In article ,
"(¯`·.¸Craig Chilton¸.·´¯) Unemployed? No need to be:
www.LayoffRemedy.com" wrote:

SNIP
TRANSLATION:
SNIP

Your translator is broken retard.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Sat, 09 May 2009 23:03:56 -0700, ~ RHF wrote:

On May 9, 1:27Â*pm, who are you? wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:35:17 -0700, obamao.sux.donki.dixsss wrote:
We think it is and that it has long been planned and, for that
matter, rather openly proclaimed since way back during the
presidential campaign. Michelle Malkin has been concerned for some
time and here [link below] is her latest (with some good links) on
what may be an impending disaster for talk radio. - Milt Rosenberg,
WGN Radio

would be pretty funny to take the only tool the republican't party has
over it's lemmings, childish name calling.

Ru$h LimpBalls would be out-a a job!

Â* Â*Without FUD for the republican't party to use to control it's
lemmings, they will be forced to come up with real ideas

WAY - Speaking of 'childish name calling' * 'lemmings'
* 'Ru$h LimpBalls'


sigh I was doing my part to communicate with your type :-)

On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:31:24 -0700, Telamon wrote:

In article ,
who are you? wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:00:37 -0700, Telamon wrote:

In article ,
who are you? wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:35:17 -0700, obamao.sux.donki.dixsss wrote:


would be pretty funny to take the only tool the republican't party
has over it's lemmings, childish name calling.

Yeah, Americans losing their free speech rights would be hilarious.

I think we should start with you.

Anybody was able to say anything they wanted before and after the
Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

SNIP

Baloney, people reading this news group were not born yesterday. I
remember the way things were before and after the "unfairness doctrine"
was enforced.
snip unrelated biased opinion

O yea?!

early in mass coommmunications, Talkshows and call-ins were rare but
viewpoint programs were not. In radio and TV, there were people with
timers to make sure different viewpoints were equally represented, at
least by equality in time. Perhaps there were mistakes by not having a
fully qualified guest making the response for one side or another but
never-the-less, there WAS a response and the audience was not left with
the impression that the host of the "show" was "the authority".

What we have today are groups of people who follow what they like to hear
and believe as fact, most anything said by the program moderator. There
is little if no confirmation of facts and the program host will let the
audience conjecture bogus attitudes on a subject or person when the basis
of the subject is truly unfounded.

With a fairness doctrine, no individual will loose any civil rights.
If you feel differently, please explain.

The only people I feel will loose (financially but not civilly) are the
corporations who own all the media outlets. Their gain (by keeping the
public in the dark) is simply your lose to make educated opinion or
judgment.

wrote:
On May 9, 7:58 pm, dave wrote:

Then let the public decide what is in their best interest.
That is precisely why broadcast media needs to be more down the middle.

Ja, let Heil 0baMa0 Hitler decide what is "down the middle" instead of
Free Market Consumers - (me and you)

There are no "free markets". Consumerism is the opposite of freedom.

Telamon wrote:
In article ,
who are you? wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:00:37 -0700, Telamon wrote:

In article ,
who are you? wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:35:17 -0700, obamao.sux.donki.dixsss wrote:

would be pretty funny to take the only tool the republican't party has
over it's lemmings, childish name calling.
Yeah, Americans losing their free speech rights would be hilarious.

I think we should start with you.
Anybody was able to say anything they wanted before and after the
Fairness Doctrine was repealed.

SNIP

Baloney, people reading this news group were not born yesterday. I
remember the way things were before and after the "unfairness doctrine"
was enforced. For some reason you got the left point of view and that
was it. I could not stand listening to talk radio with the liberals in
control as a right wringer calling in would get shouted down by the
host. Basically people that called in got the same treatment from the
hosts as the liberal assholes that spew their crap on Usenet do here
today. The same old liberal lying crap said over and over like that will
make it true. Well keep dreaming that the "unfairness doctrine" will
make a comeback as it is the only chance you got to fool people into
believing the liberal lie.


What ARE you talking about? Give a concrete example. Hell, Limbaugh
started during the era of the Fairness Doctrine. What about Joe Pyne?
Morton Downey Junior? Wally George? etc?

~ RHF wrote:
On May 9, 3:47 pm, dave wrote:
wrote:

ery

media outlet everywhere.
The airwaves belong to everyone and cannot be used to create a poisonous
political atmosphere. Licensees have an obligation to serve the public
interest.

Newspapers can print whatever they like, because anybody can start a
newspaper. Spectrum is a finite commodity. -
- They cannot be coralled and used to further
- political objectives of the capital class to the
- detriment of everyone else.

Dave -speaks-out-about- The Capital Class To The Detriment Of Everyone
Else

You are a tool. If you aren't part of the solution you are the problem.
Get out of the way or you will be run over.

who are you? wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:31:24 -0700, Telamon wrote:

In article ,
who are you? wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 16:00:37 -0700, Telamon wrote:

In article ,
who are you? wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 12:35:17 -0700, obamao.sux.donki.dixsss wrote:


would be pretty funny to take the only tool the republican't party
has over it's lemmings, childish name calling.
Yeah, Americans losing their free speech rights would be hilarious.

I think we should start with you.
Anybody was able to say anything they wanted before and after the
Fairness Doctrine was repealed.
SNIP

Baloney, people reading this news group were not born yesterday. I
remember the way things were before and after the "unfairness doctrine"
was enforced.
snip unrelated biased opinion

O yea?!

early in mass coommmunications, Talkshows and call-ins were rare but
viewpoint programs were not. In radio and TV, there were people with
timers to make sure different viewpoints were equally represented, at
least by equality in time.

No there weren't. It was never enforced that rigidly. At best, persons
with opposing viewpoints were given an open invitation to come in with
their views, which rarely happened, and even when it did, it just
provided an amusing program. Think Floyd Turbo on the old Tonight Show.

"dave" wrote in message
m...

Baloney, people reading this news group were not born yesterday. I
remember the way things were before and after the "unfairness doctrine"
was enforced. For some reason you got the left point of view and that was
it. I could not stand listening to talk radio with the liberals in
control as a right wringer calling in would get shouted down by the host.
Basically people that called in got the same treatment from the hosts as
the liberal assholes that spew their crap on Usenet do here today. The
same old liberal lying crap said over and over like that will make it
true. Well keep dreaming that the "unfairness doctrine" will make a
comeback as it is the only chance you got to fool people into believing
the liberal lie.


What ARE you talking about? Give a concrete example. Hell, Limbaugh
started during the era of the Fairness Doctrine. What about Joe Pyne?
Morton Downey Junior? Wally George? etc?

I'm plenty old enough to remember the days of the old Fairness Doctrine, and
it NEVER applied to talk radio at all. It applied to stations that would
give free air time to stump for a political candidate or cause, and
(supposedly) required them to give free air time to an opposing opinion. As
far as talkers, most of the ones I remember from my youth were conservatives
like Ira Blue and Herb Jepko (well, they were conservatives at the time,
nowadays, they'd be considered moderates). Liberal talkers, as today, were
fairly scarce, and usually, like today, stuck on small (the one in Portland
at the time, KKEY, was a 1KW daytimer) stations.

And of course the ones that think that a revived 'doctrine' would affect
religious programming have a screw loose. All during the time of the
doctrine, there was abundant religious programming. Most every station had
some sort of religious programming on Sundays, and some programs like Garner
Ted Armstrong that ran nightly. This along with most cities over 100,000
population having at least one dedicated Christian radio station. Not only
are nearly all of those stations still on the air, and have been in many
cases for over 50 years, but most cities have added additional AM, FM, LPFM
and even television stations.

A revised doctrine *MIGHT* affect Fox News and MSNBC by requiring them to
have actual opposing viewpoints up against the likes of Sean Hannity and
Keith Olbermann, but I really doubt it. I suspect it would, as in the days
of yore, apply only to campaigns and campaign issues.

dave wrote:

You are a tool. If you aren't part of the solution you are the problem.



If you aren't part of the solution, you're precipitate...




mike



--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\'Think tanks cleaned cheap' /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

Densa International©
For the OTHER two percent.



Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
I block all postings with a Gmail, Google Mail,
Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
I also filter everything from a .cn server.


For solutions which may work for you, please check:
http://improve-usenet.org/

Brenda Ann wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
m...
Baloney, people reading this news group were not born yesterday. I
remember the way things were before and after the "unfairness doctrine"
was enforced. For some reason you got the left point of view and that was
it. I could not stand listening to talk radio with the liberals in
control as a right wringer calling in would get shouted down by the host.
Basically people that called in got the same treatment from the hosts as
the liberal assholes that spew their crap on Usenet do here today. The
same old liberal lying crap said over and over like that will make it
true. Well keep dreaming that the "unfairness doctrine" will make a
comeback as it is the only chance you got to fool people into believing
the liberal lie.

What ARE you talking about? Give a concrete example. Hell, Limbaugh
started during the era of the Fairness Doctrine. What about Joe Pyne?
Morton Downey Junior? Wally George? etc?

I'm plenty old enough to remember the days of the old Fairness Doctrine, and
it NEVER applied to talk radio at all. It applied to stations that would
give free air time to stump for a political candidate or cause, and
(supposedly) required them to give free air time to an opposing opinion. As
far as talkers, most of the ones I remember from my youth were conservatives
like Ira Blue and Herb Jepko (well, they were conservatives at the time,
nowadays, they'd be considered moderates). Liberal talkers, as today, were
fairly scarce, and usually, like today, stuck on small (the one in Portland
at the time, KKEY, was a 1KW daytimer) stations.

And of course the ones that think that a revived 'doctrine' would affect
religious programming have a screw loose. All during the time of the
doctrine, there was abundant religious programming. Most every station had
some sort of religious programming on Sundays, and some programs like Garner
Ted Armstrong that ran nightly. This along with most cities over 100,000
population having at least one dedicated Christian radio station. Not only
are nearly all of those stations still on the air, and have been in many
cases for over 50 years, but most cities have added additional AM, FM, LPFM
and even television stations.

A revised doctrine *MIGHT* affect Fox News and MSNBC by requiring them to
have actual opposing viewpoints up against the likes of Sean Hannity and
Keith Olbermann, but I really doubt it. I suspect it would, as in the days
of yore, apply only to campaigns and campaign issues.


Cable TV is exempt from most FCC content restrictions. A new Fairness
Doctrine would only apply to over-the-air broadcasts via the publicly
owned airwaves.