calfoxwc Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 Fairness Doctrine on the Senate floor; Update: DeMint bill passes 87-11, but so does Durbin’s By Michelle Malkin • February 26, 2009 02:05 PM Scroll for updates… From Sen. Jim DeMint’s office: Today, at 2pm, the Senate will vote on two amendments with respect to the Fairness Doctrine. - The DeMint amendment (Broadcaster Freedom Act) would ban the Fairness Doctrine. - The amendment by Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) would achieve the same goals of the Fairness Doctrine through backdoor FCC regulations. His legislation forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership,” an attempt to dismantle successful syndicated radio programs. The Durbin amendment would hurt small, local radio stations who depend on popular syndicated programming for listeners and revenue. Senator DeMint will encourage all senators to OPPOSE the Durbin Amendment. The Duct Tape Brigade is out there in full force. Eternal vigilance is required. *** Update 1:30pm Eastern. The DeMint amendment passes 87-11, but as Sen. DeMint Tweets: “Our ban on Fairness Doctrine passes 87-11. But fight not over, Dems have attacked from back door on media ownership, localism.” Durbin’s measure passed 57-41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Might as well face it... Heck is in denial about the Fairness Doctrine - they just changed the name, and still, I wait for him to say he's sorry. Or at least, "My name is Heck, and I was wrongie-wrongie". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 The Fairness Doctrine is about media ownership now? Oh, brother. We're coming to get you, Cal. Your guns. Your ham radio. Your Billy Bass. All of it. Let me know when that Fairness Doctrine passes, will ya? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Heck, wouldn't you agree that if you can censor the media news outlets then you can Control the news and swing opinion the way you want it? Do you agree with Free Speech? Freedom of the Press? If not then maybe you should move to Cuba, China, Russia or N. Korea. I am sure we can find some more rogue nations that want the upmost propaganda to keep the people of their nations in check on how they are allowed to think speak or write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Durbin’s measure passed 57-41. Read, Heck. Read up on Durbin's Doctrine. It won't give you a permanent wedgie to admit you were wrong. So, virtually all scientists on earth want you to apologize to me. Say you're sorry, dammit. @@ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Cal, come on now. If I thought I was wrong I'd say you were right. But you're not. And I don't think you know what you're talking about. Bland language about allowing for diversity in media ownership is not the Fairness Doctrine. In fact, it's what the FCC has always promoted. Additionally, the Senate just voted overwhelmingly to ensure the Fairness Doctrine can't come back. Durbin's amendment is about corporate domination of public airwaves, not Sean Hannity. What you don't get is that this is great red meat for people like you, so they're going to keep pretending to be besieged and that they need your "eternal vigilance" in their war against the Fairness Doctrine. You might even have to stay tuned for more updates on the fight to preserve your liberty! Get it? Or let's put it another way: when have you ever been right about anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Heck, wouldn't you agree that if you can censor the media news outlets then you can Control the news and swing opinion the way you want it? Yes. Do you agree with Free Speech? Freedom of the Press? Yes. Yes. If not then maybe you should move to Cuba, China, Russia or N. Korea. Phew. I can stay. Thanks, T! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Feel free to man up, Heck. When have you ever admitted you were wrong about anything? Too arrogant to be humble, too informed to know what to believe in? The rest of us don't like government intrusion in free speech affairs. If it were FREE speech, the gov would be STAYING OUT OF IT. But if being just another hard core apologist for leftists makes you happy, Heck, you are diminishing yourself to less than your putdowns of others for disagreeing with you. Read this: (unless it's going to make you cry - odds are you aren't getting a lot of sleep right now) ****************** The Foundry Morning Bell: The Durbin Doctrine’s Assault on Free Speech Posted March 16th, 2009 at 8.07am in First Principles. Following a premeditated White House campaign to demonize Rush Limbaugh, Newsweek aided the left’s “Hush Rush” campaign with a cover story pushing for Rush to be silenced. Now Rush can handle criticism from the White House and Newsweek just fine. But there was also a little noticed vote in the Senate late last month that could enable the left to accomplish by government regulation what they could never accomplish with actual debate. During the debate over the unconstitutional bill that would give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives, Sens. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) each sponsored amendments with major implications for the First Amendment. DeMint’s amendment banned the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine which, prior to 1987, was used by the government to stifle free speech on our nation’s airwaves. DeMint’s amendment passed 87-11. Score one for free speech. However, Durbin’s amendment also passed, although by a much narrower 57-41 margin. And what does Durbin’s amendment do? It forces the FCC to “take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.” In other words, Durbin wants to bring the wonders of government enforced affirmative action to our nation’s airwaves. Sen. James Inhofe warns: “The revocation of broadcaster licenses [under the Durbin Doctrine] is a real possibility, which at the very least will threaten the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to conservative listeners.” The true intention of the Durbin Doctrine could not be more clear. Its language is modeled after a Center for American Progress report that aims to fix “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” And just two years ago, Durbin told The Hill: “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.” Durbin’s commitment to squelching free speech has not diminished at all since that 2007 statement. But Durbin has gotten smarter. He knows that reinstating the old Fairness Doctrine is a non-starter so he has come up with a new but equally pernicious law that will accomplish the exact same thing. Conservatives need to wise up in the fight for free speech. The Fairness Doctrine is dead. The real threat is the Durbin Doctrine. Quick Hits: President Hugo Chávez ordered the navy on Sunday to seize seaports in states with major petroleum-exporting installations, part of his effort to assert greater control over infrastructure that had come under the dominion of political opponents in regional elections last year. Billions of American taxpayer dollars used to bailout insurance giant AIG are flowing to some of the largest foreign banks in the world. President Barack Obama’s new small-business loan plan will be run through an agency that the GAO says has insufficient oversight in place for that program. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has downgraded the jobs created by the stimulus from 4 million down to 3 million. Govs. Rick Perry (R-TX), Mark Sanford (R-SC), Bobby Jindal (R-LA), Haley Barbour (R-MS), and Bob Riley (R-AL) have all rejected federal unemployment stimulus money that would have forced them to permanently expand their states unemployment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 In conclusion, Heck - without any objectivity - you are just a happy liberal cult enthusiast. The Durbin measure that PASSED is the Fairness Doctrine on STERIODS. So, since it's a good bet you aren't getting as much sleep right now, I'll repost this excerpt. And, before you blindly dismiss it with an mz the pussy quip, THINK about it honestly - it will help you understand: (Yes, you were WRONG.) ********************************** However, Durbin's amendment also passed, although by a much narrower 57-41 margin. And what does Durbin's amendment do? It forces the FCC to take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest. In other words, Durbin wants to bring the wonders of government enforced affirmative action to our nations airwaves. Sen. James Inhofe warns: The revocation of broadcaster licenses [under the Durbin Doctrine] is a real possibility, which at the very least will threaten the willingness of broadcasters to appeal to conservative listeners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Another way to tell I'm right: both Sen. James Inhofe (R-Deep Space Nine) and Cal think I'm wrong. Honestly Cal, Michelle Malkin and James Inhofe aren't really sources that convince me that something is amiss here. These are not bright people. Inhofe is a well-known joke and an embarrassment. There isn't a dumber, more useless Senator in the chamber. And that's saying something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 14, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Then go read the Durbin Doctrine yourself. Think about it. Get back to me with "I'm not going to say I'm sorry, but I am, but I won't admit it because I'm a little liberal teapot, short and stout, hear me whistle, hear me pout." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Inhofe is a well-known joke and an embarrassment. There isn't a dumber, more useless Senator in the chamber. And that's saying something. *cough* Byrd *cough* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 He's just senile. Inhofe is a simpleton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 Inhofe is still dangerous, Byrd is not: therefore = useless - was my focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heckofajobbrownie Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 I'd be open to other nominees, Leg. Here would be some of mine. Senate: Inhofe, Jim Bunning, Jim DeMint House: Michelle Bachman, Jean Schmidt, Patrick Kennedy, Cynthia McKinney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted April 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 Pelosi, Reid, etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.