If you won't vote for OBAMA because of Wright you weren't gonna vote for him anyway.

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by larkydozer

Rigorous standards of ridicule and obfuscation.

Jim Schmidt is clearly not interested in being an equal partner in inquiry.

"You say Obama hasn't honored the contributions of vets"

Where? Citation please.

In light of his refusal to submit answers to multiple questions posed to him, I repeat...

As a general reminder, statements, like “Anyway, your logic is faulty because you've constructed a world of one sidedness that doesn't exist” are not arguments. They are tactics in lieu of arguments, and they are accepted only insofar as they are consonant with those who share the same prevailing vision.

Dude, people around here are way too smart for this sort of shit. Did you watch the speech that proved you were wrong yet?

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

You know, kinda what you libs are gonna try to do with the Fairness Doctrine, that is, shut the other side up. It is the only way you can "win".

At least one of us knows that's not how the Fairness Doctrine works.

[SAHTT]

The fact it got so much media attention in the first place is idiotic. I want to unelect our media, where do I vote.

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

At least one of us knows that's not how the Fairness Doctrine works.

Why don't you tell us how it works.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

Why don't you tell us how it works.

Hint: It doesn't "shut up the other side".

[Dakota Kid]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Hint: It doesn't "shut up the other side".

Tell me what it would do.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by Dakota Kid

Tell me what it would do.

Essentially it provides for equal time for opposing viewpoints. To construe that as "shut up the other side" is a pretty big stretch.

Fairness Doctrine

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

At least one of us knows that's not how the Fairness Doctrine works.

On the surface, no. But since 91% of talk radio is conservative (figure from 2007 source here), allowing equal time to liberals on those stations would cause a loss of interest from many listeners and therefore the advertisers would have less incentive to spend money supporting the programs. After a drop in ratings, the stations would realize that the only way to make money is to change formats, much to the delight of liberals.

Looks to me like another attempt at government stepping in to destroy the success of private enterprise.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by snakesht

On the surface, no. But since 91% of talk radio is conservative (figure from 2007 source here), allowing equal time to liberals on those stations would cause a loss of interest from many listeners and therefore the advertisers would have less incentive to spend money supporting the programs. After a drop in ratings, the stations would realize that the only way to make money is to change formats, much to the delight of liberals.

Looks to me like another attempt at government stepping in to destroy the success of private enterprise.

So presenting opposing viewpoints would be bad for business...got it.

91% of talk radio is conservative...got it. That situation developed largely due to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

Let's be clear that the Fairness Doctrine was only applicable to BROADCAST media. While the influence of broadcast media has been reduced in urban areas due to the availability of cable and other media, the fact remains that the airwaves consist of a limited frequency spectrum and is already regulated by the government and broadcasters are (and should be) expected to operate in the public interest in return for assurance that their signal will not be interfered with.

The Fairness Doctrine does not apply to cable or Internet media.

While I fully support your right to not be open-minded, I find it a better solution for you to turn off your radio or TV when you are not interested in arguments against your views rather than monopolize the airwaves.

[Trash]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

While I fully support your right to not be open-minded, I find it a better solution for you to turn off your radio or TV when you are not interested in arguments against your views rather than monopolize the airwaves.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by Trash

Wingnuts, and especially cowards like snakepoop, can't seem to do that. They want all the marbles and when they can't have all the marbles, they react predictably.

But, who cares. If idiots want to listen to other idiots on the radio and need to do that to feel good about themselves, it is fine with me.

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

So presenting opposing viewpoints would be bad for business...got it.

91% of talk radio is conservative...got it. That situation developed largely due to the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

Let's be clear that the Fairness Doctrine was only applicable to BROADCAST media. While the influence of broadcast media has been reduced in urban areas due to the availability of cable and other media, the fact remains that the airwaves consist of a limited frequency spectrum and is already regulated by the government and broadcasters are (and should be) expected to operate in the public interest in return for assurance that their signal will not be interfered with.

The Fairness Doctrine does not apply to cable or Internet media.

While I fully support your right to not be open-minded, I find it a better solution for you to turn off your radio or TV when you are not interested in arguments against your views rather than monopolize the airwaves.

So by abolishing the fairness doctrine, we determined that the majority of people who listen to talk radio prefer conservative programs. If that weren't true, progressive talk would have a larger share of the market.

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Wingnuts, and especially cowards like snakepoop, can't seem to do that. They want all the marbles and when they can't have all the marbles, they react predictably.

But, who cares. If idiots want to listen to other idiots on the radio and need to do that to feel good about themselves, it is fine with me.

And once again, you resort to insults and name-calling in order to avoid making a rational argument.

[Gaolee]

Originally Posted by snakesht

And once again, you resort to insults and name-calling in order to avoid making a rational argument.

Your rational arguments run to irrational garbage anyway. You are the guy who makes too much money to join up, but supports sending the troops to die in the sandbox. Your logic is it is their job, and basically, tough. You are a spineless, selfish coward. The rest of your arguments are essentially riffs on the same self centeredness and self congratulatory crap. Insulting you is only pointing out the obvious to anyone except you.

[snakesht]

Originally Posted by Gaolee

Your rational arguments run to irrational garbage anyway. You are the guy who makes too much money to join up, but supports sending the troops to die in the sandbox. Your logic is it is their job, and basically, tough. You are a spineless, selfish coward. The rest of your arguments are essentially riffs on the same self centeredness and self congratulatory crap. Insulting you is only pointing out the obvious to anyone except you.

I don't think my alleged cowardice has anything to do with the fairness doctrine.

And since it is so obvious to everyone, and I'm not likely to change based on your insults, what's the point of stating it? Maybe it makes you feel better about yourself to put others down, and have all your like-minded buddies join in.