[Galveston1]

If you put Obama in the White House and give him a filibuster-proof congress, you can bet that the “fairness doctrine” will be reinstated. What would that mean to you?

Probably nothing in the sense that you will still be able to stand in your yard and say pretty much what you want to.

What it will mean is that any voice of opposition will be silenced. Here’s how it will work.

Under the fairness doctrine, when a “controversial” voice is aired, the broadcasting company, or station must allow an opposing view to be aired at their expense. Of course, those in power will define who is controversial. Stations will no longer be able to afford people like O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity and many other conservative voices, and we will lose access to the outlook of men and women like these.

Now maybe you don’t give a hoot about any of them, but do you really want a country where the government can silence any opposing view?

If that happens, we are no longer a free country.

Maybe you think we don’t need them, that we have several news outlets. I doubt that any sane person thinks the major outlets are unbiased. The closest to being balanced is Fox, and under “fairness” even they could be pressured to drop any offending voice.
If you have no alternative news source, then those in charge can feed you whatever tripe they want to and you will be none the wiser.

Think about it before you vote.

[Choux]

The people who want to change the First Amendment are the radical Christians and other wacky right wing extremists.

They want to drop freedom of relilgion and gradually insert a Christian Theocracy.Then, take away our rights!

[Galveston1]

The people who want to change the First Amendment are the radical Christians and other wacky right wing extremists.

They want to drop freedom of relilgion and gradually insert a Christian Theocracy.Then, take away our rights!

You are grossly misinformed.

[excon]

Hello Gal:

Yup. I heard they're going to close down Fox and string up O'Reilly by his nether region... And, Obama is going to tear down the White House and build a pyramid.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

[Galveston1]

Hello Gal:

Yup. I heard they're gonna close down Fox and string up O'Reilly by his nether region... And, Obama is gonna tear down the White House and build a pyramid.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

Now that is a ridiculous response! Do you or do you not see the fainess doctrine as a threat to free speech?

It could even be a threat to freedom of religion as well. Any preacher that would go on the air and preach against sin, naming sin, would be considered controversial, even by you, and would be silenced.

[ashley0716]

Exactly, Gal, and what I want to know is, who gets to decide what's "fair" or not? And Choux, who said anything about Christians trying to take anything away from anyone? We Christians are just upset by the fact that everything must be so "politically correct" that they are willing to yank out the very words our nation was founded on. But thanks for the wrongful stereotype!

[Skell]

Exactly, Gal, and what I wanna know is, who gets to decide what's "fair" or not? And Choux, who said anything about Christians trying to take anything away from anyone? We Christians are just upset by the fact that everything must be so "politically correct" that they are willing to yank out the very words our nation was founded on. But thanks for the wrongful stereotype!

What few words would they be?

[ashley0716]

"under God", "in God we trust", those words weren't thrown in for the heck of it.

[excon]

"under God", "in God we trust", those words weren't thrown in for the heck of it.

Hello ashley:

Your history is flawed. Under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's, and In God We Trust first appeared on a coin in 1864.

You won't find those words in ANY of the founding documents.

excon

[Skell]

Hello ashley:

Your history is flawed. Under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's, and In God We Trust first appeared on a coin in 1864.

You won't find those words in ANY of the founding documents.

excon

Thanks for chiming in ex. To be honest the only reason I quizzed her was cause I knew what her answer would be, and I knew you'd promptly shoot her down. I love it when a play comes off. :D

[Galveston1]

Hello ashley:

Your history is flawed. Under God was added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950's, and In God We Trust first appeared on a coin in 1864.

You won't find those words in ANY of the founding documents.

excon

You should sing "tiptoe through the tulips" or somethling similar. Did you ever read in the Preamble to the Constitution the words "endowed by the Creator" "certain inalienable rights", etc.?

Now who needs the history lesson?

[excon]

Hello Gal:

I don't know. She didn't mention those words. I think you need a reading comprehension lesson, instead me needing a history lesson.

excon

[excon]

Hello again, Gal:

Do you value YOUR Fourth Amendment rights, or your Fifth Amendments rights that the dufus took from you?? They're certainly MORE important than the "fairness doctirne". Course, I doubt whether YOU'LL think so.

But, I do. And, of course, I'M right.

excon

[Galveston1]

Hello again, Gal:

Do you value YOUR Fourth Amendment rights, or your Fifth Amendments rights that the dufus took from you???? They're certainly MORE important than the "fairness doctirne". Course, I doubt whether YOU'LL think so.

But, I do. And, of course, I'M right.

excon

Of course your are, Ex, sure you are.:D

So according to you, we've already lost #4 & #5 so what makes you so willing to lose even more??

[TexasParent]

Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine
By JIM ABRAMS – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate has barred federal regulators from reviving a policy, abandoned two decades ago, that required balanced coverage of issues on public airwaves.

The Senate vote on the so-called Fairness Doctrine was in part a response to conservative radio talk show hosts who feared that Democrats would try to revive the policy to ensure liberal opinions got equal time.

The Federal Communications Commission implemented the doctrine in 1949, but stopped enforcing it in 1987 after deciding new sources of information and programming made it unnecessary.

President Barack Obama says he has no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans, led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. say they still need a guarantee the government would not establish new quotas or guidelines on programming.

The Associated Press: Senate bars FCC from revisiting Fairness Doctrine

Despite the endless hours of fearmongering on this issue on conservative talk radio; as it turns out it is a non-issue.

Time to move on my right leaning friends.