• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Joseph Goebbels Would Be So Proud

FarmallMTA

Muse
FarmallMTA
Joined
Jan 14, 2007
Messages
746
Looks like we're going to have the hard left trying to ram Pravda down our throats if they can get away with it. Seems like the free speech kind of bugs them, unless it's THEIR free speech. I'm always puzzled about these kooks. Are they Nazis or Commies? Either way, seems like they have finally owned up to believing that we should only get THEIR news.

http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927


Content excised due to Rule 4 violation; however, I left the link. Please remember that you are not permitted to quote copyrighted material in it's entirety.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jmercer

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=333927

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding "hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

 In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the "Fairness Doctrine," which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

 Kucinich said in his speech that "We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda" and added "we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible."
[/quote]
 
He needn't bother. Everyone knows Rupert Murdoch effectively owns all the media. And he is available to the highest bidder.
 
Tony said:
SO, in other words, it's naziish and commieish to try to make the market freer. Weird.
Click to expand...

The fairness doctrine does not make the market freer. It specifically RESTRICTS the market. Reinstituting it does not make the market freer, and the argument in favor of doing so is that the optimal solution for society in regards to news is something OTHER than a free market. So you're wrong about that. That being said, I agree that comparing Kucinich to Nazis in the first post of a thread is really pushing Godwin to the limit.

Kucinich is his own special breed of nutjob (and I use "special" like the kids on the short bus are "special"). He believes in chemtrails, for cryin' out loud. Sensible progressives should treat him like a syphalitic lepper with flatulence. But he's no Nazi. He lacks the deliberate malice the label should require.
 
SO, in other words, it's naziish and commieish to try to make the market freer. Weird.[/quote]

Close. Naziish and Commieish to make a free market conform to Kucinich's government dictates. Surely the 1st Amendment and free speech crowd agrees. Not the commies. Not the Nazis. Just everyone else.

Hell, even fellow traveler Chomsky could see that...

Noam Chomsky: Goebbels was in favor of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favor of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favor of free speech.

Kucinich = Goebbels = Stalin. All the same dictatorial anti-freedom impulse.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
The fairness doctrine does not make the market freer. It specifically RESTRICTS the market. Reinstituting it does not make the market freer, and the argument in favor of doing so is that the optimal solution for society in regards to news is something OTHER than a free market.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was a free market, I said it made the market freer. Which it does. A market is just as restricted if a private entity or a few private entities are able to dominate as it would be under government domination.

Kucinich is his own special breed of nutjob (and I use "special" like the kids on the short bus are "special"). He believes in chemtrails, for cryin' out loud. Sensible progressives should treat him like a syphalitic lepper with flatulence. But he's no Nazi. He lacks the deliberate malice the label should require.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
FarmallMTA said:
Naziish and Commieish to make a free market conform to Kucinich's government dictates. Surely the 1st Amendment and free speech crowd agrees. Not the commies. Not the Nazis. Just everyone else.

Kucinich = Goebbels.
Click to expand...

You need to stretch your mind a little. There are far more authoritarian ideologies floating around than just those two. While these moves are most definitely anti-free speech, the belief in the sanctity of free speech is actually fairly peculiar to the US. Sadly, far more people than just Nazis and commies don't believe in free speech. Your comparison is hyperbole, and distracts from what SHOULD be the core of your argument: that Kucinich wants to restrict free speech.
 
Tony said:
I didn't say it was a free market, I said it made the market freer. Which it does. A market is just as restricted if a private entity or a few private entities are able to dominate as it would be under government domination.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Government interference restricts the actions of actors in the market. Nobody restricts the actions of actors in a truly free market, EVEN IF that market is dominated by one actor. If you're NBC, for example, it doesn't matter if your market share drops to 5% and Fox soars to 90%: nothing that Fox does can prevent you from saying what you want to say, or make you say something you don't want to say. But regardless of how diverse the market is, under the fairness doctrine, you CANNOT say whatever you want to say: the government can force you to either say things you don't want to or not say things you do want to. It does not make the market freer. That is not, and has never been, the argument in favor of it. The argument in favor of it is that it makes the market more "fair", but "fair" and "free" are hardly synonymous.
 
Nope. Kucinich is a far left authoritarian nutjob who wants to control what we read and hear. The free speech position should be, "you don't like what you hear on the EIB network, tune into Air America." But that's not what Kucinich really thinks. He really thinks there should be no alternative to Air America.
 
It's interesting to hear a nutjob explain what somebody else "really thinks".
 
Dixie Chicks Star in Senate Radio Consolidation Hearing
08-Jul-03

AdAge.com reports: "During a Senate hearing on radio consolidation, senators grilled a radio industry executive about his decision to pull songs by the country band the Dixie Chicks from the air for a month...
The committee's chairman, John McCain, R-Ariz., sharply questioned Cumulus Media CEO Lewis W. Dickey Jr. if he felt his decision ban the Dixie Chicks from all of Cumulus' country music stations demonstrated the political danger present in having too few owners of the nation's media... Sen. McCain said that while individual stations have the right to pull songs, the decision by Cumulus (as well as by another media company, Cox Communications) to pull songs chainwide from its stations was a 'total contradiction' of statements made by media executives that they were serving local markets. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., suggested Mr. Dickey's decision smacked of Nazism and McCarthyism rather than of free speech."
Click to expand...

Yawn. Nazis everywhere we look.
 
Tony said:
No he doesn't, he wants to restrict commerce to further free speech.
Click to expand...

How is commerce not free speech?


If I understand this correctly, it would mean that, for example, a TV channel could not spend all its time airing Michael Moore´s and Al Gore´s works, but would have to devote equal time to a conservative viewpoint. Or vice versa.

That, however, is not a free speech issue.

"Free speech" does not mean forcing somebody to give you a platform from which to make you opinion public. "Free speech" merely means GOVERNMENT cannot prevent you fron TRYING to get such a platform, IF you can convince somebody to provide it to you.

What this Fairness thing amounts to is similar to forcing you to devote half your posting effort to praising the Bush administration.
 
Chaos said:
If I understand this correctly, it would mean that, for example, a TV channel could not spend all its time airing Michael Moore´s and Al Gore´s works, but would have to devote equal time to a conservative viewpoint. Or vice versa.

That, however, is not a free speech issue.
Click to expand...

Yes it is, because you are restricted from saying what you want to say for part of the time. It is most definitely a restriction on free speech, just like the prohibition on showing nudity on prime time broadcasts is a restriction on free speech. Neither restriction is actually unconstitutional, however, because the transmission spectrum is considered public property and its use can be restricted by the government (in contrast to, for example, print publishers or cable stations), which makes access to broadcasters contingent upon adhering to such restrictions.

What this Fairness thing amounts to is similar to forcing you to devote half your posting effort to praising the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Since time is limited, that would indeed restrict me from saying what I want to say ;) , so thank you for proving my point.
 
i read the article....where exactly are the communists and the nazis? :rolleyes:
 
andyandy said:
i read the article....where exactly are the communists and the nazis? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hint, to help with reading and comprehension skills:

The NAZI's first name begins with a "D" and his last name begins with a "K"

The COMMIE's first name ends with an "s" and his last name ends with an "h"

Don't be afraid to ask other questions, Andyandyandyandyandyandyandyandyandy. We're all here to help you with the hard parts.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom