Why won't liberals apply the Fairness Doctrine everywhere?

Why is it not surprising to me that a Con-servative would believe in the fantasy of the Fairness Doctrine...most of you also believe in the fantasy of the baby killing bible god.

I hope you are really scared and angry...over nothing. LOL

FORCE? Yeah...typical facist, force people into submission because your ideas are so stupid even a Jerry's Kid would reject them.

So who's on this bandwagon today--Rush? Every time a right-wing host rants about the Fairness Doctrine, we get a bunch of questions on here.

So let's go over this again--the "liberals" are not advocating for the Fairness Doctrine; we are advocating for less conglomeration in media ownership, the way it used to be, so that there will be the possibility of more variety of opinions.

But even when we HAD the Fairness Doctrine, NO ONE WAS CENSORED. Where in the world is this "censorship" thing coming from? If Rush is on one station and a progressive talk show is on another station, each listener would have a choice. No one would be censored. Can we finally clear up these silly misunderstandings, PLEASE?

in the 20 years because of the fact the fairness doctrine replaced into scrapped we've considered AM radio flow from the land of the Carpenters (permit's face Mack's argument for now) to a 24-7 channel for the Republican social gathering, a channel that pronounces the worst form of slurs against Democrats with impunity. It delivers what could desire to be billions in unfastened merchandising for Republicans (has every physique quantified this?) provided that lots of the widespread public isn't Republican, this situation needless to say is going against the assumption of broadcast stations being public concerns inspired with the widespread public have faith. And no, "public have faith" would not equivalent "sandbox for demagogic actual wing talkers." So frankly the i'm unimpressed with the cries from conservatives that they could lose 0.5 their time on the radio. Why could they have that lots time? They particularly do no longer signify 0.5 the human beings in the country. magazine Communications, sparkling Channel and the rest needless to say have conventional they are incapable of upholding the widespread public have faith by way of self-regulation. And so we choose some form of fairness doctrine to help be sure this have faith is upheld. The restoration of this form of regulatory regime could create enterprise annoying circumstances for those conglomerates yet i do no longer probably care. they had their threat and that they blew it. do no longer be stupid: help the fairness doctrine.

Excellent question. You won't get the libtards to admit it, but the Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with silencing the opposition.

Isn't it ironic that they only want to apply this to the radio...and the radio is the only form of media that leans conservative???

Bring it on! Without private screeners, Colmes, Hartmann, Rhodes, the others wimps won't be able to keep anyone who disagrees off the air. This would be a great victory for conservatives, and a huge mistake for liberals. They can't stand up to the scrutiny, or the facts. The Dems would be rushing to abolish this in 6 months

BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are suggesting a system whereby the students decide which version of the facts are presented.

How about we just educate high school students well enough to think for themselves before we let them go to college.

Liberals would be the first to complain if there was a law demanding conservatives be allowed equal time on CNN or MSNBC.

Sounds like you are type of person who would have supported McCarthyism ... but you probably haven't got a clue what I'm talking about ... or even that I'm being sarcastic ... learn from History, sonny!

It all comes down to who gets to decide where the "center" is. A totally political decision in itself

Because Liberals motto is: Do as I say, not as I do.