Senator Stabnow (D) Mich is Pushing for "Fairness Doctrine"

[GarfieldJL]

Well this is a situation I've been talking about since September, 2008. Apparently the Democrats are now beginning their push to put back in place the "Fairness Doctrine" also known as the Censorship Doctrine. Currently in the media, Newspapers are predominately Left Wing, Talk Radio is Right Wing, and Television News is Largely Left Wing with the exception of Fox News. Anyways, the only real critics thus far of the Government has been Talk Radio, and this looks like a push to silence that criticism.

 

BILL PRESS: Yeah, I mean, look: They have a right to say that. They’ve got a right to express that. But, they should not be the only voices heard. So, is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine?

 

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I think it’s absolutely time to pass a standard. Now, whether it’s called the Fairness Standard, whether it’s called something else — I absolutely think it’s time to be bringing accountability to the airwaves. I mean, our new president has talked rightly about accountability and transparency. You know, that we all have to step up and be responsible. And, I think in this case, there needs to be some accountability and standards put in place.

 

BILL PRESS: Can we count on you to push for some hearings in the United States Senate this year, to bring these owners in and hold them accountable?

 

SENATOR DEBBIE STABENOW (D-MI): I have already had some discussions with colleagues and, you know, I feel like that’s gonna happen. Yep.

-- Politico.com

 

They are for free speech unless someone disagrees with them. There is an audio file included.

 

This senator is also married to Thomas Athans.

[jrrtoken]

You forgot this link in the article, stating that Obama vehemently opposes the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

[GarfieldJL]

You forgot this link in the article, stating that Obama vehemently opposes the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine.

 

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/114322-Obama_Does_Not_Support_Return_of_Fairness_Doctrine.php

 

And I consider Obama to be a typical politician, says one thing and does something else. Just look at his White House Staff, the stimulus bill he's pushing for, if not for Conservative Talk Radio and Fox News, people wouldn't know about the ridiculous amount of pork in this 900 billion dollar bill.

 

 

Also here is an article of Interest: Reporter Jumps Ropeline trying to get Obama's Autograph that's basically the rest of the media.

 

It will be very tempting for Obama to sign something that would take out his only critics in the media.

[jrrtoken]

And I consider Obama to be a typical politician, says one thing and does something else. Just look at his White House Staff.

Also here is an article of Interest: Reporter Jumps Ropeline trying to get Obama's Autograph

The reporter jumped over the rope. The rope was there, to block off overly-anxious supporters, and possible security threats.

 

Here's what another guy did when he decided to break through preset security boundaries:

[GarfieldJL]

The reporter jumped over the rope. The rope was there, to block off overly-anxious supporters, and possible security threats.

 

I'm pointing out the serious lack of objectivity in Reporters these days, and how dangerous the situation in this country is right now. If reporters are falling all over themselves idolizing Obama, trying to get his autograph, then where is the hard-hitting investigation, where is the accountability?

 

 

The Secret Service detaining the reporter is routine and really is a nonissue, the fact the reporter was falling all over himself to get the autograph is the issue.

[Vikinor]

People can have their own opinions. Although I will admit that it does seem rather unproffessional. I prefer news/media that is generally neutral. Of course this may be near impossible because everyone has their own biases.

 

 

Just out of curiousity, what is the dangerous situation this country is in right now?

From your perspective.

[Samnmax221]

Here's what another guy did when he decided to break through preset security boundaries:

But Jack Ruby is cool, man.

[EnderWiggin]

And I consider Obama to be a typical politician, says one thing and does something else.

So basically you have no proof and are just blowing smoke out of your ass.

 

_EW_

[Q]

"Stabnow".

 

What an awesome last name. It begs for an appropriate first name like "Lance" or "Richard".

[GarfieldJL]

People can have their own opinions. Although I will admit that it does seem rather unproffessional. I prefer news/media that is generally neutral. Of course this may be near impossible because everyone has their own biases.

 

Unprofessional is an understatement, it's more like a slobbering love-affair.

 

 

Just out of curiousity, what is the dangerous situation this country is in right now?

From your perspective.

 

We are 1 senate seat from basically a 1 party system, it takes 60 votes in the senate to prevent a fillibuster.

 

The Democrats control the House where Nancy Pelosi isn't interested in bipartisanship and that stimulus bill is really nothing more than a 900 billion dollar+ left-wing wishlist and payoffs for unions.

 

The Senate is under the Control of Harry Reid, whom is also extremely Partisan. Then the Presidency is under the control of another Democrat.

 

The real kicker is that most of the media is more interested in Obama's abs than they are in doing their jobs.

 

If this piece of legislation gets pushed through you can bet we're well on the way to a Dictatorship. There are two big dangers for a dictatorship.

1. Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.
   
2. Right to bear Arms
   

 

And this is an attack on the first amendment, next will come the 2nd Amendment under attack.

[jrrtoken]

We are 1 senate seat from basically a 1 party system, it takes 60 votes in the senate to prevent a fillibuster.

If we apply this logic to the past, then this means that we had a one-party system when Bush was in power, correct?

 

Additionally, your whole little tirade has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and is more "Obama is the Antichrist" crap. Quit being sensationalist, and quit being a damn drama queen. Obama is in power, and there's nothing you can do about it, except if assassination is up your alley.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

The Democrats control the House where Nancy Pelosi isn't interested in bipartisanship and that stimulus bill is really nothing more than a 900 billion dollar+ left-wing wishlist and payoffs for unions.

counterpoint: you have no idea what you're talking about because you're a gop puppet.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/02/gop.stimulus.worries/index.html

 

$75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI.

****ING FBI

[Dagobahn Eagle]

...and yet, with the government and media controlled so utterly and completely by "the left", you poor persecuted right-wingers still managed to push through the PATRIOT ACT, the Guantanamo debacle, the paranoid delusion that Iraq had WMD's, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and a dozen other things 'the left' didn't want, not to mention that you managed to re-elect Bush for another four years after his disastrous first Presidential period.

 

The facts of 2000-2008 fly in the face of your paranoid fantasies.

 

If this piece of legislation gets pushed through you can bet we're well on the way to a Dictatorship.

Since you've apparently been living under a rock for eight years, let me bring you up to speed.

 

From 2000 to 2008, the US has been kidnapping people from abroad for then to hold them without charges, tortured prisoners, greatly increased the power of the authorities with the PATRIOT ACT, set up and run a prison in Cuba and elsewhere specifically to be outside of US jurisdiction, set up no-fly lists and put harmless dissenters on them... and it's accurate and balanced reporting that's going to bring democracy crashing down? Gimme a break.

 

If you wanted the US to be less like a dictatorship, you'd have voted Obama.

 

There are two big dangers for a dictatorship.

 

1. Freedom of speech, press, religion, etc.

2. Right to bear Arms

Right, the world's only superpower and its 1.4 million people strong army wants to go one-party, but is prevented by a bunch of coach potatoes with pistols and rifles, against which its armoured brigades, air force, navy, satellites, cruise missiles and nuclear arsenal is worthless. The same army that's kicking butt (according to you right-wingers) against organized insurgents with more training and diverse weapons than the American people could ever hope to legalize for private use.... is terrified of a bunch of disorganized, paranoid people and their light firearms.

 

 

Indeed, it's a good thing you're allowed to possess AK-47's or those things, all 4700 of them, might have presented somewhat of a problem. Not to mention those pesky bombers and fighters. Luckily their pilots succumb easily to American partisans' 1337 snipah skillz.

 

Face it, Garfield, the 2nd amendment exists today to protect paranoid homeowners of lawbreakers. The time when the US didn't have an army and needed militias spread around its nation... are well and truly over. Today I doubt anyone could even plan for a revolution without getting caught and charged with treason - in part because the right has been so diligent in empowering the FBI and CIA with lots of new methods to spy on its own people while crying anti-americanism and unpatriotism whenever dissenters spoke up .

 

Anyways, the only real critics thus far of the Government has been Talk Radio, and this looks like a push to silence that criticism.

The Fairness Doctrine works both ways. If you're concerned with all the media in the States being biased to the left, then I'd have thought you'd be for regulations making them objective, not against?

[GarfieldJL]

No your reasoning is faulty, because you are completely trying to rewrite history.

 

The News Media got their heads handed to them when the New York Times printed an article that caused a public outcry for their heads on stakes, when it hit the shelves on 9/11/2001.

 

The Media is predominately controlled by the left.

[jrrtoken]

The Media is predominately controlled by the left.

Thanks for regurgitating your arguments for the umpteenth time. Anything else that's new?

[GarfieldJL]

Thanks for regurgitating your arguments for the umpteenth time. Anything else that's new?

 

Okay what is the media's job?

 

To report the news, to notify us if the Government is misspending our money, among other things.

 

 

If the Media is in the tank for one side, and that side is in charge, and steps are taken to shut the other side up. Where would there be any accountability?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

No your reasoning is faulty, because you are completely trying to rewrite history.

How so?

 

The News Media got their heads handed to them when the New York Times printed an article that caused a public outcry for their heads on stakes, when it hit the shelves on 9/11/2001.

The 'News Media' got its 'heads handed to it' because one newspaper allegedly published an inappropriate article on the day of the September 11th attacks? Please explain.

 

The Media is predominately controlled by the left.

You've said that.

 

Okay what is the media's job?

 

To report the news, to notify us if the Government is misspending our money, among other things.

Which they do.

 

If the Media is in the tank for one side, and that side is in charge, and steps are taken to shut the other side up.

You've said that, too.

[Astor]

The 'News Media' got its 'heads handed to it' because one newspaper allegedly published an inappropriate article on the day of the September 11th attacks? Please explain.

 

Once again he's referring to the supposed 'unrepentant terrorist', Professor William 'Bill' Ayers, who did an interview with a newspaper, that coincidentally was published on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

 

Apparently it's their fault for not being able to tell the future (because he's conveniently forgetting the fact that those papers would have had to be published before the attacks happened).

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Ah, okay, thanks. I've been gone for a while and been out of the loop, so to speak .

 

Apparently it's their fault for not being able to tell the future (because he's conveniently forgetting the fact that those papers would have had to be published before the attacks happened).

Odd, isn't it?

[GarfieldJL]

Once again he's referring to the supposed 'unrepentant terrorist', Professor William 'Bill' Ayers, who did an interview with a newspaper, that coincidentally was published on the day of the 9/11 attacks.

 

Apparently it's their fault for not being able to tell the future (because he's conveniently forgetting the fact that those papers would have had to be published before the attacks happened).

 

It hit the shelves on 9/11/2001, that part is accurate, but your comment that he was a supposed unrepentant terrorist? Where the heck have you been, look up Weather Underground.

 

Anyways the New York Times article set off a public backlash because it looked to those whom lost family to the 9/11 hijackers that the NYT was siding with and sympathizing with the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings. There was an enormous backlash that scared every other media agency to the point they were afraid that the public would react to their typical left-wing slant as sympathizing with Al Qaeda.

 

President Bush had nothing to do with it, and it wore off about 2003-2004. That's why the media was so hesitent to go after Bush in 2002, it had absolutely nothing to do with the President, it had to do with shooting themselves in the foot.

 

Furthermore when it was published and when the interview was given doesn't mean anything, it's when it hit the shelf that sparked the outrage.

[Astor]

It hit the shelves on 9/11/2001, that part is accurate, but your comment that he was a supposed unrepentant terrorist? Where the heck have you been, look up Weather Underground.

 

I have, and this point has been previously debated in Kavar's. I've no longer the inclination to discuss it further.

 

Anyways the New York Times article set off a public backlash because it looked to those whom lost family to the 9/11 hijackers that the NYT was siding with and sympathizing with the terrorists that flew the planes into the buildings.

 

Which is a frankly ridiculous supposition to make - they conduct an interview with a 70's activist (or terrorist, or whichever slant one wishes to add), so automatically they're condoning Islamic Jihad?

 

Again, it's ridiculous.

 

EDIT: No matter, I am done with this. Good Day to you all, Sirs.

[GarfieldJL]

I have, and this point has been previously debated in Kavar's. I've no longer the inclination to discuss it further.

 

Then don't bring it up, all I was talking about was the article, you're the one that brought up Ayers.

 

 

Which is a frankly ridiculous supposition to make - they conduct an interview with a 70's activist (or terrorist, or whichever slant one wishes to add), so automatically they're condoning Islamic Jihad?

 

We're talking about how people reacted, and people aren't always logical. However it really wouldn't surprise me if they did condone Islamic Jihad.

 

Again, it's ridiculous.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

 

 

Oh Aside from myself whom listens to Fox News did anyone else know Obama's White House is trying to seize control of the Census Bureau?

[jrrtoken]

We're talking about how people reacted, and people aren't always logical. However it really wouldn't surprise me if they did condone Islamic Jihad.

Cause they're liberal, so they obviously want to destroy America, right?

Oh Aside from myself whom listens to Fox News did anyone else know Obama's White House is trying to seize control of the Census Bureau?

Source, from both Fox News and another news outlet.

[GarfieldJL]

Source, from both Fox News and another news outlet.

 

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=1&docID=news-000003025792

 

 

Only Fox News finds this to be troubling, the others are in the tank for Obama.

 

The reason this is dangerous is simple, you can use the census numbers to manipulate districts, which states hold what number of electoral votes, etc.

[jrrtoken]

The reason this is dangerous is simple, you can use the census numbers to manipulate districts, which states hold what number of electoral votes, etc.

That is an extremely paranoid and alarmist stance. There is no evidence for Obama's administration to manipulate the census, and I'm sure it's just more of Fox News' typical anti-Obama tactics, as always.