it's mind-bottling to me that these effin morans can say crap like "we want fairness" in dictating what is said, and claiming workers need a "private ballot" when their proposal is the opposite. unfuckingreal.

<TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD class=contentheading width="100%">Schumer on Fox: Fairness Doctrine �fair and balanced� </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <TABLE class=contentpaneopen><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top align=left width="70%" colSpan=2><SPAN class=contentauthor>By Bob Cusack </SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD class=createdate vAlign=top colSpan=2>Posted: 11/04/08 11:30 AM [ET] </TD></TR><TR><TD vAlign=top colSpan=2>Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Tuesday defended the so-called Fairness Doctrine in an interview on Fox News, saying, �I think we should all be fair and balanced, don�t you?�

<SPAN>Schumer�s comments echo other Democrats� views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.</SPAN>

<SPAN>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://ad.thehill.com/adx.js" type=text/javascript></SCRIPT> <SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/javascript> <SCRIPT language=JavaScript> var zflag_nid="162"; var zflag_cid="6698/1"; var zflag_sid="1075"; var zflag_width="300"; var zflag_height="250"; var zflag_sz="9"; </SCRIPT> <SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://c1.zedo.com/jsc/c1/fo.js"></SCRIPT>

Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.</SPAN>

<SPAN>�The very same people who don�t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that� But you can�t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That�s not consistent.�</SPAN>

<SPAN>In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, �It�s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they�re in a better position to make a decision.�</SPAN>

<SPAN>Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, �I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.�</SPAN>

<SPAN>Conservatives fear that forcing stations to make equal time for liberal talk radio would cut into profits so significantly that radio executives would opt to scale back on conservative radio programming to avoid escalating costs and interference from the FCC.</SPAN>

<SPAN>They also note that conservative radio shows has been far more successful than liberal ones.</SPAN>

<SPAN>In his Fox interview, Schumer, who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, also weighed in on the election, predicting that Democrats will end up with between 56 and 58 seats in the Senate.</SPAN>

<SPAN>He also defended �card check� legislation, claiming there is a strong need to allow workers a private ballot to register their votes on whether to organize a union.
Schumer said �there has to be some counter� to the leverage businesses have, claiming �employers have every leg up on people who want to organize and that�s why union workers have gone down from about 25 percent to 6 percent [in the private sector].�</SPAN>

<SPAN>Business groups adamantly oppose the card check bill, which passed the House and fell short of the necessary votes to overcome a filibuster in the Senate.</SPAN>
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Schumer on the media...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/gz34hph5qps&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gz34hph5qps&hl=en&fs=1" mce_src="http://www.youtube.com/v/gz34hph5qps&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LohhWW1aWo&hl=en&fs=1"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LohhWW1aWo&hl=en&fs=1" mce_src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4LohhWW1aWo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object>

 

Originally Posted by phish42O

lol @ conservative talk radio.

Its only demographic are 50-70 year old men who need to be pissed off at the world b/c they cant get hard anymore without viagra.

just lol.

This is just silly. With libs saying things like this its a wonder its the conservatives are out of touch.

not a lib sorry, i just possess the ability to think rationally.

 

Originally Posted by phish42O

not a lib sorry, i just possess the ability to think rationally.

My apologies for pigeonholing you. But seriously, that post was not one of a rational thinker.

It is fairly obvious that we cannot make the right choices unless we have the right information. I sense that control of the free flow of ideas and information will be a major issue in the next few years. We really do need to keep wacky people and their moronic ideas from being spread among people who are too stupid to realize they are being brainwashed.

If government is allowed control pornography it should also be able to control political ideas and thought as well, especially if there are greedy bastards out there making money off of spewing those ridiculous ideas. The best idea is to allow the duly elected government and appointed officials to keep the wackos off the airwaves, printed pages and the internet.

lolz - level???

Gov't doesn't need to protect the idiots. Plz, plz tell me you are joking!!!

1st amendment??? aren't we in compelling government interest land with political speech?

havent taken 1st amendment yet so i may be wrong, plz correct me if so.

 

Originally Posted by phish42O

lolz - level???

Gov't doesn't need to protect the idiots. Plz, plz tell me you are joking!!!

1st amendment??? aren't we in compelling government interest land with political speech?

havent taken 1st amendment yet so i may be wrong, plz correct me if so.

The fairness doctrine just makes things equal and fair, so the conservatives, libertarians and whoever else you can think of can't spew their wacky ideas without some balance. Anything else would be unfair. There is obviously a compelling government interest in regulating political speech. The interest is in maintaining fairness.

would be awful for radio stations simply because liberal talk radio does not get listeners

Just because Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are d-bags does not mean they should not be allowed to make a living. If the market supports it, and they are not advocating harming people, then they should be free to preach their bs.

Attempting to silence them is wrong and frankly scary.

I listen to conservative talk radio and I'm a 37-year-old female. I quite enjoy it, too.

thnak you for actually addressing my point. this post is like a breath of fresh air (and not b/c you agree)

statistical anomoly imo

I listen to Rush, Hannity, Beck and Levin and I'm 26 but I spend a lot of time in the car.