Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )



Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Fairness Docterine Coming Back, Stronger Than Ever We Will Know Soon
Bookmark and Share
Camac
Posted: 23-Feb-2009, 07:37 PM
Quote Post




Guest


Main: Registration
Questions: Help
Important: Rules
Messages: Search






Zodiac








oldraven :

In macewans' retort I believe something was mentioned about "standing by the Constitution and Limited Government" well I think we can see where that has landed them in the past 8 years. Limited government means less regulation means Banking crisis means Mortgage crisis. Hell Bush and Company might as well have given the Mortgage Companies and the Banks the keys to Fort Knox. Oh wait a minute they did.

Camac.
               
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 23-Feb-2009, 08:09 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Feb-2009, 07:37 PM)
oldraven :

In macewans' retort I believe something was mentioned about "standing by the Constitution and Limited Government" well I think we can see where that has landed them in the past 8 years. Limited government means less regulation means Banking crisis means Mortgage crisis. Hell Bush and Company might as well have given the Mortgage Companies and the Banks the keys to Fort Knox. Oh wait a minute they did.

Camac.

So you're saying that the banking crisis is from limited government and all from the last 8 years and nothing else?


--------------------
ALL4114Christ!

343 Their blood cries out! NEVER FORGET 9/11!

The 2nd Ammendment. The original Homeland Security!

"To those who would follow laws; laws need not apply. Those who would not follow laws; laws will have no affect upon."

Plato

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
C. S. Lewis
PMEmail Poster                
Top
Patch 
Posted: 23-Feb-2009, 08:37 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Feb-2009, 08:37 PM)
oldraven :

In macewans' retort I believe something was mentioned about "standing by the Constitution and Limited Government" well I think we can see where that has landed them in the past 8 years. Limited government means less regulation means Banking crisis means Mortgage crisis. Hell Bush and Company might as well have given the Mortgage Companies and the Banks the keys to Fort Knox. Oh wait a minute they did.

Camac.

Our problem is that neither party has stood by the Constitution for a long time and government has not been limited for much longer. The mortgage and more importantly stock market controls started coming off under Clinton and bush opened everything up! It is not conservatism or liberalism that caused the problem, it is a lust for power and a case of unbridled greed. Also a total disregard for the welfare of ones fellow human beings. The welfare of many has been destroyed by the actions of a few from both political parties. The run on Money Market Funds last October that started this slide was caused , not just by our enemies who were invested in the funds but by our "friends" also. They still have money invested here and abroad which should be cause for extreme worry. Europe is approximately three times deeper into bad mortgages than the US and failure of any major country will take us all down. That is a benefit of globalization!

The fairness doctrine is just a small blip in the course that the US may or may not take. Unfortunately, neither party has the answer, nor does any country.

The will of the people will still prevail. Contact your reps and senators.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    

PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 23-Feb-2009, 09:42 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





Before anyone imagines that your freedoms are about to be stolen, let me reiterate that Obama is against making the fairness doctrine into law and that he has veto power. Why not worry about the imminent demise of freedom when that event has a reasonable probability to occur.

Secondly, what Obama is in favor of is summarized as follows from the White House website:

"Encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

Considering the US mainstream media is currently owned by very few companies, wouldn't the encouragement of diversity of ownership allow for more diversity in the bias spectrum? The market decides the success or failure of any new media venture, however the fewer the owners the less diverse the choices and the public is stuck with a surprisingly low level of quality and diversity of perspective. How is freedom thus served?

Although vague, the paragraph above encourages diversity of ownership, and to encourage is not necessarily to mandate. To encourage "diverse viewpoints" is the exact opposite of proscribing, or limiting the public's exposure to specific viewpoints. Yes, the language used could be politic-speak for assuring a greater market share for sympathetic views, but then the market decides who thrives or dives, and no one can regulate popularity. Compare the popularity of Rush Limbaugh's show to Al Franken's if you need an example. No one legislated Limbaugh's popularity, nor will they do so for Franken.





--------------------
Yr hen Gymraeg i mi,
Hon ydyw iaith teimladau,
Ac adlais i guriadau
Fy nghalon ydyw hi
--- Mynyddog
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Camac
Posted: 24-Feb-2009, 09:05 AM
Quote Post




Guest


Main: Registration
Questions: Help
Important: Rules
Messages: Search






Zodiac








Nova Scotian;

I'm not saying that they were the only factors involved but they sure exacerbated the situation. The very fact that your cousins to the North have the strongest Banking System in the World, thanks to regulatory controls, and is now the model of how it can be done should say something. There is no "Bail Out" of financial institutions here nor do we have the Mortgage fiasco like you have.


Camac.
               
Top
gwenlee 
Posted: 24-Feb-2009, 05:03 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Founder
Posts: 2,928
Joined: 12-Sep-2004
ZodiacAlder


female





Just a quick thought before I go to work so I can pay my fair share. Liberal and conservatives took advantage of this whole financial situation. I just heard how our leader took advantage of a special price and interest rate on his home. All of these folks got their hands caught in the cookie jar.
PMEmail PosterMy Photo Album               
Top
Nova Scotian 
Posted: 25-Feb-2009, 09:51 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
Group Icon

Group: Scotland
Posts: 916
Joined: 09-Mar-2005
ZodiacRowan

Realm: Tampa Florida

male





QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Feb-2009, 09:05 AM)
Nova Scotian;

I'm not saying that they were the only factors involved but they sure exacerbated the situation. The very fact that your cousins to the North have the strongest Banking System in the World, thanks to regulatory controls, and is now the model of how it can be done should say something. There is no "Bail Out" of financial institutions here nor do we have the Mortgage fiasco like you have.


Camac.

OK. Just remember NOTHING is perfect.
PMEmail Poster                
Top
Camac
Posted: 25-Feb-2009, 09:53 AM
Quote Post




Guest


Main: Registration
Questions: Help
Important: Rules
Messages: Search






Zodiac








NovaScotian;

I the least of all.



Camac.
               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 25-Feb-2009, 07:40 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Feb-2009, 11:40 AM)
I do not like extremes. Like the majority of Canadians I am Centrist. A little Conservatism a little Liberalism but let's keep it balanced.



Camac.

Hi.

That idea may be good. At the least it leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy. However, exactly who gets to decide which is conservative and which is liberal? We're not talking exactitudes here, as in black or white, night or day, male or female. There is no formula for determining conservative or liberal speech, so regulation of such would be science of the subjective. Seems to me that way back when the Bill of Rights was written, someone knew that regulating speech teeters atop a slippery slope.


--------------------
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859

Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.
~Mark Twain
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 26-Feb-2009, 04:09 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 25-Feb-2009, 07:40 PM)
Seems to me that way back when the Bill of Rights was written, someone knew that regulating speech teeters atop a slippery slope.

Exactly. Madison called the first amendment the most valuable on the whole list. His version of the Bill of Rights expanded upon freedom of speech, but the Congress edited the language to the version we have. More detail:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f.../freespeech.htm

As I understand the Fairness Doctrine when it was formerly instituted by the FCC, it only required that broadcasters who provided an opinion also provide an alternate or opposing opinion. I'm wondering in what way this would be considered a threat to freedom of speech. I'm not addressing this to anyone's specific post, just wondering in general. No curtailment of speech is implied, just a requirement that both sides of an issue be presented. This is often done in a rather slipshod way on news programs like Sanchez on CNN or Bill O'reilly on Fox - though sometimes they become shouting matches where parties talk over one another and no one's view is heard, but to me you'd be hard pressed to argue any curtailment of speech in a legal sense. I don't think there's any legal limitations against some television blowhard's lack of decorum.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 26-Feb-2009, 05:09 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





The problem, if any, would be that liberal talk radio does not have the audience that conservative talk radio has. Thus, if a venue had two hours (profitable) of conservative radio broadcast, they would have to run two hours of liberal (unprofitable) broadcast.

The courts ruled that the fairness doctrine applied only to "free" air time which is as it should be.

"Paid" time is covered by freedom of speech. Otherwise, Obama should have been restricted to no more air time than McCain! Such was NOT the case.

As to the importance of the amendments, ALL are equally important. #'s 1 and 2 go hand in hand. Without #2, #1 will quickly follow!! We already lost ground on #1 with McCains "Incumbent protection act" which bush signed into law with the admission that it was a violation of free speach. The supreme court then said it was such a "little" infringement that it could stand!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    
PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 26-Feb-2009, 08:53 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





QUOTE (Antwn @ 26-Feb-2009, 04:09 PM)

As I understand the Fairness Doctrine when it was formerly instituted by the FCC, it only required that broadcasters who provided an opinion also provide an alternate or opposing opinion. I'm wondering in what way this would be considered a threat to freedom of speech.

Perhaps one of the ways around that would be for the broadcasters to include the disclaimer that "the following views and commentary do no necessarily reflect those of fill-in-the-blank...."

As to your question; if Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, colmbs, Leavy, or whoever else has an allotted amount of time on the air, and suddenly is forced to abbreviate their points of view to make room for a counterpoint, then their speech has been effectively limited. I don't read in the Constitution about the right to open dialogue, but free speech. Just my opinion.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Antwn 
Posted: 27-Feb-2009, 06:54 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 1,409
Joined: 18-Apr-2005
ZodiacBirch

Realm: UDA ond o linach Cymry

male





Patch: The failure of liberal ideologies to permeate the airwaves is their own fault for not having found anyone equally popular to the public, except maybe Bill Maher. Their inability to produce a popular show is not a free speech issue, nor will a legislative requirement produce one. I'm not advocating that.

Shamrock: I believe TV networks do use that disclaimer but only for special broadcasts not their regular fare. Trouble is, simply to say the opinions expressed do not reflect those of "whoever" doesn't provide an opposing viewpoint. It simply states the viewpoints presented are not those of the station ownership.

About your second point, its the public's airwaves, they do not belong to Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al, nor to Al Franken or Bill Maher. Its a matter of interpretation I suppose, but I don't think freedom of speech includes not cutting into Limbaugh's airtime. It may not be necessary either. Here's why -

As the quote from the White House website said, you can encourage expanded broadcaster ownership, which would theoretically provide a context for increased diversity of views. This was previously achieved by FCC regulation. You don't need to limit the length of anyone's show. No broadcaster would stand for that, not so much because of free speech as the loss of copious revenues. You can however limit the amount of stations a corporation owns and the number of frequencies they control, as was the case prior to deregulation. Deregulation stimulated a feeding frenzy and the biggest sharks prevailed, which was great for their stockholders but not necessarily in the public's interest. Another interpretation of free speech in a modern context is not just a persons right to express a viewpoint without suppression, but the public's right to have airwaves they own free from control by a very small cabal of broadcasters who limit viewpoints expressed. I believe all major media is owned and controlled by 5 or 6 corporations.

By the way, I'm not advocating the Fairness Doctrine necessarily because I don't know what it would entail. I'm mainly trying to understand the panic and bring some other ideas to bear. Neither political party is beyond compromising principle for political expediency when they can get away with it. I'm just wondering to what degree the free speech threat is real or exaggerated in this situation. Surely it will depend on how the details of a law pan out, should one be drafted to begin with.
PMEmail Poster               
Top
Patch 
Posted: 27-Feb-2009, 09:20 PM
Quote Post

Member is Offline



Celtic Guardian
********

Group: Celtic Nation
Posts: 7,710
Joined: 22-Dec-2002
ZodiacIvy

Realm: America, Mid West

male





QUOTE (Antwn @ 27-Feb-2009, 07:54 PM)
Patch: The failure of liberal ideologies to permeate the airwaves is their own fault for not having found anyone equally popular to the public, except maybe Bill Maher. Their inability to produce a popular show is not a free speech issue, nor will a legislative requirement produce one. I'm not advocating that.


I didn't mean to imply unfairness in "paid" air time. Limbaugh has a larger and more dedicated listening audience than Franken. Consequently sponsors pay more per 15 sec. than on a show with less listeners. That is just a fact and if Democrats were more loyal to their talk personalities, the situation would be different. That you can not legislate!

However, the actual fairness doctrine pertained to "free" time given to a political candidate. If the Democrat got a free 15 min segment in support on the evening news, that broadcaster was obligated to to provide 15 min free in an equal time slot to the Republican candidate. It meant that a broadcaster could not support one candidate over another.

It was never intended to curtail free enterprise in programing. That would be a true violation of the first amendment. That would require another amendment to the Comstitution.

Slàinte,    

Patch    



PMEmail Poster               
Top
SCShamrock 
Posted: 28-Feb-2009, 01:18 AM
Quote Post

Member is Offline





Confirmed Daydreamer
Group Icon

Group: Ireland
Posts: 1,169
Joined: 22-May-2004
ZodiacVine

Realm: Gamecock Country

male





Antwn,

I will admit that when you mentioned "public airwaves" and "the public's right to have airwaves they own" you lost me completely. I honestly have no knowledge of airwave ownership, and do not understand how it factors into any fairness doctrine or other governmentally regulated broadcast.

Just got laid off from work today, so with my spare time I vow to learn more about it so I can articulate my thoughts from an understanding of the facts. What I can say, and the point seems to be rather moot, is that from what I do understand, many in government would like to silence a lot of the speech we can indulge in listening to today. Obama himself even admonished his congress, directing them to not listen to Limbaugh. So the desire to silence some voices is undeniably present. The fear comes in where their willingness to meet that end means government placing restrictions or requiring certain criteria. Ok, enough said. Let me study. wink.gif
PMEmail Poster               
Top
0 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 








Celtic RadioTM broadcasts through Live365.com and StreamLicensing.com which are officially licensed under SoundExchange, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and SOCAN.
©2014 Celtic Radio Network, Highlander Radio, Celtic Moon, Celtic Dance, Ye O' Celtic Pub and Celt-Rock-Radio.
All rights and trademarks reserved. Read our Privacy Policy.
Celtic Graphics ©2014, Cari Buziak


Link to CelticRadio.net!
Link to CelticRadio.net
View Broadcast Status and Statistics!

Best Viewed With IE 8.0 (1680 x 1050 Resolution), Javascript & Cookies Enabled.


[Home] [Top]

Celtic Hearts Gallery | Celtic Mates Dating | My Celtic Friends | Celtic Music Radio | Family Heraldry | Medival Kingdom | Top Celtic Sites | Web Celt Blog | Video Celt