagel.

i was making fun of the "article"'s equation-by-association retardation by saying that, nothing more.

[No_Neck 0]

Well, it can't be distilled to a one-line soundbite that Obama supporters live for, so it may be hard to explain. But basically, Obama and his closest advisors believe in a policy, called "localism", in which a single complaint from a someone in the community that the radio station is not serving the community can lead to an investigation of the radio station, and possible loss of license. This has been a popular tactic against conservative radio, but while Bush was in charge, the complaints went nowhere. Obama will, eventually, be able to appoint FCC commissioners, and complaints such as these, supported by an Obama administration, will no longer fall on deaf ears. In other words, it's a back-door way to revive the much-reviled "Fairness Doctrine" in which radio and TV stations had to analyze every sentence and determine if it favored one side or the other, forcing them to balance it with counter-commentary. In practice what happened is radio and TV which said nothing about anything and nobody wanted to listen to. Liberals don't like free airwaves because their crappy radio network failed, while conservatives continue to dominate.

so you really have no evidence that this is going to happen but when Obama gets his people into the FCC, and if people complain about conservative radio, and if the people Obama put into the FCC take these complaints seriously, and if those people abuse their power and decide to unfairly attack conservative radio for no reason at all.Seems like something that isn't an issue yet at all and just conservative people getting geared up to bitch about anything. Lets worry about things that are actually problems currently. I mean don't get me wrong I fight for Rush Limbaughs right to be an idiot on the radio but there hasn't been anything done wrong yet!

[brvheart 1,752]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/11/oba...n_conserva.html

I don't care about any of this stuff, because Obama is going to pay for my gas and my mortgage.

[brvheart 1,752]

I say good for him. its about time that liberals got equal representation in the media.

awesomeness.

There is now medication for delusions….

FYI... your first quote is from Gerald Ford....1) Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States."A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.""If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193"Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford2) Misattributed to Thomas Jefferson:"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.Commonly quoted on many websites, this quotation is actually from Gerald Ford's August 12th, 1974 address to Congress."Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson3) Misattributed to Barry Goldwater:"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Gerald Ford in a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.""If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193Unsourced variants attributed to Goldwater include:A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.This quote has also been attributed to Davy Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy. "Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater4) Misattributed to Ronald Reagan:"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Actually said by Gerald Ford, this is also sometimes attributed to Barry Goldwater. Paraphrased variant: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

[85suited 0]

Seems like something that isn't an issue yet at all and just conservative people getting geared up to bitch about anything. Lets worry about things that are actually problems currently. I mean don't get me wrong I fight for Rush Limbaughs right to be an idiot on the radio but there hasn't been anything done wrong yet!

This isnt how it works...You dont sit around a wait for something you dont like to happen and then try and change it...The battle of ideas starts now (on both sides)... People call their congressmen and voice their opinions...

[Nimue1995 1]

Go ahead. Write your congresspeople about this. And don't be surprised if they don't take you at all seriously. Of course the problem with writing them about a maybe, could, be, possible problem is that they'll label you a nut case and go back to worrying about the auto company bailout instead.

[Nimue1995 1]

P.S. I find it amusing that H is all for local control EXCEPT in this particular instance.

[hblask 1]

It all starts with awareness. This is not an issue that the American people will suddenly just have infused into their heads one morning. By the time Obama "actually does something", it's too late, because the commissioners will be in place, and there is no veto power. Obama and his closest advisors have all advocated using localism to silence their critics. These people have power now. So no, we're not going to wait until it is too late. It's time to build awareness and let politicians know right now that we're watching and will not let them get away with this without an uproar.

[85suited 0]

Go ahead. Write your congresspeople about this. And don't be surprised if they don't take you at all seriously. Of course the problem with writing them about a maybe, could, be, possible problem is that they'll label you a nut case and go back to worrying about the auto company bailout instead.

So are law makers only handle one issue at a time now?.... man we are screwed

[vbnautilus 48]

It all starts with awareness. This is not an issue that the American people will suddenly just have infused into their heads one morning. By the time Obama "actually does something", it's too late, because the commissioners will be in place, and there is no veto power. Obama and his closest advisors have all advocated using localism to silence their critics. These people have power now. So no, we're not going to wait until it is too late. It's time to build awareness and let politicians know right now that we're watching and will not let them get away with this without an uproar.

So sly. They have advocated localism, but not "to silence their critics". The point behind localism is that as large media conglomerates usurp the local independent radio stations and consolidate into larger and larger companies, there is a loss of diversity and programming geared towards smaller audiences that were handled by those smaller independent stations. I'm not really a fan of this kind of regulation. But the purpose of it is not to silence anybody, its to give voice to those who don't have it. The localism requirements would not stop any form of radio program; instead it requires a certain amount of local programming be included.

[copernicus 0]

So sly. They have advocated localism, but not "to silence their critics". The point behind localism is that as large media conglomerates usurp the local independent radio stations and consolidate into larger and larger companies, there is a loss of diversity and programming geared towards smaller audiences that were handled by those smaller independent stations. I'm not really a fan of this kind of regulation. But the purpose of it is not to silence anybody, its to give voice to those who don't have it. The localism requirements would not stop any form of radio program; instead it requires a certain amount of local programming be included.

rofl

[strategy's_touch 0]

it has been a while since I saw it, but some months ago the FCC was considering some rule about one media co. owning more than one form of distribution (radio, tv, print, etc) in any given locality. the details are pretty hazy at this point, I'll have to look it up once I'm off campus. it seemed to me that that was a pretty huge distinction, and iirc the head at the time was pretty cavalier about allowing the big conglomerates to have a presence wherever they pleased. I am probably misremembering a few details here.

[akoff 0]

awesomeness.FYI... your first quote is from Gerald Ford....1) Gerald Ford (14 July 1913 – 26 December 2006) , the 38th President of the United States."A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.""If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193"Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford2) Misattributed to Thomas Jefferson:"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.Commonly quoted on many websites, this quotation is actually from Gerald Ford's August 12th, 1974 address to Congress."Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson3) Misattributed to Barry Goldwater:"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Gerald Ford in a Presidential address to a joint session of Congress (12 August 1974)Ford has also been quoted as having made a similar statement many years earlier, as a representative to the US Congress: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have.""If Elected, I Promise…" : Stories and Gems of Wisdom by and About Politicians (1960) p. 193Unsourced variants attributed to Goldwater include:A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.This quote has also been attributed to Davy Crockett and is consistent with his very-limited-government philosophy. "Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater4) Misattributed to Ronald Reagan:"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.Actually said by Gerald Ford, this is also sometimes attributed to Barry Goldwater. Paraphrased variant: A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything you have."Source:http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan

updated!!

[Loismustdie 0]

So sly. They have advocated localism, but not "to silence their critics". The point behind localism is that as large media conglomerates usurp the local independent radio stations and consolidate into larger and larger companies, there is a loss of diversity and programming geared towards smaller audiences that were handled by those smaller independent stations. I'm not really a fan of this kind of regulation. But the purpose of it is not to silence anybody, its to give voice to those who don't have it. The localism requirements would not stop any form of radio program; instead it requires a certain amount of local programming be included.

This post is a level, right? I was under the impression you are smarter than this. If it's not,then I join others in the LOL fest. You are truly completely unaware of the realities of the situation.

[strategy 4]

some links regarding what I was saying:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentration...hip_Proceedingshttp://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11162007/watch.htmlthe clips from the meetings are kind of interesting.

[85suited 0]

Good Article on the Fairness Doctrine & Localismhttp://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=29566Question: What organization first used “localism” at the FCC in this fashion? Answer: The United Church of Christ, Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s highly-politicized denomination. UCC has an entity called the Office of Communication, Inc., which successfully took a broadcast license away from a Southern station it felt was not covering the civil rights movement fairly.

[colonel Feathers 5]

All the fairness doctrine will do is kill off am radio,And xm will skyrocket as all the conservs will migrate over there. I think rush really wants to be there anyway. If it starts loooking like this doctrine will pass, then I will be buying lots of xm stock.

[85suited 0]

The outlook for Sirius XM has grown increasingly worrisome and at the current time looks bleak," said Frederick Moran, an analyst with Stanford Group. "At this point, you have to question whether Sirius XM will survive 2009 in its current structure. There is a likelihood that it could enter bankruptcySirius XM at 17 cents

[colonel Feathers 5]

The outlook for Sirius XM has grown increasingly worrisome and at the current time looks bleak," said Frederick Moran, an analyst with Stanford Group. "At this point, you have to question whether Sirius XM will survive 2009 in its current structure. There is a likelihood that it could enter bankruptcySirius XM at 17 cents

Than Im guessing xm is rooting for the fairness doctrine.

[Chet Steadman 0]

Daniel's boy got elected, therefore political discourse in a poker forum need not continue.LoL

[Nimue1995 1]

Daniel's boy got elected, therefore political discourse in a poker forum need not continue.LoL

Too bad. Until we get a political forum of our own, we're hijacking Daniel's Blog.