it is a very valid question, murky, which you dismiss because you are
unable to answer it.  face it murky, your fairness doctrine is nothing
more than a doctrine to silence conservative opposition to the
socialist dems.  to be fair it would cover all news outlets would it
not?  wouldn't it murky?

On Nov 10, 6:25 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> it is a stupid question with no basis in fact . but then that is to be
> expected from you ! the fairness doctrine covers all news outlets .
> now please post the link showing where the fairness doctrine has been
> ruled unconstitutional as you claimed .
>
> On Nov 10, 6:19 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > come on murky, answer me.  if this is so "fair", why does it only
> > apply to the one area dominated by conservatives, talk radio, and
> > ignore the liberal dominated papers, and tv news?  how come murky?
> > easy question.
>
> > On Nov 10, 4:55 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > > you haven't started yet fish boy none of those things you mentioned
> > > are unconstitutional .
>
> > > On Nov 10, 4:37 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > The Fairness Doctrine.
>
> > > > Social Programs.
>
> > > > Abortions funded by the Government.
>
> > > > Shall I go on?
>
> > > > On Nov 10, 1:31 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > please list even one policy of the DNC that conflicts with the
> > > > > constitution !
>
> > > > > On Nov 9, 9:00 am, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Bullshit.
>
> > > > > > You have proven you support Socialism and the Democratic Party, over
> > > > > > the Constitution, on every Issue where they conflict.
>
> > > > > > Imagine that.
>
> > > > > > On Nov 8, 7:53 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > i support the constitution 100%
> > > > > > > which is why i support the fairness doctrine !
> > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:55 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > you would cheer the destruction of the constitution, wouldn't ya
> > > > > > > > murky?  commie
>
> > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 8:20 am, "mike [move on] 532" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > excellent news !
>
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 8, 7:26 am, mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > Democrat Henry Rivera, a former commissioner of the Federal
> > > > > > > > > > Communications Commission, is expected to head 
> > > > > > > > > > President-elect Barack
> > > > > > > > > > Obama's FCC transition team, a move that has sparked fear 
> > > > > > > > > > in media
> > > > > > > > > > circles that the Fairness Doctrine may return to silence 
> > > > > > > > > > conservative
> > > > > > > > > > talk radio.
>
> > > > > > > > > > If reenacted, the "Fairness Doctrine" would require 
> > > > > > > > > > broadcasts over
> > > > > > > > > > the public airwaves to give equal time to opposing 
> > > > > > > > > > political views.
> > > > > > > > > > For talk radio, which boomed after the law's repeal in 1987 
> > > > > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > > building an audience devoted to conservative talk, the 
> > > > > > > > > > law's return
> > > > > > > > > > would decimate the industry's marketability.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Many fear the "Fairness Doctrine" would drive talk radio 
> > > > > > > > > > hosts – like
> > > > > > > > > > Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage – out of 
> > > > > > > > > > business.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Brian Maloney of the blog The Radio Equalizer said in his 
> > > > > > > > > > post, "Meet
> > > > > > > > > > Talk's Executioner,"  he believes Rivera will use his 
> > > > > > > > > > position to
> > > > > > > > > > bring back the law for that very purpose.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Rivera, according to Maloney, "is expected to lead the push 
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > dismantle commercial talk radio that is favored by a number 
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Democratic Party senators. Rivera will play a pivotal role 
> > > > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > preventing critics from having a public voice during 
> > > > > > > > > > Obama's tenure in
> > > > > > > > > > office."
>
> > > > > > > > > >http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80424-Hidequot...
>
> > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to