Well, then, you explained it better than Ash did. I've never found a candidate with whom I agree on everything, on any level of government. You choose from what's available. I don't pay attention to candidates' gun stances, because they don't apply to me. Maybe you can point me toward what aspects of Obama's record you think indicate censorship on the scale you're suggesting?
At various Democratic primary debates he said he was in favor of both net neutrality and the fairness doctrine. If you're willing to regulate the internet a little, and TV and radio a lot, what's the philosophic hangup on regulating the internet a lot? I don't see one. If nothing else, Obama is logical. Starts from false premises a lot, and assumes far too many things a priori, which hampers his judgement, but definitely logical. It is only logical for him to extend the fairness doctrine to the internet. It's not print, after all, so there's no freedom of the press issues.
I'm willing to go out on a small limb and say that Obama is going to apply some limits on free speech. As you say he's voiced the idea, and his surrogates have implemented in the campaign. It won't surprise me one bit. What will sadden me is that reasonably sane Obama supporters will articulate some rationalization for it, and tell us how we're all crazy for not seeing the inspiration and brilliance behind the regulations. When and if Obama tries to nationalize gun controls, say banning each state's conceal carry laws, will garamet make her voice heard? Someone tell me I'm wrong.
THAT's an answer! Now just for shits and giggles, humor me - how would you react to a candidate that wanted to put as many rules and restrictions on the 1st amendment as we already have on the 2nd? Would you say you 'fear" his being elected?
Two birds of the same feather, IMO. To call Obama a socialist is similar to calling Bush a fascist. Two claims that are absolutely ridiculous.
I disagree. I can easily see calling Obama a socialist - he'd fit right in with the UK's Labour party, who are self-described socialists. Or various democratic socialists or even Christian socialists. But that's different than the communist countries such as the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact countries. He'd stand out there just as much as Bush would in Nazi Germany.
The president has only very limited power over the economy. Yes, the fedgov is a major player, but the vast majority of federal presence is found in mandated spending that neither McCain nor Obama can impact. Both will tinker around the edges but for the most part won't be able to improve or worsen growth conditions. That's why, even though I have a broad interest in economics, I tend to vote more on the social issues. That's an area where government can do real damage.
Not sure whether you are wrong, but I do think the illustration you've set up here connects not so much with how we all interpret the political act but with how much we trust the person. When I see O2C writing that net neutrality is a bridge to net censorship, I don't buy it, at all. And that's whether we have Bush, McCain, Obama, or Clinton. I just don't see a slippery slope on that one. But I'm sure there are other initiatives that would cause me to question Bush but be less likely to question Obama. Bush earned my mistrust, Obama hasn't done that yet. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that a President Obama would take some positions I oppose. That is to be expected.
You're smoking way too much crack. The chances of a new fairness doctrine are zero, and you're almost certainly not even being coherent about internet censorship. Put down the pipe, spend the next few weeks in rehab, and then maybe you can discuss these things like a real person.
You need to put down your pipe. Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have expressly stated that a new Fairness Doctrine will be a priority should the Democrats succeed in gaining the Presidency.
Never heard of it. It seems though that the Fairness Doctrine would be a way to drive conservative talk radio out of business. We lived with it since 1949. Most of it was abandoned in 1987. When did conservative talk radio start?
She already answered your question..... I think it's a safe bet to say that whatever happens on the gun issue Garamet will be no where to be found.
Yep, once you even hint at supporting it.....or implement any sort of censorship, you've gone down the slippery slope.
No shit you've never heard of it. Most Democrat dick-suckers don't know about half the shit they propose. Or talking about legislating in Congress.
Neither was the vagina over palin no suprise. Which started from your side. Facts are facts. Obama has gotten far more special treatment by the media than anyone else has gotten this year. Anytime someone questions the record of a black liberal they are immedietly called racist from your side, so yes, no suprise there.I've especially enjoyed the new "codes of racsim" that I never knew existed like "that one." Sure, why not. I love how your side always tries to play victim in the campaign season. Let's have a recap... -Obama twisted Bill and Hillary Clinton's comments about President Johnson's impact on civil rights. -Obama and the far left twisted Geraldine Ferraro's comments when she gave a fair assessment of his popularity. -Obama routinly slams groups of voters that he knows won't vote for him. He was in San Francisco when he said that rural voters in Pennsylvania cling to their guns and religion out of fear. -Obama played upon people's fears in Jacksonville when he said "..and they're going to say he has a funny name,that he doesn't look like us...oh and did I mention he's black?" -Obama and the democrats layed the blame on this financial mess on the Republicans, who were the only ones who really tried to stop the mess at Fannie mae and Freddie MAck. But as usual with your side, they were accused by the liberals of trying to lynch a high powered black man whenever a suggestion for change was used. -Obama has shady connections(Bill Ayers,ACORN,REZCO,Daily etc.) that would have left any other candidate for dead in the primaries. Ayers was a terrorist. That's not a matter of debate. It is FACT. His shady connections were first brought up in the primaries by democrats. -As to my worry about an Obama presidency? 1.)He has no record of change.It's nice to talk about change, but if you have no record of change, then you're just blowing smoke in my opinion. 2.) He gained his first political office by having all his opponents names taken off the ballot. 3.)He won his U.S Senate seat thanks to a speech he gave at the 2004 democratic convention. 4.)He said he wouldn't run for president this cycle.He lied. 5.) He said he would accept public financing if McCain did. He lied. 6.) He's changes his positions according to the polls. He didn't support offshore drilling until he started taking a knock in the polls for it. Record of accomplishment is what's important .Lofty speeches and promises mean jack shit to me.
So, we have Pardot on record saying that Obama will not push for new gun control, and now there will be no push for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But hey, at least he's putting his opinion out there, no obfuscation or kumquats! Keep it up, this is gonna come in handy. Honestly, I hope you're right.
Wiki is your friend. The United States saw dramatic growth in the popularity of talk radio during the 1990s. The repeal of the FCC fairness doctrine, in 1987—which had required that stations provide free air time for responses to any controversial opinions that were broadcast—provided an opportunity for a kind of partisan programming that had not previously existed.
Ok, so educate me. Other than the vitriol that is spouted on AM airwaves that no one cares about, what impact would a fairness doctrine have today?
If honestly applied, it would force Fox News-like content into the networks. However, since Democrats can't be trusted to honestly and fairly apply such doctrine, it'll have no other effect than to censor talk radio.
So I'm correct in assuming that the fairness doctrine is targeted at conservative AM radio? Why is this?
Really? Could it be that listeners and supporters of conservative talk radio are afraid? The application of such laws would be by the courts. Why wouldn't "fox news-like" content be forced onto the other networks?
Obama's campaign has said he's opposed to the Fairness Doctrine. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA6573406 Do you have a link where he said he supported it?
Basically it obligates a broadcaster to grant equal time to any one who shares an opposing view with what is broadcast by the station. IOW, I could call in and demand rebuttal time to argue against the points made during the Talking Kumquats With Garamet! show. No way this could never be profitable and be a huge pain in the ass for stations, so they'll take the controversial stuff off the air, and replace it with gardening shows. Here's a good story on how both sides would use it to silence opposing views. And here.
