FCC Czar Admires Alinksy - Hates Limbaugh - Seeks Weaponized Diversity Tactic Ala CRA

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Mark Lloyd is Obama's newly cooked-up "diversity Czar" for the FCC.

Lloyd openly praises the "democratic revolution" of Chavez and the tactics of Saul Alinksy. He worked at the Center for American Progress (Soros group) and wrote a report about how to attack Talk Radio (he openly hates Limbaugh) using weaponized "diversity" mandates to force programming the markets reject (Air America) and to set up local hearing where "community organizations" have a say in licensing (if that sounds familiar it's how groups like ACORN were allowed to pressure local banks they wanted money from). Lloyd calls the process "ascertainment".


Lloyd on Chavez:

"In Venezuela, with Chavez, you really had an incredible revolution -- democratic revolution -- to begin to put in place things that were going to have impact on the people of Venezuela. The property owners and the folks who were then controlling the media in Venezuela rebelled -- worked, frankly, with folks here in the US government -- worked to oust him. He came back and had another revolution, and Chavez then started to take the media very seriously in his country."

OK - since Chavez took control over opposition radio and TV stations you already can see we have another radical fruit-loop on our hands


Lloyd On Alinksy:

?Organizing people must be a priority. In order to counter effectively the power of major corporations we understood that we had to be able to demonstrate the support of hundreds of thousands of people. As Alinksy wrote: ?Change comes from power, and power comes from organization. In order to act, people must get together.?..


?Don?t wait for events to unfold on their own. Pressure, pressure, pressure. If we wanted events to work in a direction that would benefit us, we knew we needed to push. We needed to apply pressure and to direct that pressure not at the government, but through the government at our true opposition - the broadcasters. Alinsky again: ?The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure upon the opposition.?

On this link there are other Alinsky Tactics Lloyd approves of: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/53055

Lloyd basically rejects the idea that the radio stations are producing what the market wants because he thinks the markets are structurally flawed. Of course he wants the government to manage the markets now and correct inequalities. He wants to fine commercial stations and force them to fund public radio

Lloyd wrote in July 2007:

"The Center for American Progress late last month published a widely read report titled ?The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.? That report demonstrated the failure of the supposed ?free market? regulation of the U.S. radio industry to address the public-interest needs of listeners. Our analysis revealed that conservative talk radio dominates the airwaves of our country - to the detriment of informed public discourse and the First Amendment.

So you have a Chavez admirer using a Soros group "report" that has highlighted a "failure" of the free market - hummm do tell? I wonder what his excuse is for Fox TV dominating all the competition? I also haven't heard any complaint about the MSM being echo chamber for Obama.

Lloyd says that as radio media corporations grew they could ignore local markets, and could renew licenses too easily. Lloyd said ?The civil rights agenda has given way to the agenda of the commercial market(lol). The work of the civil rights community has suffered through a sustained assault by the right. The core of that assault is to deny funding to civil rights work, silence liberal voices, and set the agenda of public debate by an opposition that is better funded, more organized, and more savvy about strategic communications...

We trace the rise and influence of Rush and other conservative radio hosts to relaxed ownership rules and other pro-big business regulation that destroyed localism...

Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.?


Lloyd wants to pressure broadcasters to follow rules for content, minority quotas and making licensing subject to reviews from local pressure groups (ACORN etc). If broadcasters don't follow the rules he wants them to be fined for 100% of their operating budget for a year.

Of course liberal shows don't sell and no radio station will risk huge fines keeping the conservatives that do sell so stations will go to other formats - as intended by Lloyd.

Seton Motley, director of communications for the Media Research Center, said Lloyd instructed liberals to file complaints against conservative stations in "Forget the Fairness Doctrine."

"What he lays out is a battle plan to use the FCC to threaten stations' licenses with whom they do not agree with politically, and now he's at the FCC waiting to take their calls," Motley told FOXNews.com. "This is not about serving the local interest, it's about political opposition."

"You read his essay and he's incessantly attacked Rush Limbaugh," Motley said. "He doesn't like conservative talk -- and now he's an official at the weapon to shut down conservative talk radio."

Of course in typical fashion Obama pretends to be aloof. Obama says doesn't want to damage CIA with investigations but Holder "makes his own call". Obama says he doesn't want the Fairness Doctrine back but he appoints another angry Marxist maniac who has long record of wanting to silence debate and transfer wealth.

Just another Harpoon from President Ahab as he stalks free markets and free speech.

Keep In Mind, Obama's appointee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (Cass Sunstein) has written extensively about stopping rumors and falsehoods on the internet - including removal of comments from blogs and news sites. Forget free markets - free speech (and posting I could guess)is headed down the potty real soon. The bats are in the belfry with no opposition.

FCC's New Hire Targeted Conservative Radio Stations in Writings
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...ed-gop-radio-stations/
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Yeah, Limbaugh is a real martyr... c'mon BarrySotero. The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back. Period. Even under the guise of some mysterious boogeyman diversity czar. So keep blabbering on about Soros, get in a few jabs a ACORN, make up falsehoods that libs are somehow Chavez supporters, and we will continue to not take you seriously. The only thing you are missing is an Ayers reference.

:cookie:
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Topic Title: FCC Czar Admires Alinksy - Hates Limbaugh ...

Hey! That's a great start, and it shows he has good taste. I've never been any kind of fan of Hugo Chavez, but now, you've even given me reason to think even he may not be all bad. :laugh:

And anyone who quotes aluminum foil beany sites like cnsnews is a couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. :roll:
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Yeah, Limbaugh is a real martyr... c'mon BarrySotero. The Fairness Doctrine is not coming back. Period. Even under the guise of some mysterious boogeyman diversity czar. So keep blabbering on about Soros, get in a few jabs a ACORN, make up falsehoods that libs are somehow Chavez supporters, and we will continue to not take you seriously. The only thing you are missing is an Ayers reference.

:cookie:

I know the Fairness Doctrine is not coming back because Obama and Lloyd both don't want it - because this weaponized diversity "100 percent of yearly operating budget" fine is worse. The (un)Fairness Doctrine looks good next to this heavy handed wealth-power grab. Just realize after Limbaugh etc don't think the oh so sensitive liberal blogger and writers will like getting their stuff stiffled - and that's coming too. Obama doesn't like some liberal "faslehoods" either. People like free speech or they don't. You cant cheer it for on guy and kick it to the curb for another and thing your butt aint getting bit sooner or latter.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: BarrySotero

Topic Title: FCC Czar Admires Alinksy - Hates Limbaugh ...

Hey! That's a great start, and it shows he has good taste. I've never been any kind of fan of Hugo Chavez, but now, you've even given me reason to think even he may not be all bad. :laugh:

And anyone who quotes aluminum foil beany sites like cnsnews is a couple of frejoles short of a combination plate. :roll:

The site hardly matters since Lloyd's quotes are his as written in his book "Prologue to a Farce: Communication and Democracy in America"
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity


"Weaponized diversity" is what i thought of while reading a description of how the Community Reinvestment Act worked. It slyly didn't establish direct quotas but it made "public comments" part of a banks review process. What was called "community involvement" was really "community organizer" involvement from groups like ACORN. That's one part of cause of sub-prime market exploding and subprime loans being 2% of total loans in 2002 to 30% of total loans in 2006.

Here is the description I was reading from the Board of Governors Of the Federal Reserve:

"Public Involvement

To ensure a broad and balanced CRA assessment, examiners routinely conduct interviews with local business people, government officials, housing and consumer advocates, realtors, trade association representatives, and many others. The purpose of these interviews is to obtain information about, among other things, general credit needs of the community, the availability or the lack of availability of credit, and how different institutions respond to those credit needs. The comments of these individuals are factored into the examiners' CRA rating (there you are - same thing proposed for FCC license).

The community also has other opportunities to participate in the CRA evaluation process. The public can offer comments on an institution's CRA performance and those comments are publicly available. Examiners review the institution's public comment file and take comments into account when evaluating an institution's overall CRA performance. To assist the public, and to encourage public comments, the agencies inform the public every calendar quarter of upcoming CRA examinations.

Illegal Lending Discrimination
Under the CRA regulations, the Federal Reserve's evaluation of a bank's CRA performance takes into account evidence of illegal lending discrimination or other illegal credit practices.3 Federal Reserve examiners conduct a fair lending review concurrently with, or close in time to each CRA evaluation, and the findings from that review are factored into the CRA evaluation.

The public CRA performance evaluation summarizes a bank's record of complying with the fair lending laws, and states whether violations were found and, if so, whether they negatively affected the bank's overall CRA rating. Pursuant to the CRA regulations, various factors relating to the violations will be considered when determining the bank's assigned CRA rating, including the nature and extent of discriminatory practices, the policies and procedures in place to prevent such practices, and corrective action taken by the bank. A finding of discrimination could result, for example, in a downgrade of the rating otherwise earned to either Needs to Improve or Substantial Noncompliance, or from Outstanding to Satisfactory. However, if the discrimination was isolated, or occurred despite the existence of generally effective internal controls to prevent such practices, the existence of the violation may be reported in the public CRA performance evaluation without actually lowering the bank's CRA rating. This reflects the fact that each CRA rating category encompasses a range of conduct and performance. An inadvertent or isolated violation may not be sufficient to move the bank's overall performance assessment out of that range and into a lower rating category."

http://www.federalreserve.gov/...raunstein20080213a.htm

So there were no specific quotas - but there was "oh by the way if ACORN says you suck we may keep you locked out" etc etc.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
YABST


Don't feed the troll, move on.

while yes he is a troll. The quoutes and ideas he are talking about have been said.

i do find them something ot worry about. this is not the Fariness doctrine. this is something worse. they want to be able to penilize people they don't agree with in a way that they can effectivaly be shut down.


but i really doubt this is going tobe passed.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
YABST


Don't feed the troll, move on.

while yes he is a troll. The quoutes and ideas he are talking about have been said.

i do find them something ot worry about. this is not the Fariness doctrine. this is something worse. they want to be able to penilize people they don't agree with in a way that they can effectivaly be shut down.


but i really doubt this is going tobe passed.

Like right wingers don't want to do the same? You better believe they do. And have in the past a la McCarthyism, HUAC, etc.

No, I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right. They don't. What I am saying is that the OP and wingnuts like him are hypocrites.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,721
54,718
136
God you crazies never quit do you? If anyone thinks that right wing talk radio is going anywhere, they are nuts. While right wing talk radio deserves to die a painful death, that death should come from the mass abandonment of its audience due to the insane and dishonest nature of the programming, not due to some government action.

I would gladly bet anyone here $100, hell $1,000 that right wing talk radio is doing just fine at the end of the Obama administration. Seriously.
 

extra

Golden Member
Dec 18, 1999
1,947
7
81
winnar, is that you? Rush isn't going to be forced off the air. The fairness doctrine isn't coming back. Stop the fearmongering :\.

IF ANYTHING Obama will only make right wing radio more successful.
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
YABST


Don't feed the troll, move on.

while yes he is a troll. The quoutes and ideas he are talking about have been said.

i do find them something ot worry about. this is not the Fariness doctrine. this is something worse. they want to be able to penilize people they don't agree with in a way that they can effectivaly be shut down.


but i really doubt this is going tobe passed.

Like right wingers don't want to do the same? You better believe they do. And have in the past a la McCarthyism, HUAC, etc.

No, I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right. They don't. What I am saying is that the OP and wingnuts like him are hypocrites.

The funny thing though is no matter how much you go after McCarthism and HUAC, they were based on a rational fear that would end up being true. HUAC investigated whether Hollywood was being infiltrated by Soviet sympathizers . Guess what....it was being infiltrated by the soviets. McCarthy investigated (albeit over-zealously) whether the US government was being infiltrated by Soviet sympathizers....and imagine everyones surprise after the release of the Venona tapes just how infiltrated our government was. In both cases we had belief that a foreign power was trying to destroy the United States.

Now, under W who most of you left wingers here considered a facist (when he wasnt even close to one), what did he do to try and silence the opposition. Did he try and shut down Air America? Did he repeatedly accuse MSNBC of attacking him?
 

RedChief

Senior member
Dec 20, 2004
533
0
81
Originally posted by: extra
winnar, is that you? Rush isn't going to be forced off the air. The fairness doctrine isn't coming back. Stop the fearmongering :\.

IF ANYTHING Obama will only make right wing radio more successful.

Your not understanding what the plan is. There not going to force Rush off the air. What there going to to is make it prohibitively expensive for local radio stations to air not only his show, but shows like Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, etc.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: RedChief
Originally posted by: extra
winnar, is that you? Rush isn't going to be forced off the air. The fairness doctrine isn't coming back. Stop the fearmongering :\.

IF ANYTHING Obama will only make right wing radio more successful.

Your not understanding what the plan is. There not going to force Rush off the air.

What there going to to is make it prohibitively expensive for local radio stations to air not only his show, but shows like Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, etc.

Anything to get that scum off my American airwaves.

They can broadcast their anti-American crap outside of U.S. borders and frequencies.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: Marlin1975
YABST


Don't feed the troll, move on.

while yes he is a troll. The quoutes and ideas he are talking about have been said.

i do find them something ot worry about. this is not the Fariness doctrine. this is something worse. they want to be able to penilize people they don't agree with in a way that they can effectivaly be shut down.


but i really doubt this is going tobe passed.

Like right wingers don't want to do the same? You better believe they do. And have in the past a la McCarthyism, HUAC, etc.

No, I'm not saying that 2 wrongs make a right. They don't. What I am saying is that the OP and wingnuts like him are hypocrites.

oh im not saying they don't. trust me this is one of the things that piss me off about politics.

while i do not know the OP. i am not going to discredit the fact that what he is saying has the possiblity to be true. now i doubt very much that this bill is going to be passed. BUT it is something people should be looking at and thinking about.

 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
9,002
115
106
Originally posted by: RedChief
Originally posted by: extra
winnar, is that you? Rush isn't going to be forced off the air. The fairness doctrine isn't coming back. Stop the fearmongering :\.

IF ANYTHING Obama will only make right wing radio more successful.

Your not understanding what the plan is. There not going to force Rush off the air. What there going to to is make it prohibitively expensive for local radio stations to air not only his show, but shows like Hannity, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, etc.

Yes, god forbid stations carry any other announcers except the national ones. Everything must be homogenized! There are plenty of local/regional radio people that would gladly pick up the slack. That is how things used to be...when stations were more responsive to their local markets. I don't see what the big loss would be.

But then again, that isn't going to happen. Rush, Hannity, and their cohorts are in no danger of being pushed off the air even if the worst happens...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: RedChief
The funny thing though is no matter how much you go after McCarthism and HUAC, they were based on a rational fear that would end up being true. HUAC investigated whether Hollywood was being infiltrated by Soviet sympathizers . Guess what....it was being infiltrated by the soviets. McCarthy investigated (albeit over-zealously) whether the US government was being infiltrated by Soviet sympathizers....and imagine everyones surprise after the release of the Venona tapes just how infiltrated our government was. In both cases we had belief that a foreign power was trying to destroy the United States.

Now, under W who most of you left wingers here considered a facist (when he wasnt even close to one), what did he do to try and silence the opposition. Did he try and shut down Air America? Did he repeatedly accuse MSNBC of attacking him?

A 'rational' fear of what? Freedom of belief? Even if those beliefs are unpopular? Freedom of expression? Even if that being expressed is unpopular? That basic rights and freedoms need to be criminalized in order to defend our basic rights and freedoms (which is what McCarthyism and HUAC did)? Because doing just that is what you just defended as 'rational.' How so?

Like I said, hypocrites. Taking away our freedoms in order to protect them. :roll:

I'm not a 'left winger,' pal, but it's pretty obvious that what the right fear about the left in this scenario is that they'll be just like you, and criminalize your dissent today just like the right criminalized their dissent 40-50 years ago. Lucky for you, they're not that paranoid.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity

The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.

Modern conservatism in America is a VERY authoritarian ideology. It does not allow for independent thinking (which is why all the intelligent conservatives a la Buckley or Rand have left the movement). What you guys are mistaking for being returning banned posters are actually posters who are getting their propaganda spoonfed from the same sources. For example, Butterbean and BarrySotero get most of their talking points from sources like Bill Lind and Tom Metzger (Insurgent Radio). Winnar and Patranus are more Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage. Either way, their arguments are not their own, they're just copying and pasting the words of others.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity

The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.

Modern conservatism in America is a VERY authoritarian ideology. It does not allow for independent thinking (which is why all the intelligent conservatives a la Buckley or Rand have left the movement). What you guys are mistaking for being returning banned posters are actually posters who are getting their propaganda spoonfed from the same sources. For example, Butterbean and BarrySotero get most of their talking points from sources like Bill Lind and Tom Metzger (Insurgent Radio). Winnar and Patranus are more Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage. Either way, their arguments are not their own, they're just copying and pasting the words of others.

Nobody is more Authoritarian than Obama taking things over and wanting to limit speech/expression - as the far left usually wants to do. It's true conservatives (and Bush wasn't one) ascribe to a set of classic principles they know are dangerous to compromise but history has proven the widsom of that. It's true libs will live independent of wisdom but that's why they foster mayhem when they get in control of things. I don't even know who bill Lind is and I've never heard Tom Metzer though I know the name. I'm not a past banned member either.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
I thought I had heard this before, so I searched 'weaponized diversity' and 'winnar111'. I got nothing. Turns out it was the OP who first mentioned this concept. Lots of real gems in that thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...1=weaponized+diversity

The OP is no winnar, that would be Patranus imo. The more this guy posts the more he sound like butterbean.

Modern conservatism in America is a VERY authoritarian ideology. It does not allow for independent thinking (which is why all the intelligent conservatives a la Buckley or Rand have left the movement). What you guys are mistaking for being returning banned posters are actually posters who are getting their propaganda spoonfed from the same sources. For example, Butterbean and BarrySotero get most of their talking points from sources like Bill Lind and Tom Metzger (Insurgent Radio). Winnar and Patranus are more Rush Limbaugh and Mike Savage. Either way, their arguments are not their own, they're just copying and pasting the words of others.

Nobody is more Authoritarian than Obama taking things over and wanting to limit speech/expression - as the far left usually wants to do. It's true conservatives (and Bush wasn't one) ascribe to a set of classic principles they know are dangerous to compromise but history has proven the widsom of that. It's true libs will live independent of wisdom but that's why they foster mayhem when they get in control of things. I don't even know who bill Lind is and I've never heard Tom Metzer though I know the name. I'm not a past banned member either.

Are you going to defend McCarthyism and HUAC too? :roll:

And pray tell, what does it mean to 'ascribe to a set of classic principles' except to worship the authority of the past? And once down this path, because the past can be whatever you are told it is, you just believe whatever it is you are told by the proper authorities, no matter how inconsistent. Case in point, nearly your every post here can be dumped into google and get a hundred-plus hits. Plagiarism is the most pathetic form of ideological slavery. That you can't think for yourself and post your own personal beliefs and ideas (but instead need to post their beliefs and ideas of others) should be your first clue that you are an authoritarian.

I ascribe to only 2 classic principles, both of which modern conservatives reject outright in their need to constantly defend indefensible arguments. The first is the sanctity of the individual and his rights and freedoms, which I hold sacred above all else. The second is the ethic of reciprocity, which reinforces the first.
 

BarrySotero

Banned
Apr 30, 2009
509
0
0
Dude your too morbid. Without the divine source of rights and sanctity as expressed in Constitution and Declaration of Independence you would have no sanctity or claim to rights and freedoms. Everything would be a toss up and there would be no sense arguing principles if there was no absolute truth and authority. A Marxist like Obama wants to play God and impose his will egotistically in violence of principles. He's a thug in a suit with Italian shoes with a drive to kill babies, embryos and now seniors. I have no idea what your on about with plagiarism and Google since I post news articles with my own summaries/comments as per instructions. The media ignores headcases like Van Jones so I go through his vids and articles and pull out the gems like "I give up the radical pose to achieve radical ends". I was writing about Jones months before Beck but WND exposed this guy first. I can take anyone seriously talking about principles and rights while Obama is obviously an angry resentful radical not worthy of the office. As history goes, people will look back one day and wonder how Americans could have been so stupid to vote their country away the way Germany did. Bad education and parenting is the cause here.