• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fairness doctrine

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Originally posted by: Mani
It's a bogeyman for right wing talk show hosts to rile up their listeners (pretty much all they're good at any more) and that's it. It's not coming back and Obama won't push it as an issue.
No kidding - Rush and Hannity's heads would explode if they were ever required to present opposing views on the issues! Gah! BOOM! Explode, I say.
Actually how it works is for every hour of rush there has to be an hour of liberal talk. Since no one listens to those shows radio stations begin to lose money. So they are forced to switch formats and dump talk all together. The fairness doctrine is just a way to get radio stations to switch formats by forcing them to carry programming that loses money. It is just a clever way to shut up the voice of opposition.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy

Look, another person who is basing their view of government on a 7th grade civics class. Do you know how much of the major bills passed by Congress are in fact written by the Executive branch? And this is in a Congress controlled by the opposition party! The president routinely writes bills and gives them over to the Congress. You're right, they could ignore them and write their own bills, but they don't. You know why? Because of all the institutional advantages I mentioned in my earlier post.

All you have left to cling to now is some idea that you've conjured up that somehow, in defiance of the last century of American governance, that the weakest Congress in history is suddenly going to rise up and take over an executive branch that has grown utterly out of control, and is virtually immune from legislative sanction. That's really really stupid.

I have a fervent hope that Obama turns back the tide of near tyrannical power that the executive currently wields, for the good of the country. I wish Congress would have more influence over him, but people generally don't give up power... I won't hold my breath.
Buahahahahaha... talk about HOPElessly delusional....


Let us know when you want to come back to reality so we can continue...
Typical CAD. When confronted with someone who obviously knows a lot more about a subject than you, you run away with some stupid meaningless post. I've spent quite a lot of time in my life studying Congress. I'm not an expert, but I definitely know a lot more than the average joe, and I obviously know a lot more than you.

I don't care about 'continuing' with you, you are immune to reason. The only purpose in 'discussing' things with you is to document your demolition in the thread so that if other people read it, they don't fall for your bullshit. I have no illusions that I could ever dent your skull with facts or reasoned opinion.

No, it's typical delusional liberals who don't understand how the system actually works. I've shown you where your pie in the sky BS fails but you still cling to some "hope" that somehow the President can control things - when in reality they don't. So yes, please come back to reality because your "reason" is absurd and not based on anything but your twisted hope.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: eskimospy
-snip-
He has power, but if his party is a sufficient minority (or won't support him), even his veto is useless.

Besides the bullypulpit, I don't think GWB has much over Congress other than his very real threat of veto. I'm not saying that he doesn't have control over the functions/agencies under the Exec branch, but without the threat of a sustainable veto Congress would be almost unchecked (the Judicial branch is still there).

Fern
Why would he not have a sustainable veto? Parties pretty much never have 2/3rds majority in the House or the Senate. Certainly won't happen anytime soon. I just don't view a veto-proof Congress as a realistic scenario. (not only that but even if a party did control 67 seats, there are factions within Congress that frequently do not agree... hello Blue Dogs!)

I think people really underestimate just how much power the President has to influence public opinion, set the agenda, and influence Congress. Obama will control Congress, not the other way around. (well actually they will probably for the most part just work together, but you know what I mean)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, it's typical delusional liberals who don't understand how the system actually works. I've shown you where your pie in the sky BS fails but you still cling to some "hope" that somehow the President can control things - when in reality they don't. So yes, please come back to reality because your "reason" is absurd and not based on anything but your twisted hope.
No, I simply know more about how our government works than you do. The information I've put forth isn't new or anything, it's pretty commonly accepted by political scientists. In your ignorance you are unaware of this.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy if it ends up passing and right-wing talkshow hosts have to present both sides of an issue. I'm really pretty apathetic on this issue I guess.
Yeah, fuck free speech.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, it's typical delusional liberals who don't understand how the system actually works. I've shown you where your pie in the sky BS fails but you still cling to some "hope" that somehow the President can control things - when in reality they don't. So yes, please come back to reality because your "reason" is absurd and not based on anything but your twisted hope.
No, I simply know more about how our government works than you do. The information I've put forth isn't new or anything, it's pretty commonly accepted by political scientists. In your ignorance you are unaware of this.
No you don't if you really believe what you posted. You may wish and HOPE it works like that but reality dictates it doesn't.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,051
10,558
136
No, it's not coming back.

Dittoheads should ask themselves how logical it would be for liberals to bring back the Fairness Doctrine when liberals supposedly control the mainstream media.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,325
126
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Has he ever mentioned his stance on the FD?

I don't think he would make it part of his agenda, but if it came to his desk I doubt he would veto it. I think it's kind of lame of the Democrats to try and push this, but at the same time, I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy if it ends up passing and right-wing talkshow hosts have to present both sides of an issue. I'm really pretty apathetic on this issue I guess.
The problem is, people who listen to Rush and Hannity don't want to hear "both sides of the issues" anymore then Libs want to listen to Rush and Hannity. Regardless of what the supposed intent is, the result will be loss of listeners which will lead to loss of revenue and eventually they will go out of business.

Let that sink in for a moment. Doesn't really matter if you agree with the talk radio shows or not. The FD is nothing more than new legislation to solve a NON issue that will result in shutting up people you (and I for that matter) disagree with.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, it's typical delusional liberals who don't understand how the system actually works. I've shown you where your pie in the sky BS fails but you still cling to some "hope" that somehow the President can control things - when in reality they don't. So yes, please come back to reality because your "reason" is absurd and not based on anything but your twisted hope.
No, I simply know more about how our government works than you do. The information I've put forth isn't new or anything, it's pretty commonly accepted by political scientists. In your ignorance you are unaware of this.
No you don't if you really believe what you posted. You may wish and HOPE it works like that but reality dictates it doesn't.
No, I wish the exact opposite. I wish Congress had more control over the executive. The executive is completely out of control. I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.

I genuinely hope you're right. To be honest if nothing came out of the next 4 years but a massive curb on executive power, it would be a resounding success to me. Unfortunately I know better. So, are you done yet? I know you won't admit you're wrong, (you're CAD afterall) but can you at least just slink away like you normally do?
 

frostedflakes

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2005
7,925
1
0
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy if it ends up passing and right-wing talkshow hosts have to present both sides of an issue. I'm really pretty apathetic on this issue I guess.
Yeah, fuck free speech.
Like I said, I don't agree with the FD, you just won't see me up in arms if somehow it passes. I think there are more important Constitutional rights to protect than the right to sound like dochebag on AM radio.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.
You would save yourself a TON of repetitive typing if you simply added this to your sig. Let's all just assume from here on out that you've read lots of books on the government and you're pretty arrogant - err - I mean confident - in knowing all about how it works.

No need to keep reminding yourself - err - I mean us.
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I'm not going to have a lot of sympathy if it ends up passing and right-wing talkshow hosts have to present both sides of an issue. I'm really pretty apathetic on this issue I guess.
Yeah, fuck free speech.
Like I said, I don't agree with the FD, you just won't see me up in arms if somehow it passes. I think there are more important Constitutional rights to protect than the right to sound like dochebag on AM radio.
So you're all for selectively protecting Constitutional rights now? You won't be up in arms if people who disagree with you aren't allowed to voice it over the airwaves?

Ever hear of a guy named Stalin?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.
You would save yourself a TON of repetitive typing if you simply added this to your sig. Let's all just assume from here on out that you've read lots of books on the government and you're pretty arrogant - err - I mean confident - in knowing all about how it works.

No need to keep reminding yourself - err - I mean us.
Yeah, I get mad when people know things too.

If you keep chasing me around trying to pull my pigtails, maybe I'll let you be my friend.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.
You would save yourself a TON of repetitive typing if you simply added this to your sig. Let's all just assume from here on out that you've read lots of books on the government and you're pretty arrogant - err - I mean confident - in knowing all about how it works.

No need to keep reminding yourself - err - I mean us.
Yeah, I get mad when people know things too.

If you keep chasing me around trying to pull my pigtails, maybe I'll let you be my friend.
We're all just chasing that rainbow. :D
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: eskimospy
And this is in a Congress controlled by the opposition party! The president routinely writes bills and gives them over to the Congress.
Buahahahahaha... talk about HOPElessly delusional....

Let us know when you want to come back to reality so we can continue...
What exactly are you laughing at? Hell, lobbyists often author legislation that is introduced verbatim by a friendly congresman/senator. You never heard of the Justice Department or other executive branch authoring proposed legislation?

Nutbag (disbarred) attorney Jack Thompson authored some of the various state legislation that was all declared unconstitutional by the various courts.

So again, which part was funny?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,260
4
81
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Yes, they will pass it. They have been promising their lib friends on the radio they will do it for a long time. Just the other day some lib congress critter said they were going to do it. With the likes of Pelosi and Reid in charge and with BHO in the whitehouse - it's a done deal for sure.
It will backfire because it will shift conservative voices from radio to MSM tv and print!


*sigh*...I wish.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
People seem to forget this would affect broadcast TV as well as radio. Shows that present one sided political ideas or themes would fall under this law, how would you balance a show like "Boston Legal" or "West Wing"?


 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.
You would save yourself a TON of repetitive typing if you simply added this to your sig. Let's all just assume from here on out that you've read lots of books on the government and you're pretty arrogant - err - I mean confident - in knowing all about how it works.

No need to keep reminding yourself - err - I mean us.
Yeah, I get mad when people know things too.

If you keep chasing me around trying to pull my pigtails, maybe I'll let you be my friend.
If your reading comprehension is routinely this poor, you're wasting your time with all the books you're always yipping and yapping about.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.
You would save yourself a TON of repetitive typing if you simply added this to your sig. Let's all just assume from here on out that you've read lots of books on the government and you're pretty arrogant - err - I mean confident - in knowing all about how it works.

No need to keep reminding yourself - err - I mean us.
Yeah, I get mad when people know things too.

If you keep chasing me around trying to pull my pigtails, maybe I'll let you be my friend.
If your reading comprehension is routinely this poor, you're wasting your time with all the books you're always yipping and yapping about.
Still following me around I see. Aren't you just as cute as a button! They say there is a fine line between love and hate. Maybe someone has a crush...?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
I've just read a book or two on the subject, and so I have a decent idea of how things work.
You would save yourself a TON of repetitive typing if you simply added this to your sig. Let's all just assume from here on out that you've read lots of books on the government and you're pretty arrogant - err - I mean confident - in knowing all about how it works.

No need to keep reminding yourself - err - I mean us.
Yeah, I get mad when people know things too.

If you keep chasing me around trying to pull my pigtails, maybe I'll let you be my friend.
If your reading comprehension is routinely this poor, you're wasting your time with all the books you're always yipping and yapping about.
Still following me around I see. Aren't you just as cute as a button! They say there is a fine line between love and hate. Maybe someone has a crush...?
Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much ;)

Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.

Yikes and ick, buddy.

(oh, and lose the pigtails)
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77

Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much ;)

Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.

Yikes and ick, buddy.
The reason why I say that is because you don't respond to the things I write, you just run in and try and talk shit to me unrelated to the thread topic. You are clearly attempting to engage me personally, and not the issue.

It's okay. I can't say it's not flattering. Do you want a signed photograph?
 

Stuxnet

Diamond Member
Jun 16, 2005
8,403
1
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77

Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much ;)

Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.

Yikes and ick, buddy.
The reason why I say that is because you don't respond to the things I write, you just run in and try and talk shit to me unrelated to the thread topic. You are clearly attempting to engage me personally, and not the issue.

It's okay. I can't say it's not flattering. Do you want a signed photograph?
Aww... so really it all just boils down to your feelings being hurt. You've done all this reading, and despite your best efforts to put that to real world use, and your best efforts to convince us all that you're "read", you're still falling flat.

I'll try playing nicer with you. Well, actually, if you're going to draw these dark, exotic conclusions based on someone calling you out, I'll probably just forget you exist. No need to mix it up with someone craving a stalker fantasy. My suggestion is to try forming some real world relationships.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
18
81
jbourne77: you follow around eskimo from one thread to another and keep posting non sequitur non-thread related trollish "responses" to him. You look ridiculous. Please keep doing it.

Cad: still waiting for an answer to my post up top...what was so funny?
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
52,340
4,728
126
Originally posted by: Vic
No, it's not coming back.

Dittoheads should ask themselves how logical it would be for liberals to bring back the Fairness Doctrine when liberals supposedly control the mainstream media.
Shhh, all these sandy cracks are wildly entertaining.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
73,676
25,740
136
Originally posted by: jbourne77
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: jbourne77

Wow... what a complex you have. I respond to you and you think I'm following you around? Didn't mean to ruffle your feathers so much ;)

Hey everybody - don't talk to eskimospy or he'll start concocting his own flattering notions of some perceived relationship between the two of you.

Yikes and ick, buddy.
The reason why I say that is because you don't respond to the things I write, you just run in and try and talk shit to me unrelated to the thread topic. You are clearly attempting to engage me personally, and not the issue.

It's okay. I can't say it's not flattering. Do you want a signed photograph?
Aww... so really it all just boils down to your feelings being hurt. You've done all this reading, and despite your best efforts to put that to real world use, and your best efforts to convince us all that you're "read", you're still falling flat.

I'll try playing nicer with you. Well, actually, if you're going to draw these dark, exotic conclusions based on someone calling you out, I'll probably just forget you exist. No need to mix it up with someone craving a stalker fantasy. My suggestion is to try forming some real world relationships.
Your 'insulting people on the internet 101' jabs aside, (Isn't 'HURR HURR GO OUTSIDE AND MAKE FRIENDS' so 1998-2001?) I'm not too worried if some idiots on an internet forum think I'm well read or not. What I stated was a fact, I've spent a lot of time learning about this, and CAD obviously hasn't.

You keep claiming you're going to forget I exist and I keep waiting. Why can't you quit me?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY