Fairness Doctrine? Are you kidding me?

Threedee said:
Cha, cuz there's like, no historical precedent for this, like totally!
Click to expand...


I'll do a friendly signature and avatar wager for the first person to take me up on the offer that a bill to implement the Fairness Doctrine or its functional equivalent will not pass either house of Congress during this congressional term.
 
cawacko said:
Just my opinion but I think its a shame you equate winning elections with shutting down speech that you don't like.
Click to expand...

Who's shutting down free speech? That's either a strawman or hyperbole. The fairness doctrine does not shut down free speech. Does it deny Republicans a political advantage? Sure, and that's the advantage of winning elections.

I don't mean to mischaracterize your position if I am here but you seem to be making the same argument that uscitizen makes which is if it weren't people like Limbaugh and Hannity no one would vote Republican as people are being brain washed by them. You are an example of this yourself. You say you are a former Republican. Were you one at the time because you agreed with more of the party's positions than you did the Democrats? Or was it because you were brainwashed?
Click to expand...

That's an assumption on your part and I've never implied that. Rush's secret to success is that he's combined Joseph Goebbels propaganda model with humor (and in a sense it was brilliant of him. It's made him a very rich man) to attract a very large audience but brain washing? I don't think Rush is guilty or even capable of that.

The Republican party is like any political party. It's a coalition of different interests. It has ideas that I feel are good and some that are bad. The problem I have is that those ideas I felt are bad have triumphed in the party. That combined with ideologues for leaders who have pushed bad ideas towards extremism. But to answer your question, I originally became a Republican because I agreed with more of their positions and though them better than the Democrats. Over time I have learned and observed and thought and as the Republicans drifted more and more to the right I became more and more alienated.

Fundamentally I do not understand this idea of wanting to regulate and control speech like you want to.
Click to expand...

Again, that's a misrepresentation of my position and is there fore a strawman. I've never said that. I have only made an observation that the government does have the right to regulate the public airwaves in the public interest (that's a fact) and that the Fairness Doctrine does not abridge free speech. You, or none of those who have disagreed, have addressed either of those points. You just accuse me, with out basis, of wanting to control free speech which, again, is another strawman.
 
Mottleydude said:
Who's shutting down free speech? That's either a strawman or hyperbole. The fairness doctrine does not shut down free speech. Does it deny Republicans a political advantage? Sure, and that's the advantage of winning elections.



That's an assumption on your part and I've never implied that. Rush's secret to success is that he's combined Joseph Goebbels propaganda model with humor (and in a sense it was brilliant of him. It's made him a very rich man) to attract a very large audience but brain washing? I don't think Rush is guilty or even capable of that.

The Republican party is like any political party. It's a coalition of different interests. It has ideas that I feel are good and some that are bad. The problem I have is that those ideas I felt are bad have triumphed in the party. That combined with ideologues for leaders who have pushed bad ideas towards extremism. But to answer your question, I originally became a Republican because I agreed with more of their positions and though them better than the Democrats. Over time I have learned and observed and thought and as the Republicans drifted more and more to the right I became more and more alienated.



Again, that's a misrepresentation of my position and is there fore a strawman. I've never said that. I have only made an observation that the government does have the right to regulate the public airwaves in the public interest (that's a fact) and that the Fairness Doctrine does not abridge free speech. You, or none of those who have disagreed, have addressed either of those points. You just accuse me, with out basis, of wanting to control free speech which, again, is another strawman.
Click to expand...

So you want to the government then to be able to essentially control speech over the ariwaves and that control is determined by who wins elections. I agree with Soc. earlier when he said how in any way is that a progressive ideal?
 
free speech is more than just shutting speech down, it is chilling, it is forcing a POV on people....do you think that free speech means obama can tell me i have to think or talk like a liberal for one hour a day?

the doctrine is no longer relevant as there are plenty of other mediums with which to get your POV across, that is why it is no longer in force
 
cawacko said:
So you want to the government then to be able to essentially control speech over the ariwaves and that control is determined by who wins elections. I agree with Soc. earlier when he said how in any way is that a progressive ideal?
Click to expand...

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!! ANOTHER GODDAMNED STRAWMAN!!!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my point and put words in my mouth I never uttered? Can't you address the points I made instead of making ones up?
 
Mottleydude said:
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!! ANOTHER GODDAMNED STRAWMAN!!!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my point and put words in my mouth I never uttered? Can't you address the points I made instead of making ones up?
Click to expand...

Mottley, I'm trying to understand your point not misrepresent it but everything I say is a "strawman".
 
Mottleydude said:
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!! ANOTHER GODDAMNED STRAWMAN!!!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my point and put words in my mouth I never uttered? Can't you address the points I made instead of making ones up?
Click to expand...
Do you remember the p.com "Strawman" thread? That was fun. Maybe we should do one here.

Every post had to start with "So you are saying..."
 
Mottleydude said:
JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!! ANOTHER GODDAMNED STRAWMAN!!!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting my point and put words in my mouth I never uttered? Can't you address the points I made instead of making ones up?
Click to expand...

Ok...

You are incorrect. The so-called 'fairness' doctrine most definitely limits free speech. When the government starts dictating what 'speech' must be on the air... they are limiting the ability of the stations to provide what their audience wants and instead are force feeding them what they do not.

This is not simply an 'elimination of a political advantage'. It is controlling speech.

If I own a station and the listeners of my station want to listen to Rock and the government comes in and says you must play an equal amount of country... is that justifiable to you?
 
Mottleydude said:
If the questions are misleading or misrepresent a position or a point of view, within a debate or an argument, then they would be a strawman.
Click to expand...

If he is asking you to explain your position and stating how he sees your position at that moment, I don't think it would be a strawman. Would it?

For instance, if I said, "from what I understand about your view on abortion, you are for it in every instance up until the beginning of the second trimester because..." then I'm not attacking you, but rather trying to make sure that we understand each other on a particular issue and asking you to correct me where I am wrong. I may even be completely wrong on my understanding of your position, but I am allowing you to clear it up if need be... so that we can continue the discussion.

Immie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top