next target of the left will be talk radio

[Pogo]

You don't HAVE to be a fucking retard to base your arguments on ad hominem,

Look, you're a leftist, single digit IQ, inability to draw a logical conclusion regardless of information is provided.

But for fucks sake, stupid - the squiggly line thingy is called "a link." The link is what smart people call a "citation," and shows that the information isn't just the opinion of the person presenting it. Smart people often will cite a contrary publication, as I did with the far left NY Times. This creates what is known as an "unimpeachable source." If a lowbrow dolt such as you, ignorantly attacks the source, I simply point out that I used your source to prove my position.

I realize that basic reading comprehension is far beyond your abilities, but what the Times pointed out is that Stewart et al. are not "comedy" to the left, but the primary source of information.

-- which directly contradicts your post that I quoted to riff on:

Not like the serious information you leftists depend on - from Comedy Central...

DUH.
The memory is the second thing to go...
First it's comedy, then it isn't. You can't decide which goalpost to run to.
.
.

Comedy Central, like Fox Noise and MSNBC (and CNN too) are all off the topic here. None of them are talk radio. Nor are any of them even related to the tangent of the Fairness Doctrine as they're all on cable. All irrelevant.

You wish, retard.

No, I don't "wish"; I "know". Because (a) I can read the topic title, and (b) I know how the Fairness Doctrine worked -- and it never applied to cable.
.
.

Information media is precisely the topic. Your handlers seek to focus purely on silencing radio, since it caters to working adults, thus the right. But claims that the right has a lock on information is like most of what comes from the left, fucking retarded. The left actually dominates about 90% of the information availible to the country - you simply whine because the infidels dare speak at all.

Subjective emotional hair-on-fire rant hill. Again completely off the topic.
Just to entertain this train wreck:
"Your handlers (" handlers"?) seek to focus purely on silencing radio (for the 400th time, how? where? who?), since it caters to working adults, thus the right. (-- "working adults" are the "right"??) That's three rhetorical derailments in one sentence alone.

For what it's worth, The Daily Show, as any comedy does, uses truths of the real world to fuel its demonstration of the absurdities thereof, as in the linked article's note of politicians contradicting themselves. Those elements are all true. The comedy is in the lampooning and satirizing of those real events. But indeed they are real events. It wouldn't be funny if they were fabricated. Duh.

That must be why MSNBC isn't funny, virtually everything on it is fabricated....

Non sequitur. Again completely off the topic.

Oh please. You haven't proved squat. In fact after over 400 posts here nobody has even smelled any substantiation of the OP at all. Zero.

Squiggly lines retard, learn what they mean.

Not sure how math works on your planet but Zero is still equal to Zero on this one.

How is talk radio a "target of the left"? -- Zero response
How can the Fairness Doctrine "silence" anyone? -- Zero response
When did it ever "silence" anyone? -- Zero response
Who's after Hannity, Limbaugh, or ClearChannel? --Zero response

That's a lot of goose eggs to justify a four hundred post thread.

 

[Gadawg73]

The Censorship Doctrine would be a better definition of what the Fairness Doctrine actually was in each and every year of practice and application of it.
With current activities from the "localism" and "media diversity" along with the nebulous requirement to "serve the public interest", whatever the fuck that is and who could ever define it, along with some unelected and unconfirmed "Diversity Czar" the inner spirit of the Censorship Doctrine may be on the bench at the moment but the spirit is still there with the current team in office.
I fully support localism, diversity of all forms and competition but who sets the goals and what are they?
FCC diversity officer Mark Lloyd is focused on limiting any and all voices from the media unless they follow lock step with what this administration wants.
That is bad for everyone.
And one wonders why many question the validity of "The Fairness Doctrine is dead" cries from this administration.
More information and facts for the uninformed here that believe there is no evidence that this administration has no plans ever to put back in place the Fairness Doctrine:
Mark Lloyd wrote "The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio" in 2007 and he followed that fiction with another "Forget the Fairness Doctrine" which made the outrageous claims that the success of Hannity, Limbaugh and all other "conservative talk show hosts" was directly traced to a lack of enforcing the rules that the owners had to go by, "relaxed ownership rules". Lloyd furthered his folly by stating that "pro business regulation" had destroyed localism. Typical ignorance by most all in this administration when speaking, commenting or writing about anything to do with private business of any kind.
And of course the lid has been on Lloyd for some time.

 

[Zona]

OK, back to the point. No one is trying to stop the radical right from having propaganda media outlets.

End of story.

I thought the left was taking der guns! Now its dem takin way der Fox?

 

[Pogo]

OK, back to the point. No one is trying to stop the radical right from having propaganda media outlets.

End of story.

I thought the left was taking der guns! Now its dem takin way der Fox?

Ja, it mußt be true, veil Willow hat eine Thread about it gemacht. Das vote to can Fox got der Zero voten. Der same number as der rationalen für diese Thread.

 

[Pogo]

Oh Lord Helpus, Bilko is back, and he hasn't brought any paragraph breaks. Rotsa ruck reading this....

The Censorship Doctrine would be a better definition of what the Fairness Doctrine actually was in each and every year of practice and application of it. << because?? reasoning?? evidence??
With current activities from the "localism" and "media diversity" along with the nebulous requirement to "serve the public interest", whatever the fuck that is and who could ever define it, along with some unelected and unconfirmed "Diversity Czar" the inner spirit of the Censorship Doctrine may be on the bench at the moment but the spirit is still there with the current team in office.

Happy to help: the broadcast airwaves were defined from the beginning to belong to We the People (note: not to corporations milking money out of WtP). Therefore the Federal Radio Commission, and its successor the FCC, were formed on our behalf to license broadcasters "in the public interest, convenience and necessity".

I fully support localism, diversity of all forms and competition but who sets the goals and what are they?
FCC diversity officer Mark Lloyd is focused on limiting any and all voices from the media unless they follow lock step with what this administration wants. (<< again: link??)
That is bad for everyone.
And one wonders why many question the validity of "The Fairness Doctrine is dead" cries from this administration.
More information and facts for the uninformed here that believe there is no evidence that this administration has no plans ever to put back in place the Fairness Doctrine:
Mark Lloyd wrote "The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio" in 2007 and he followed that fiction with another "Forget the Fairness Doctrine" which made the outrageous claims that the success of Hannity, Limbaugh and all other "conservative talk show hosts" was directly traced to a lack of enforcing the rules that the owners had to go by, "relaxed ownership rules". Lloyd furthered his folly by stating that "pro business regulation" had destroyed localism. Typical ignorance by most all in this administration when speaking, commenting or writing about anything to do with private business of any kind.
And of course the lid has been on Lloyd for some time.

--- again... link???

Say, how's that search for all that other shit you just made up coming along?

Let's review, want to?
"Your partisan slant here is Exhibit A of that" -- never found
"You fault conservatives for believing that the comments of the left will be turned into policy by this admistration" -- never found
"...praise the left for their continued support of "what is fair" and "what the public wants" --never found
"you claim here with a straight face you were not a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine" -- never found
"you claim that there should have not been any worries about it coming back" -- never found
"a proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public access channels and internet" in 1969 -- never found
any mention of "Equal Time Rule"? -- never found

Haven't seen any of them. Some "detective".
Dig deep. Dig 'til it hurts.

 

[Gadawg73]

Oh Lord Helpus, Bilko is back, and he hasn't brought any paragraph breaks. Rotsa ruck reading this....

The Censorship Doctrine would be a better definition of what the Fairness Doctrine actually was in each and every year of practice and application of it. << because?? reasoning?? evidence??
With current activities from the "localism" and "media diversity" along with the nebulous requirement to "serve the public interest", whatever the fuck that is and who could ever define it, along with some unelected and unconfirmed "Diversity Czar" the inner spirit of the Censorship Doctrine may be on the bench at the moment but the spirit is still there with the current team in office.

Happy to help: the broadcast airwaves were defined from the beginning to belong to We the People (note: not to corporations milking money out of WtP). Therefore the Federal Radio Commission, and its successor the FCC, were formed on our behalf to license broadcasters "in the public interest, convenience and necessity".

I fully support localism, diversity of all forms and competition but who sets the goals and what are they?
FCC diversity officer Mark Lloyd is focused on limiting any and all voices from the media unless they follow lock step with what this administration wants. (<< again: link??)
That is bad for everyone.
And one wonders why many question the validity of "The Fairness Doctrine is dead" cries from this administration.
More information and facts for the uninformed here that believe there is no evidence that this administration has no plans ever to put back in place the Fairness Doctrine:
Mark Lloyd wrote "The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio" in 2007 and he followed that fiction with another "Forget the Fairness Doctrine" which made the outrageous claims that the success of Hannity, Limbaugh and all other "conservative talk show hosts" was directly traced to a lack of enforcing the rules that the owners had to go by, "relaxed ownership rules". Lloyd furthered his folly by stating that "pro business regulation" had destroyed localism. Typical ignorance by most all in this administration when speaking, commenting or writing about anything to do with private business of any kind.
And of course the lid has been on Lloyd for some time.

--- again... link???

Say, how's that search for all that other shit you just made up coming along?

Let's review, want to?
"Your partisan slant here is Exhibit A of that" -- never found
"You fault conservatives for believing that the comments of the left will be turned into policy by this admistration" -- never found
"...praise the left for their continued support of "what is fair" and "what the public wants" --never found
"you claim here with a straight face you were not a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine" -- never found
"you claim that there should have not been any worries about it coming back" -- never found
"a proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public access channels and internet" in 1969 -- never found
any mention of "Equal Time Rule"? -- never found

Haven't seen any of them. Some "detective".
Dig deep. Dig 'til it hurts.

I know you "haven't seen any of them". I quoted verbatim the legal case and you never read it and then you added yourself "in 1969" which I never said.
Because you are a milk weak sore loser.
Just 1 of the dozen statements you made that were unfounded: You claimed that ONE Reagan FCC appointee axed the Fairness Doctrine by himself.
And I schooled you on that also and asked you how many Democrats SAT ON THE FCC when the Fairness Doctrine was axed.
You had no answer because you know you were exposed as the fraud that you are.
And I did that for free as normally I get $100 a hour.
One always has to "dig deep" when you are around.
And they better bring their waders and rain slicker as the BULL SHIT is eye high.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't HAVE to be a fucking retard to base your arguments on ad hominem,

Look, you're a leftist, single digit IQ, inability to draw a logical conclusion regardless of information is provided.

But for fucks sake, stupid - the squiggly line thingy is called "a link." The link is what smart people call a "citation," and shows that the information isn't just the opinion of the person presenting it. Smart people often will cite a contrary publication, as I did with the far left NY Times. This creates what is known as an "unimpeachable source." If a lowbrow dolt such as you, ignorantly attacks the source, I simply point out that I used your source to prove my position.

I realize that basic reading comprehension is far beyond your abilities, but what the Times pointed out is that Stewart et al. are not "comedy" to the left, but the primary source of information.

-- which directly contradicts your post that I quoted to riff on:

Uh no, it sure doesn't contradict, moron.

You really, truly are stupid.

I'd love to come across a leftist with an IQ above 50.

And I'll know them if I find them, they'll be riding a Unicorn....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I thought the left was taking der guns! Now its dem takin way der Fox?

The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are what is known as "The Bill of Rights." This is what the left seeks to end. It isn't a single amendment, but the entire concept of civil liberty. Obama has been at war against the freedom of religion and freedom of speech for his entire tenure. The assault on the right of Americans to self-defense is recent.

Oh, and Fox News would be exempt from the censorship doctrine, since it is carried on cable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right radicals on the Board are secret agents paid by the DNC to make post stupidities to make sure the Democrats stay in charge. Uncensored is the chief DNC agent.

 

[rightwinger]

I thought the left was taking der guns! Now its dem takin way der Fox?

The first 10 Amendments of the Constitution are what is known as "The Bill of Rights." This is what the left seeks to end. It isn't a single amendment, but the entire concept of civil liberty. Obama has been at war against the freedom of religion and freedom of speech for his entire tenure. The assault on the right of Americans to self-defense is recent.

Oh, and Fox News would be exempt from the censorship doctrine, since it is carried on cable.

Obvious talk radio listener

 

[Pogo]

I know you "haven't seen any of them". I quoted verbatim the legal case and you never read it and then you added yourself "in 1969" which I never said.
Because you are a milk weak sore loser.

Actually that's because you are a piss-poor reader. Let's see it yet again:

SCOTUS ruled in that case that the FCC had no obligation whatsoever to act on any FD case brought before it. Guess why. The courts ruling in that case stated that since there was a proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public access channels and internet then any argument of fairness because of a lack of scarce resources was A BOGUS ONE.
You left all of that out.

I "left nothing out". You were trying to mix in some legal opinion completely unrelated to Red Lion, probably from some different year, in your usual throw-it-all-on-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks method. I say "probably" because as per usual, you just made this shit up with no link whatsoever.

It doesn't work on me. I know better. Cable and internet still have nothing to do with Red Lion v. FCC -- which was, for you s l o w readers, in 1969. Period.
.

Just 1 of the dozen statements you made that were unfounded: You claimed that ONE Reagan FCC appointee axed the Fairness Doctrine by himself.

Nope, never said that either. We'll just add that to your mountainous list of things to find and quote that you claim other people said with no basis whatsoever.
,
,

And I schooled you on that also and asked you how many Democrats SAT ON THE FCC when the Fairness Doctrine was axed.
You had no answer because you know you were exposed as the fraud that you are.

Oh Bilko please. You couldn't "school" a bunch of fish. Wanna see the answer again, the one I posted at the time, the one the detective can't find?

FCC vote was 4-0 to abolish it and not "by Reagan appointee Phillip Patrick".

Patrick was the Commissioner at the time and led the issue.

All FCC are appointed and how many Democrats were appointed on that 4-0 vote to abolish Fairness Doctrine?

Don't know and don't care. I don't follow the political red/blue game.

FCC Commissioners are not politicians, Bilko. They don't run for office. Patrick led the execution, but to be more exhaustive about what's a tangent here anyway, Mark Fowler, another Reagan appointee, laid the groundwork before him. Part of that "deregulation" cocaine that all the Reaganites were snorting, for which we're paying now.

Fowler had been a lawyer for the broadcast industry -- the exact entity that stands to gain from taking airwaves away from We the People. This was the equivalent of appointing a Goldman Sachs goon to run the SEC, or a Monsanto Moron to run the USDA, i.e. the fox guarding the hen house-- again, part of that take-from-the-people-and-give-to-the-corporations ideological meth the Reaganites were all shooting up with. And again, the aftermath is left to us. Reagan got his corporate shilling done (something he devoted a lifetime to) and now it's left to us to clean up.
.

And I did that for free as normally I get $100 a hour.

If this is a sample of your work, you're not worth 100 Iranian Rials an hour. Sorry, "a hour". Such a "detective" that you can't even find the words in this thread. So you make them up, pin them on others and plant false evidence. Not to mention endless quotes from some internet only you have that doesn't do links. You're completely out of your league here, dood.

One always has to "dig deep" when you are around.
And they better bring their waders and rain slicker as the BULL SHIT is eye high.

It sure is. Shall we update this Bullshit Mountain then, just to keep it current?
Where is this: Your partisan slant here is Exhibit A of that -?
Where is this: You fault conservatives for believing that the comments of the left will be turned into policy by this admistration -?
Where is this: and praise the left for their continued support of "what is fair" and "what the public wants" -?
Where is this: you claim here with a straight face you were not a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine -?
Where is this: you claim that there should have not been any worries about it coming back -?
Where is: "a proliferation of cable television, multiple channels within cable, public access channels and internet" in 1969 -?
Where is any mention of "Equal Time Rule"?
And let's welcome our newest addition:
Where is me saying ONE FCC Commissioner axed the FD?

I'd get to work if I were you...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gadawg73 got schooled but good.

 

[Pogo]

Gadawg73 got schooled but good.

Sorry about that but I don't play halfway and I don't abide people making things up.

It was all offtopic anyway -- we're still looking at Zero on any evidence or basis behind the OP beyond the ipse dixit of a few wackaloons who come unarmed and then wonder why their clothes are full of rhetorical bullet holes.

Funny that the OP himself hasn't been back to back it up...

 

[BlindBoo]

The far right radicals on the Board are secret agents paid by the DNC to make post stupidities to make sure the Democrats stay in charge. Uncensored is the chief DNC agent.

Well it wouldn't suprise me at all, that user certainly posts some of the stupidest shit on these boards.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well it wouldn't suprise me at all, that user certainly posts some of the stupidest shit on these boards.

Oh my, without the approval of a mindless, partisan hack like Boo, what SHALL I do?

 

[BlindBoo]

Well it wouldn't suprise me at all, that user certainly posts some of the stupidest shit on these boards.

Oh my, without the approval of a mindless, partisan hack like Boo, what SHALL I do?

Shit, and fall back in it, I'm guessing. I approve of the fine job you're doing now that Iunderstand you're a plant from the DNC, You're doing a fine job. Keep up the good work I understand you Dems want a super-majority.

 

[Mustang]

Well, it seems to me that talk radio is kinda like the crazy uncle on meth who's somehow managed to get behind the wheel of the Capital Hill bus which is supposed to be shuttling the GOP leadership across town to a strategy session.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Shit, and fall back in it, I'm guessing.

Sorry, I'm not Jakestarkey...

I approve of the fine job you're doing now that Iunderstand you're a plant from the DNC, You're doing a fine job. Keep up the good work I understand you Dems want a super-majority.

So, are you drunk, at this very moment?

I certainly hope so, for your sake. Because if you're like this sober, that's just sad.....

 

[BlindBoo]

Shit, and fall back in it, I'm guessing.

Sorry, I'm not Jakestarkey...

I approve of the fine job you're doing now that Iunderstand you're a plant from the DNC, You're doing a fine job. Keep up the good work I understand you Dems want a super-majority.

So, are you drunk, at this very moment?

I certainly hope so, for your sake. Because if you're like this sober, that's just sad.....

Jake? Is this your alter-ego?

Still you've done a fine job exposing the nut-jobs and their moronic theories.

Good for you.......

 

[LowIQ]

I cannot wait until the shtf and all of this gets settled once and for all. One way or the other - it's past due. It'll be good to put it to bed one way or the other once and for all.