If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Fark Politics Forum   (fark.com) divider line 2658
    More: Misc  
•       •       •

7605 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Feb 2007 at 5:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite   |  Watch    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



2658 Comments   (+0 »)
   

First | « | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | » | Last
 
  2008-11-06 07:15:07 AM
Well...

Congrats to Obama.

Now the Democrats have no excuse.

I only wonder if they really know what they are going to do.

Iraq: We have already started to pull out troops and last month and we did not have even one combat related death. So clearly the surge worked and even a President McCain would have continued to pull troops out of Iraq. However if things get worse would he continue to pull troops out?

Afghanistan: If things get much worse and more and more troops start getting killed will Democrats stay there or will they start saying the "cost" is too much and start calling for the US to pull out?

Iran: If Iran gets nukes what would an Obama White House do? What will he do to try to keep Iran from getting nukes?

Taxes: When has raising taxes ever HELPED an economy?

Energy production: Are we going to have more or less drilling for oil in the US? IF gas prices go back up to record levels will they continue to block drilling? Will they raise taxes on oil Cos? Will the costs of "Cap and Trade" be passed onto customers? If so that would make almost all of our energy more expensive. What will you do when your electric bill jumps?

Terrorism: Obama is going to start getting reports on the threats that this country faces. How agressive will he be at hunting them down and preventing an attack against this country? What would happen if we get hit and it is found out that Obama was not agressively hunting them down?

Fairness Doctrine: Will the Democrats really try to push for a government controlled media? You cannot have free speech if you are forced to speak. And why should newspapers be exempt?

Sub-Prime lending: Will Democrats push for banks to loan money to people who can't afford it? That is one thing that has caused our current mess and I'm wondering if they are going to continue to push for that. Or are they going to ok wtih the "poor" not getting loans?

Well...

These are just a few issues that will face Obama and the Democrats. At least for the next couple of years they will have no excuse. (even if they try to blame Republicans)

They say they can fix things.

We'll see....
 
  2008-11-06 11:32:22 AM
dottedmint: Iraq: We have already started to pull out troops and last month and we did not have even one combat related death. So clearly the surge worked and even a President McCain would have continued to pull troops out of Iraq. However if things get worse would he continue to pull troops out?

1. The surge did not work.
2. We need to let Iraq solve its own problems.

Likewise, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan. We have No. Business. Being there. Another Bush failure where untold innocents were killed just to get our war on.

Taxes: When has raising taxes ever HELPED an economy?

Complaining about taxes is inane.

Energy production: Are we going to have more or less drilling for oil in the US?

Less. We have absolutely no reason to open any new drilling. We should continue to buy from Canada and Mexico and institute a Manhattan Project-level program to make an alternative energy breakthrough, something along the lines of cold fusion.

Terrorism:

is the same boogeyman jive as the Cold War. The way to solve the problem is to become a much less aggressive terrorist nation ourselves. That's the only way. Once we start acting like the so-called free peaceful nation we pretend to be and stop antagonizing other countries and cultures, terrorism will be a thing of the past.

Sub-Prime lending: Will Democrats push for banks to loan money to people who can't afford it? That is one thing that has caused our current mess and I'm wondering if they are going to continue to push for that.

That's a nice way to blame the poor, but obviously you're ignoring the real problem was the greed of the institutions who unloaded their bad loans and made profits doing it.

The poor SHOULD have the opportunity and advantage to be able to buy affordable housing. It isn't their fault some unscrupulous institution allowed the extending of credit to houses way out of their affordability.

It's bad business, plain and simple. And we shouldn't have to bail any of it out. People should have their portfolios intact, and the bigger richer financial institutions should be the ones eating it up. The "bailout plan" should have included a provision that big companies surrender a portion of their equity as part of the deal. But no. They get to stay rich, and we're the ones paying for it.

And before you reply that my ideas will cause economic upheaval, you're right. It's going to take something radical to make that power collapse once and for all.

Much to your chagrin, it's a WHOLE new ballgame now. Thank bob this country didn't make the mistake of electing those two clowns.
 
  2008-11-06 11:37:05 AM
dottedmint: Iran: If Iran gets nukes what would an Obama White House do? What will he do to try to keep Iran from getting nukes?

Oh, and Iran has stated many times that they are willing to stop their program if the 1st World Powers start the process of reducing nuclear stockpiles. But no, we're too cool to do that. Nevermind that such an attitude only makes the possibility of nuclear war even more so.

The fact is that this country has again and again threatened attack. I can't blame Iran for any secret nukes program, they'd be crazy NOT to have one.
 
  2008-11-06 01:06:14 PM
Now that the election is over, can we PLEASE kill that stupid PITA bar? I'm so tired of reading through crap just because the modmins have decided it leans too far to the left/right.

If it's a good headline/article, green it. If it ain't, then who gives a fark about it.
 
  2008-11-06 10:15:41 PM
Whidbey "Oh, and Iran has stated many times that...."

And they have also stated that Isreal will be wiped off the face of the Earth....

"1. The surge did not work."

Since the point of the surge was to make Iraq more secure and since the surge Iraq has become more secure then clearly the surge worked.

Unless you think the surge had some other goal?

"Likewise, we need to get the hell out of Afghanistan. We have No. Business. Being there. Another Bush failure where untold innocents were killed just to get our war on."

WOW....

"Complaining about taxes is inane."

I only question how raising taxes is going to help this economy....

"We should continue to buy from Canada and Mexico and institute a Manhattan Project-level program to make an alternative energy breakthrough, something along the lines of cold fusion."

Sounds nice.....

I'm not against research but how many years will it be before some big breakthrough?

Until then you would rather we buy our oil from other countries instead of drilling for it ourselves???

And I suppose if we see gas prices get back up to the $4/gal range we should just tax the oil companies more???

"Once we start acting like the so-called free peaceful nation we pretend to be and stop antagonizing other countries and cultures, terrorism will be a thing of the past."

Wow.... just keep your head in the sand there Whidbey....

"That's a nice way to blame the poor,"

I'm not sure where I blamed the poor but... ok????

"The poor SHOULD have the opportunity and advantage to be able to buy affordable housing. "

I have nothing against anyone buying a house that they can afford....

"And we shouldn't have to bail any of it out."

Brace yourself....

I agree with you.

The banks who made these loans should go under.

The people who bought houses that they can't afford should have to move.

This would bring the price of houses down and make them more affordable for others (such as the poor) to buy.

The politicians who pushed to have banks give loans to people who can't afford them should have been voted out of office.

Unfortunately too many people thought this was Bushs fault.

"Much to your chagrin, it's a WHOLE new ballgame now."

No....

It is not a new ballgame....

It is just the Dems turn at bat.

Obama is just another politician. That's all.

I have to admit that a part of me is looking forward to the next 2-4 years because the Dems will have no excuses. They are in control.

BTW...

I didn't notice a comment about the Fairness Doctrine. Do you have an opinion on that?
 
  2008-11-07 10:14:22 AM
Hey, I know yous guys can help me out here, can I get a link to any time theBama said "spread the wealth" other than with Bald the Plummer?
 
  2008-11-07 04:04:41 PM
dottedmint: . The surge did not work."

Since the point of the surge was to make Iraq more secure and since the surge Iraq has become more secure then clearly the surge worked.

Unless you think the surge had some other goal?


It's a false sense of security. As long as we continue to occupy that country, there will be unrest with the goal of getting us out of there.

I would venture the reason for the violence decreasing is because it's in the air that the US is considering pulling out.

I'm not against [alternative fuel] research but how many years will it be before some big breakthrough?

We'll never know unless we start doing it. Right now, there isn't even a program. There isn't a commitment.

Until then you would rather we buy our oil from other countries instead of drilling for it ourselves???

I don't have a problem with that. Canada and Mexico are our allies, and I'm sure they'd appreciate the business. But no, we don't need to do any more new drilling. I'm sure you're aware that a good deal of the leases on land aren't even being utilized.

There's plenty of reason to believe that the ANWR is just a land grab for oil companies.

And I suppose if we see gas prices get back up to the $4/gal range we should just tax the oil companies more???

I don't know that it's the oil companies' fault so much as the rampant speculation that prompted the hike in the first place. If/when it happens again, we should be going after the speculators. As for big oil, I'm completely in favor of a windfall tax where the cash goes into the project I mentioned. Either that, or we kill the subsidies/tax breaks they already have. You knew that...;)

"Once we start acting like the so-called free peaceful nation we pretend to be and stop antagonizing other countries and cultures, terrorism will be a thing of the past."

Wow.... just keep your head in the sand there Whidbey....


No, not keep our hands in the sand. Just stop being such mean-spirited assholes. You know my attitude about this by now:

Let's really become the great nation we say we are and stop mucking things up.

The poor SHOULD have the opportunity and advantage to be able to buy affordable housing. "

I have nothing against anyone buying a house that they can afford....


No, not what I said. I believe the poor in this country should be given advantages to buy a decent house. Not some slum in a project

It is not a new ballgame....
It is just the Dems turn at bat.
Obama is just another politician. That's all.


Well that's a vote of confidence. No, really. There is no way that an Obama administration will be as extreme as the previous one.

McCain/Palin would have continued the same kinds of policies no matter how much they tried to deny it or deflect the issue.

And America agreed with me. They didn't trust them.

I didn't notice a comment about the Fairness Doctrine. Do you have an opinion on that?

Give me a few. I haven't really been following that one. I'll reply shortly...:)
 
  2008-11-07 05:27:30 PM
dottedmint: I didn't notice a comment about the Fairness Doctrine. Do you have an opinion on that?

Oh. I see. There's a possibility that it might get reinstated in an Obama administration. Even though he says he doesn't support it, so what's the issue?

Personally I really don't care. I can't say it was a problem last time it was law. Rush still ran his mouth off. Didn't stop him.

I wouldn't support it.
 
  2008-11-08 08:52:26 AM
Whidbey "It's a false sense of security. As long as we continue to occupy that country, there will be unrest with the goal of getting us out of there."

Again....

The goal of the surge was to secure Iraq... to reduce the violence... to make it easier for the US to pull out.... to make it easier for the Iraqi government to take over security....

All of these things have happened after the surge.

The surge worked.

"I would venture the reason for the violence decreasing is because it's in the air that the US is considering pulling out."

And if Obama pulls the troops out too soon and the "unrest" comes back will you then admit that the surge worked?

BTW....

Obama is calling for a surge in Afghanistan....

"We'll never know unless we start doing it. Right now, there isn't even a program. There isn't a commitment."

Do we have a big Manhattan Project style program going on right now?

No, but researching alternative fuels is a HUGE business already.

The idea that we will only get results if we do things your way is a baseless argument.

"I'm sure you're aware that a good deal of the leases on land aren't even being utilized."

That would be because those lands either do not have oil or they do not have enough to be able to recover the cost of drilling.

"If/when it happens again, we should be going after the speculators. As for big oil, I'm completely in favor of a windfall tax where the cash goes into the project I mentioned. Either that, or we kill the subsidies/tax breaks they already have. You knew that...;)"

And all of those things would drive the price of gas even higher....

"Just stop being such mean-spirited assholes. "

Unless I'm mistaken the US give more aid to other countries than any other country in the world.

And we are the mean-spirited ones????

"I believe the poor in this country should be given advantages to buy a decent house. "

There are all sorts of government programs to help the poor buy a home that they can afford. Or do you think the government should just actually buy the poor a nice home in the burbs....

"There is no way that an Obama administration will be as extreme as the previous one."

UM...

With Dems in control of Congress and the WH there is no way that an Obama Prsidency is going to be "moderate"....

He is just going to be extreme in the other direction.

"There's a possibility that it might get reinstated in an Obama administration. Even though he says he doesn't support it, so what's the issue? "

The issue is that there are alot of Dems that do support it and have said that it is their goal to get it passed. If they manage to get it passed I predict that Obama would sign it.

Personally I think it is unconstitutional and a huge attack on free speech.

I would also like to know the reasoning behind putting these limitations on radio but newspapers are exempt.

Maybe there is a supporter of the Fairness Doctrine in here that could explain to me why it would be a good thing.
 
  2008-11-08 05:57:42 PM
dottedmint: I would also like to know the reasoning behind putting these limitations on radio but newspapers are exempt.

Anyone can have a newspaper. It's a free market. Buy yourself a press and start printing. In radio there are only a finite number of federally licensed frequencies available and not everyone who wants a voice is free to enter the market. [Unless, of course, you advocate pirate radio--he who has the biggest transmitter owns the airwaves. Even my anarchistic soul doesn't want to go there.] The Fairness Doctrine only applies to broadcast stations (both tv and radio) whose numbers are limited by available bandwidth. It is not a restriction on free speech. It is a condition for the licensed monopolistic use of a public resource.

It's also a moot point in today's market. Have you looked at market share for broadcast media recently? The broadcast spectrum should be phased out and reallocated to better use.
 
  2008-11-09 09:46:38 PM
RainForest "In radio there are only a finite number of federally licensed frequencies available and not everyone who wants a voice is free to enter the market."

And how many people (if any) who want to get a license were unable to because a frequency was not available???

"It is not a restriction on free speech."

Of course it is.

IF I buy a radio station and want to turn it into a 24Hr conservative talk radio station, the FD would not allow me to do that. It would require me to broadcast ideas that I do not agree with.

You cannot have free speech if you are forced to speak.
 
  2008-11-10 10:25:00 AM
Hi guys, hope you don't mind my interrupting.

Dottedmint, I was wondering if you could tell me what some of the evidence is for the surge working that takes it beyond post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

Not trolling or baiting I just haven't honestly looked for it and have heard on the usual left leaning sources I haunt that some other factors could be just as likely causes for the reduction in violence such as the cease fire called by Moqtada al-Sadr.

Here's a New Satesman article that is critical of the praise of the surge.

The illusory success of the surge
Rageh Omaar

Published 21 February 2008
(new window)
 
  2008-11-10 12:27:18 PM
dottedmint: The goal of the surge was to secure Iraq... to reduce the violence... to make it easier for the US to pull out.... to make it easier for the Iraqi government to take over security....

All of these things have happened after the surge.

The surge worked.


We could have already left the country without the surge. The surge is Bush administration propaganda to put a successful face on the biggest foreign policy failure in US history. Only the defeated neocons believe Iraq is any kind of success. The rest of the world disagrees with you.

The surge didn't work because the entire "war" didn't work. And it remains to be seen if Obama really pulls us out of there. Last I checked, there's a lot of oil there and some US companies wanting to get a hold of it.

And if Obama pulls the troops out too soon and the "unrest" comes back will you then admit that the surge worked?

Nope. And whatever "unrest" there is, we should let the Iraqis handle it without any more blunders from us getting in the way of their democracy. They don't want us, and they don't need us to become successful. And yeah, they want us out, I know you can't accept that. How dare they bite the hand that feeds them?

Do we have a big Manhattan Project style program going on right now?

No, but researching alternative fuels is a HUGE business already.


Lip service is huge. Actual programs? Not so much. You're not going to find a source that backs up your point because there is no such "program."

The idea that we will only get results if we do things your way is a baseless argument.

It's the only way. Allowing oil companies to talk as if they're doing something that will ultimately cause their cash cow to come unhinged is what is unrealistic and baseless. We need a nationally-sponsored program. Anything else falls short and only prolongs the problem. Big Oil has put billions of dollars in lobbying into keeping the system the way it is: where THEY call the shots. This has to change.

"If/when it happens again, we should be going after the speculators. As for big oil, I'm completely in favor of a windfall tax where the cash goes into the project I mentioned. Either that, or we kill the subsidies/tax breaks they already have. You knew that...;)"
And all of those things would drive the price of gas even higher....


And if that happens again, we punish them. Why are you giving a free pass to unethical behavior?

And ultimately it looks we need higher gas prices if we're going to get out of this. Higher gas prices and a windfall tax to offset the greed.

UM...
With Dems in control of Congress and the WH there is no way that an Obama Prsidency is going to be "moderate"....
He is just going to be extreme in the other direction.


Again, since you are clearly in denial, let me rephrase:

There is NO way an Obama administration will be as extreme as the last one. There is no intention, no plan, nothing even HINTED at that would reach the level of disgrace that the Bush administration is leaving us. You are in denial, and attempting to shrug it off as "Oh, Obama is just a politician" isn't going to cut it. Bush and Cheney are both war criminals who threatened our freedoms and failed to protect their own citizenry.

Unless I'm mistaken the US give more aid to other countries than any other country in the world.
And we are the mean-spirited ones????


Look at your history: it's how we control other countries. Aid with strings attached to it that only benefits the rich in the countries we offer it to, weapons to corrupt government headed by tinpot dictators we support, and of course, it's then so easy then to divert focus away from the really bad things this country does that would cancel out your altruistic aspirations.

And I find it funny you'd complain about something minuscule like the Fairness Doctrine when it's the least of this country's problems.

When we stop invading sovereign nations, quit meddling with elected democracies and stop giving billions to already rich corporations so they can continue to operate with an unfair advantage I'll worry about the Fairness Doctrine. It's down on my list.
 
  2008-11-10 02:21:12 PM
wtf mate why do you have to donate $30 to a dead campaign to get a cheap looking commemorative obama victory t-shirt? shiat, i get free t-shirts from the local goodwill that have more money put into them than this crap...
 
  2008-11-10 07:44:12 PM
AdamK: wtf mate why do you have to donate $30 to a dead campaign

You have to?

What sort of socialist wealth distribution plan is this guy going to come up with next???!!!
 
  2008-11-10 07:54:43 PM
i36.tinypic.com
 
  2008-11-10 09:07:30 PM
dottedmint: And how many people (if any) who want to get a license were unable to because a frequency was not available???

Every full power FM frequency in the United States is currently licensed. The only way to get on the air in any market is to buy an existing station, thereby silencing some other citizen's outlet for free speech.

Which would you rather have: a license that gives you 100% of the revenue from the use of a given frequency 24/7 but requires you to provide, say, 10 hours per week of 'alternate' viewpoints or a license that only lets you use that frequency in blocks of 4 hours assigned by lottery among all the people who submit qualified applications?

Whether you like it or not, demand far exceeds the supply. To guarantee the right of free speech to everyone, it is both proper and necessary to place restrictions on how and when individuals can use the airwaves. The Fairness Doctrine is no more a restriction on free speech than having to have a license to broadcast. It is simply one of the conditions necessary to ensure that we can all be heard.
 
  2008-11-10 10:51:19 PM
RainForest "Which would you rather have: a license that gives you 100% of the revenue from the use of a given frequency 24/7 but requires you to provide, say, 10 hours per week of 'alternate' viewpoints or a license that only lets you use that frequency in blocks of 4 hours assigned by lottery among all the people who submit qualified applications?"

What you don't seem to get is that if I buy a station it is my station. If it fails I am the one who is out all the money. I should not be forced to put something on the air that does not make money. (Air America)

Now...

IF someone would want to rent my station for a couple of hours I wouldn't have a problem with that.

"To guarantee the right of free speech to everyone, it is both proper and necessary to place restrictions on how and when individuals can use the airwaves."

The right of free speech does not guarantee an outlet for that speech.

Unless you think everyone should be able to walk into the local radio station and have 10 minutes on the air???

As I said before, if you want to rent an hour or two each day from my station I'd be more than happy to and then you could say whatever you want.
 
  2008-11-11 06:44:12 AM
And all of those things would drive the price of gas even higher....

Whidbey "And if that happens again, we punish them."

Punish who???

Oil companies do not set the price of oil.

"Higher gas prices and a windfall tax to offset the greed."

And as I have pointed out before, any tax is simply passed onto the customers.
 
  2008-11-11 07:12:53 AM
dottedmint: if you want to rent an hour or two each day from my station

I don't want to rent time from your station and have the stigma of your brand attached to my message.

They are our airwaves. You're renting the right to use them from We The People. When you bought a station you became the owner of a transmitter. You did not BUY a frequency on which to transmit. You licensed one from a very limited pool. The license comes with restrictions on when, where, and how loudly you can transmit. You may not have gotten a 24/7 license.

The right of free speech does not guarantee an outlet for that speech.

I'm so glad you agree. You'll have no problem then in turning off your transmitter between 3pm and 6pm every afternoon so that alternate public service broadcasting can be provided by another transmitter using the same frequency?
 
  2008-11-11 11:02:50 AM
dottedmint: And all of those things would drive the price of gas even higher....

Whidbey "And if that happens again, we punish them."

Punish who???


The speculators and other money-hounds who did drive the prices up. I guess we know where to look when it happens next time.

High gas prices would probably be the best motivator to get us off our butts to innovate, but there were individuals who did the dirty work of causing panic, and they need to be brought to justice as what they did was illegal.

And as I have pointed out before, any tax is simply passed onto the customers.

If a big company like Exxon is making record profits, and they have the audacity to raise their prices in the wake of a windfall tax, then they do deserve punishment. They clearly can cover their losses.

You have a shocking tendency to defend bad business practices just because the outcome means big bucks for the offenders.

It's still amazing to me, your lack of a moral compass in such instances...anything money-related takes precedence over ethics...
 
  2008-11-11 12:26:25 PM
RainForest: They are our airwaves. You're renting the right to use them from We The People. When you bought a station you became the owner of a transmitter. You did not BUY a frequency on which to transmit. You licensed one from a very limited pool. The license comes with restrictions on when, where, and how loudly you can transmit. You may not have gotten a 24/7 license.

He will rail against this until you are blue in the face, all the while using no evidence to support his position.

Be prepared for a barrage of "Mine! Mine! Mine!"
 
  2008-11-11 03:22:35 PM
In fact, if a company making billion-dollar profits raised their prices and downsized in the wake of a windfall tax or other increased taxes, I would support a measure to dissolve their company charter, or strip them of the privilege of doing business in this country.
 
  2008-11-11 06:26:00 PM
Damn. The meter's still in the middle. Even after I threatened to dissolve a company's charter...

Guess they went out for a cold beer...
 
  2008-11-11 06:49:47 PM
whidbey: institute a Manhattan Project-level program to make an alternative energy breakthrough, something along the lines of cold fusion.

Cold fusion will probably never happen. But even if it did, the Democrats would block that the same as they block drilling (too dirty for my backyard) fission (not safe enough for my backyard) wind (b-b-but birds) and hydro (ZOMG, think of the Sea Kittens!)
 
  2008-11-11 07:48:49 PM
Yes, PETA = Democrats.

Thanks for pointing that out.
 
  2008-11-12 07:05:19 AM
RainForest "I'm so glad you agree. You'll have no problem then in turning off your transmitter between 3pm and 6pm every afternoon so that alternate public service broadcasting can be provided by another transmitter using the same frequency?"

I actually would not have a problem with that.

IF you want me to shut down my operation for a few hours each day so that you have your turn, FINE.

What I object to is the government telling me that I need to broadcast ideas that I don't agree with on my station.

IF you want to buy your own station, your own transmitter, hire your own hosts, sell your own advertising and pay for your own expenses that would be fine with me. I just thought it would be easier for you if you rented from me but if you want your own station, fine.

Then you can say what you want on your station.

And if you cannot get enough people to listen and cannot get advertisers for your station then you go under and maybe then Whidbey would start up his station.

And if he can't get listeners or advertisers then maybe someone else would fire up a transmitter.
 
  2008-11-12 11:33:00 AM
SpeshilEdjukashin: Cold fusion will probably never happen.

My what a positive attitude.

Again, we don't KNOW, because we're too busy being petroleum addicts. And assuming the Democrats would block any alternative research only belies your true partisan nitpicking.

dottedmint: And if you cannot get enough people to listen and cannot get advertisers for your station then you go under and maybe then Whidbey would start up his station.

Hey why are you bringing me into this? ;-p

You know what I believe? That the airwaves should be 100% FREE. No license applications in the tens of thousands and no mandatory licenses for ten times that amount.

When the rich are the only ones who really can "afford" airtime, the conclusion is that the FCC limits public access. The real "Fairness Doctrine" should guarantee that access to all citizens.
 
  2008-11-12 06:17:27 PM
Whidbey "When the rich are the only ones who really can "afford" airtime, the conclusion is that the FCC limits public access. The real "Fairness Doctrine" should guarantee that access to all citizens."

I kinda agree with you....

However I don't know how you would guarantee that "all citizens" can have access to the airways.

I'm just more against the government limiting or mandating what is or is not said on the air.
 
  2008-11-12 06:26:11 PM
dottedmint: However I don't know how you would guarantee that "all citizens" can have access to the airways.

A lottery. It's really the only fair way to do it.

And if someone makes the case that they absolutely NEED a particular spot on the band, a hearing.
 
  2008-11-12 07:45:09 PM
But a lottery would not allow "all citizens" to have access to the airways.

And who exactly would be responsible for buying the transmitter, hiring hosts, getting advertisments, and paying the bills?
 
  2008-11-13 01:25:12 PM
dottedmint: But a lottery would not allow "all citizens" to have access to the airways.

Why wouldn't it? And it would offer an equal chance for everyone, at that.

And it should go without saying that the cost of a transmitter/setup would be taxpayer funded. Free access, public-funded.
 
  2008-11-13 06:40:49 PM
whidbey: assuming the Democrats would block any alternative research only belies your true partisan nitpicking.

Well, I don't know for SURE that they'd try to block cold fusion,
but they HAVE blocked all the other stuff I listed.

/Speaking of lists, put me on yours.
 
  2008-11-13 06:51:30 PM
Whidbey "Why wouldn't it?"

How many people play the lottery each day vs. how many people win the lottery each day....

"the cost of a transmitter/setup would be taxpayer funded."

We already have taxpayer funded radio....

Are you saying that ALL radio should be taxpayer funded?

What about TV stations?

Would there be any commercial broadcasting?
 
  2008-11-14 11:29:07 AM
dottedmint: Are you saying that ALL radio should be taxpayer funded?

What about TV stations?

Would there be any commercial broadcasting?


Just pointing out that it shouldn't cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to access the airwaves.

It is a barrier to free speech. Either it should be free of charge to American citizens, or there should be mechanisms in place where ordinary everyday American people can raise the needed money without hassle.

Advertising shouldn't change. That isn't the problem. A good sales rep should keep you in business. But that revenue would be yours to use to pay salaries or whatever it takes to improve your radio/TV station, and not go to whatever administrative black hole it now takes to set up a station.

We have this right now. It's called the Internet. It makes the concept of the FCC good ol' boys club obsolete. The same standard should apply to radio and TV.
 
  2008-11-14 09:02:48 PM
"A good sales rep should keep you in business. But that revenue would be yours to use to pay salaries or whatever it takes to improve your radio/TV station, and not go to whatever administrative black hole it now takes to set up a station."

Well, except that if people do not listen to your station you are not going to get the advertisers.

Then at some point if you do not get advertisers, you are not going to be able to pay your bills and will have to shut down your transmitter. That's what happened to Air America.

That's the problem with the whole FD...

IF the government forces me to put something on my station that drives away the advertisers I'm not going to be able to stay open.

"We have this right now. It's called the Internet. It makes the concept of the FCC good ol' boys club obsolete. The same standard should apply to radio and TV."

Right....

We have the internet.

Makes me wonder why we need to do anything with radio or TV.

Anyone with an internet connection has all sorts of free speech. They also have alot more "channels" that they can use to get their word out as well as a heck of alot bigger range than either radio or TV.

So....

Since there is a heck of alot more potential for free speech on the internet why should we do anything with either radio or TV?
 
  2008-11-14 09:47:50 PM
dottedmint: Since there is a heck of alot more potential for free speech on the internet why should we do anything with either radio or TV?

RainForest: They are our airwaves. You're renting the right to use them from We The People. When you bought a station you became the owner of a transmitter. You did not BUY a frequency on which to transmit. You licensed one from a very limited pool. The license comes with restrictions on when, where, and how loudly you can transmit. You may not have gotten a 24/7 license.
 
  2008-11-15 11:00:18 AM
My point Bonie is that I'm basically told that everyone should have access to the airwaves so that they can express their freedom of speech.

The problem with that (as I've been told) is that there are limited number of stations and if everyone were to have equal access to the airwaves each person would have such a limited amount of time.

With the internet each and every person can basically have an unlimited access to express their free speech.

Whidbey had said, "It's called the Internet. It makes the concept of the FCC good ol' boys club obsolete. The same standard should apply to radio and TV."

And so I just don't see why you would want to turn radio and TV into the internet when you already have the internet.

IF the internet is a good model for expressing free speech then simply use the internet. It already has more access than either TV or radio would ever have and it already has more reach than either TV or radio would ever have.

We already have public radio and public TV and if you want to say that they should be modified so that more people ahve access fine...
 
  2008-11-15 10:36:26 PM
Question people... whatever happened to that TFer who was up for election in Iowa?
 
  2008-11-17 11:37:08 AM
dottedmint: And so I just don't see why you would want to turn radio and TV into the internet when you already have the internet.

If we turned the airwaves into the Internet, we'd have something worth watching for once.

The quality of television went down the tubes (no pun intended, well, maybe a little) because we the citizenry had little or nothing to do with it. Big money and advertising ruined television.

Not only can we not allow that to happen to the Internet, I say we take back radio and TV. They ARE our airwaves. It shouldn't take hundreds of thousands of dollars to acquire the privilege of using them.

Right now, the airwaves are dumbed down, and filled with ads that most of us don't need or want.
 
  2008-11-19 07:03:26 AM
I guess we are just going to have to disagree that turning TV and radio into the internet would actually improve the quality of what is on. Really.... Have you seen some of the total cr@p that you can find on the internet?
 
  2008-11-19 11:10:53 AM
dottedmint: Really.... Have you seen some of the total cr@p that you can find on the internet?

But see, unlike television, you can choose to not involve yourself in said crap. You've got hours and hours of alternatives.

TV? Not so much. Pretty much everything sucks: the news, the programming, definitely the advertising.

I can find what I want on the Internet. TV, I have to put up with what's there. I can skip over or block ads.

Can't do that with TV. TV needs a good kick in the butt, IM(usual)NSHO...
 
  2008-11-19 10:29:26 PM
Whidbey "But see, unlike television, you can choose to not involve yourself in said crap."

What???

You can't reach the remote to change the channel or turn things off?

And I disagree that everything on TV (let alone radio) sucks.

I'm more than able to find things that I enjoy and I skip everything else including the ads.
 
  2008-11-20 12:45:37 PM
dottedmint: Really.... Have you seen some of the total cr@p that you can find on the internet?

Yes, but I still keep coming back to Fark and reading the Politics Forum anyway.

I'm sure that some of my favorite web sites are in your list of things that are "total cr@p". I'm quite certain that what you consider good radio and television fall into that category for me. I really like living in a country where that's possible and I'm willing to do whatever I can to protect that diversity.

Using the broadcast spectrum for radio and tv provides a fixed number of channels of cr@p to feed a growing and increasingly diverse population. Converting that spectrum to carry broadband internet would provide an almost infinite number of channels (websites)from which we could each select the cr@p we each wanted. And among those websites could be every one of the currently existing broadcast stations, with full streaming video. Of course, that would play hell with your ad revenue based business model because you no longer have a captive local market--everything is global.
 
  2008-11-21 07:08:10 AM
Maybe. Maybe not RainForest. Just because I disagree with what might be said on a site does not mean I would call it cr@p.

"Converting that spectrum to carry broadband internet would provide an almost infinite number of channels (websites)from which we could each select the cr@p we each wanted."

I've thought that as well.

I can't help but wonder how much longer "old fashioned" style radio will stick around.

At some point will technology make it obsolete?
 
  2008-11-21 12:27:01 PM
dottedmint: I can't help but wonder how much longer "old fashioned" style radio will stick around.

At some point will technology make it obsolete?


People still read books...

And if there is less of a demand for audio only, maybe the old AM/FM bands will be more community-owned/operated.

A breakthrough in technology that doesn't allow for big expensive cumbersome radio towers would help...
 
  2008-11-22 10:05:14 AM
whidbey:
A breakthrough in technology that doesn't allow for big expensive cumbersome radio towers would help...


Already exists and it wasn't exactly a breakthrough technology, just a rare bit of common sense leaking into government regulation

Also, just to inject some real numbers into this conversation, here is the latest count of broadcast stations licensed by the FCC. Note that of the 29,690 stations 10,135 are translators/boosters which simply rebroadcast the signal of one of the other 19,555. All of the Low Power, Class A, and Educational stations are non-profit owned and make up a total of 7017 stations. This leaves a grand total of 12,538 commercial broadcast stations available.

If you could sample all 12,538 of those stations in real time, how many unique programs do you suppose you'd see/hear?
 
  2008-11-26 09:27:42 AM
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.

Drive safe and don't eat too much.
 
  2008-11-28 04:06:22 PM
I perused this forum to see if anything intelligent was being discussed. I see that for the most part this forum is much the same as every one over the past eight years. "Bush is bad." "Iraq war is evil." "Republicans are evil." "Democrats never lie." "BHO will save us all." Guess I can go back to The Drudge Report.
 
  2008-11-28 05:33:20 PM
haha. You poor fark.
 
Displayed 50 of 2658 comments

First | « | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | » | Last


 
   Forgot password? Create an account to make comments
  Use HTML Buttons
If you can see this, something's wrong with your browser's CSS support.
 
Before posting, please take a minute to review our posting rules and our legal/privacy policy.
By posting, you agree to these terms.
Got questions about Fark? See our FAQ.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report