Susan Estrich Blows The Rigged Election Wide Open
- Thread starter GrowRebel
- Start date
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
GrowRebel a Ron Paul fan. Way to go.Its nice to see your ultra-conservative side. I knew you would come around...
That's the difference between a true liberal and you ... we want what is fair ... for both sides ... not one ... and not supporting the one side whether it's fair or not ...
What video is that?
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
That's all well and good, but look what GR is in favor of. He's actually supporting a man who's running for public office who's trying to sue various media outlets that are privately owned because he doesn't feel they covered his efforts enough.
Vi
I done told you about that he bullshit ... and it not up to the media who is a candidate and who is not ...
Only a brownshirt nazi like yourself would say a doctrine giving both sides equal time is fascism ... classic example of calling the pot calling the kettle black ...
ViRedd
New Member
GrowRebel sez ...
"Only a brownshirt nazi like yourself would say a doctrine giving both sides equal time is fascism ... classic example of calling the pot calling the kettle black ..."
There is no accounting for such ignorance. You think I'm a brown shirt nazi because I want government control out of the exchange of ideas? Read the First Amendment and then come back and tell us who the fascists are. Sheesh, GR at least try to keep your personal attacks accurate fer criss sakes.
Vi
"Only a brownshirt nazi like yourself would say a doctrine giving both sides equal time is fascism ... classic example of calling the pot calling the kettle black ..."
There is no accounting for such ignorance. You think I'm a brown shirt nazi because I want government control out of the exchange of ideas? Read the First Amendment and then come back and tell us who the fascists are. Sheesh, GR at least try to keep your personal attacks accurate fer criss sakes.
Vi
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
$700 bribe buys access to voting machines
Compiled by Nancy Tobi of Election Defense Alliance; this video shows testimony to the NH legislature on what it costs to purchase access, by security expertHarri Hursti, and rebuttals by John Silvestro of LHS Associates, the firm that programs memory cards for all of New England.
More news from the election fraud front ...
... this so called election is a complete and total sham ...
... now in this video some of the members of LHS were convicted of narcotics dealing ... I feel that is immaterial to this case ...
... the video points out that the same corporations running the elections and counting the ballots in secret are also doing data mining ... like Choice Point that removed 94, 000 eligible voters from the rolls that were identified as "democratic leaning" ... in Florida 2000 election ...
Compiled by Nancy Tobi of Election Defense Alliance; this video shows testimony to the NH legislature on what it costs to purchase access, by security expertHarri Hursti, and rebuttals by John Silvestro of LHS Associates, the firm that programs memory cards for all of New England.
More news from the election fraud front ...
... this so called election is a complete and total sham ...
... now in this video some of the members of LHS were convicted of narcotics dealing ... I feel that is immaterial to this case ...
... the video points out that the same corporations running the elections and counting the ballots in secret are also doing data mining ... like Choice Point that removed 94, 000 eligible voters from the rolls that were identified as "democratic leaning" ... in Florida 2000 election ...
ViRedd
New Member
I guess there is no end to your sillyness. the Fairness Doctrine is government control (the FCC) of the free market of ideas. The free market decides what is on the radio, and other news outlets, and that's the way it should be. If you want to control what the media feeds you, just turn the dial. What is it about liberty that you don't understand? Or are you just being stubborn?
Vi
ccodiane
New Member
The part where confiscatory fees are paid by sponsors, which pay the costs to broadcast the shows. When the government is a major "donor", as in PBS, equal time makes sense. When private sponsors choose what segment of the market would be most responsive to their advertising, pick a show that the segment enjoys, and pay the fees that the show demands, it makes no reasonable sense to dilute that market with listeners who are there only to respond, argumentatively, to every point made. The sponsors will choose to go elsewhere when the original market segment also goes elsewhere due to the ridiculous premise of equal time forced on the shows format. But thats the point, isn't it. To silence critics by destroying their livelihood.
ViRedd
New Member
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Cable may be that way ... but not shit coming over the airwaves ... like the three MSM networks ... they should provide equal time to the candidate plain and simple ...
ViRedd
New Member
GR ...
Are you talking about using something like the Fairness Doctrine ONLY during the election cycle ... and ONLY applying it to the candidates and their ads? OR .. are you talking about applying it to ALL political talk? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh has a three hour radio show, would you be in favor of using the force of government to force radio stations to also carry three hours of a liberal talk show host? That's what the Fairness Doctrine did when it was in effect ... and it was enforced by the Federal Commications Commission.
Vi
Are you talking about using something like the Fairness Doctrine ONLY during the election cycle ... and ONLY applying it to the candidates and their ads? OR .. are you talking about applying it to ALL political talk? In other words, if Rush Limbaugh has a three hour radio show, would you be in favor of using the force of government to force radio stations to also carry three hours of a liberal talk show host? That's what the Fairness Doctrine did when it was in effect ... and it was enforced by the Federal Commications Commission.
Vi
mockingbird131313
Well-Known Member
Yes they did and it was an economic failure. Liberal talk does not pay the bills. People who advertise there do not get a return on their investment. Since it is a looser every time it is tried, advertising fails.
Like it or not, the facts are these, conservative talk radio pays the bills. Advertisers stand in line for the chance to buy some ad spots. The only other "fair" solution is to burden the taxpayer. When that happens it is called NPR.
closet.cult
New Member
this is not the first time i have heard a conservative poke at NPR. I listen to NPR regularly and I can tell you they have good information and fairly unbiased approach to news.
The range of topics is expecially interesting and the journalists are competant. I haven't heard much talk on Ron Paul so I guess there's some evidence of censorship. But the point is, the NEWS they give is superior in quality to any mainstream media source. And we need all the competition we can against faux and it's comtemporaries.
GrowRebel
Well-Known Member
Candidates or political view points ... if the editor give an editorial a person could demand equal time ... yep ..
... and that bullshit about liberal talk not paying the bills is repuke wishful thinking ... AAR, Democracy Now ... plenty of liberal talk that's paying the bills ... and plenty to chose from ...
... but what do you expect from a repuke ... facts?
... and that bullshit about liberal talk not paying the bills is repuke wishful thinking ... AAR, Democracy Now ... plenty of liberal talk that's paying the bills ... and plenty to chose from ...
... but what do you expect from a repuke ... facts?
ccodiane
New Member
Candidates or political view points ... if the editor give an editorial a person could demand equal time ... yep ..
... and that bullshit about liberal talk not paying the bills is repuke wishful thinking ... AAR, Democracy Now ... plenty of liberal talk that's paying the bills ... and plenty to chose from ...
... but what do you expect from a repuke ... facts?
So......... it's fine to let the evil, corrupt, "in the pocket" US "big" government have jurisdiction over content on radio but they have no right being involved in elections since they can't, won't be fair? Not that it isn't evident, but your arguments don't hold water GR. You just can't have all things your way.
ccodiane
New Member
Candidates or political view points ... if the editor give an editorial a person could demand equal time ... yep ..
... and that bullshit about liberal talk not paying the bills is repuke wishful thinking ... AAR, Democracy Now ... plenty of liberal talk that's paying the bills ... and plenty to chose from ...
... but what do you expect from a repuke ... facts?
And as an afterthought, can you name three successful liberal talk radio programs broadcast nation wide? And by successful I mean profitable, not in total agreeance with you.
medicineman
New Member
The gorilla mouth speaks.And as an afterthought, can you name three successful liberal talk radio programs broadcast nation wide? And by successful I mean profitable, not in total agreeance with you.
ViRedd
New Member
Ahh, more enlightend political debate from the two-pound per light guy.
Grow Rebel ...
If I hear you right, and I think I do, you're espousing government control over free speech. Is that it? If not government control, then who will enforce the rules you want to make regarding "equal time?"
Vi
medicineman
New Member
And the Fascist speaks Sig-heil arsloch.Ahh, more enlightend political debate from the two-pound per light guy.
Grow Rebel ...
If I hear you right, and I think I do, you're espousing government control over free speech. Is that it? If not government control, then who will enforce the rules you want to make regarding "equal time?"
Vi
Similar threads
