Friday, January 19, 2007

So-called "Fairness" Doctrine Would Be 'Dealt With' By Bush: WND

Story here. Read it all.

The Democrats want to try to eradicate conservative television and radio shows. Oh, yes, they do. Why do I say this? Here's why (emphasis mine):
"Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Congressman Maurice Hinchy of New York have just introduced companion bills called the 'Media Ownership Reform Act,' which are an attempt to revive the 'fairness' doctrine' for TV and radio with no such government control proposed for newspapers, magazines or wire services..."

Hmm. I'm thinking about the success of FOX News and of Rush Limbaugh's radio talk show. Apparently, conservatives do well on TV and radio, therefore the Democrats will target these forms of media with their so-called "fairness" bullshit. Oh, yes. And where's proof of intent on the part of the extremist Democrats? Here we go:
(...)"President Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of Commerce, Bill Ruder, said, 'We had a massive strategy to use the 'fairness doctrine' to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters and hoped the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue...."

That was an explanation of what the Democrats were trying to do with the so-called "fairness" fascism: eliminate conservative voices by making it "too expensive to continue..." straight from the donkey's mouth!

Apparently, as we see from the article at the link, the Democrats are always trying to reimpose this so-called "fairness" pigpoop. They're hellbent on trying to shut up conservative voices. They want to monopolize public discourse to their political and social agendae's advantage. This is a desire on their part to have a state-apparatus propaganda system in place for whatever they want. Hmm... rather like the Nazi propaganda machine, the Soviet propaganda machine, the Chinese propaganda machine, Saddam's propaganda machine, etc., etc...

Silence the dissenting voices... that's the "liberal" way.

Tell us all what we may and may not say.

WND says that the problem with this so-called "fairness" doctrine, and I agree, is essentially:
(...) such a doctrine is impossible to enforce, since "fairness" would mean "that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what 'fair access' is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement."

We don't want the state telling us what's what. I thought the liberal-left wanted the state to not interfere with peoples' liberties. But that is what the Democrats and liberal-left always go out of their way to try to do.

I reject the left's arrogance in purporting to be the sole determinor of what is and what isn't "fair". Who do they think they are? How dare they? Where do they get off (don't answer that one; we don't need to go there)?

Did the left deify itself? Does the left think that they, as a collective, constitute God? If they do, then they're seriously delusional!

The people should be left free to say whatever they want and not be forced by the state via state agencies and apparatchiks to say what the state deems they must. Fascist is as fascist does!

Oh, and actually, with the doctrine in place, even the Republicans in the past (but not since the doctrine was abolished by Reagan, thank goodness!) have used it to restrict political opposition, according to WND.

So, with that in mind, does the liberal-left really want this to be the way things work? When in power, they stifle opposition conservatives and say they have a right to do so under the law whereas when the Republicans are in power and do it, they call them "Nazis" and "Fascists"?

See, the liberal-left Democrats want to have it both ways! Ok for them to silence opposition, but not for their opposition to do the same!

How about this: Neither side be allowed to silence dissent? Bush hasn't silenced the horrible, treasonous, threatening "dissent" we've seen and heard coming from the liberal-left, has he? No- he simply reminds everyone that they can do it because of the freedom of expression that the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

Don't tolerate any move back into the dark ages of iron-fisted statist control of what we say.