AR55: randomjsa: simpsonfan: Nazis, confederates. Sure makes you look good when you model your group on those who LOST.

Yet no matter how many times communism fails, no matter how many people it kills, no matter how many lives it destroys through tyranny and oppression it is still not universally reviled as one of the greatest evils of all time.

Using that logic, Capitalism has enslaved more humans and started more wars than Communism.

I don't even know if we've ever even had a communist country. The closest thing I can think of is kibbutzim.

Roadogs: antron: Jaws_Victim: My school banned books. I had to go read Catcher in the Rye all by myself with no discussions on its mature themes and content. Now all I want to do is kill the phonies.

dude, that will totally impress Jodie Foster

I think his point is, whatever you cast out, may come back to haunt you.

That is so much more in depth than I intended my throwaway joke to be. But hey, it turns out I'm as smart as Einstein!

/will make it so much easier to kill the phonies.

Not surprising. Russia has a huge neo-Nazi/terrorism problem. Ultra-nationalist commies are known to be vigilantes (because they see Nazi Russians as spitting on soldier's graves) and antifa has been known to Molotov and beat the shiat out of them (because they hate fascist racist homophobes). As opposed to physical beatings , Nazis and ultra cons skip straight to assassinations, murder, and bombings.

Satanicpuppy: I read Mein Kampf so I could recognize crazy when I see it. (I'd compare Beck to Hitler, but jesus, that's too easy. The guys got such a woody for Hitler he dressed up in SS gear on the cover of one of his hate books.)

Hardcore FAIL there buddy. Beck's costume for the cover of his book is a Soviet Union commissar.

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: Can someone provide an example of any country anywhere ever that has never banned any books?

I'm not a big enough history expert to know if the US has banned books (in peace time at least), but I know for sure that we have thrown authors in prison for writing them.

warfarkingeagle: dasqoot:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

For starters. I detest fascists on the right as much as totalitarian communists on the right, but it has been my experience that the radical left poses the greater threat to freedom. They are more pernicious for several reasons. Two of the most important being:

1. Radicals on the right do not want fundementally change the American political system

2. Radicals on the left are better educated (more education does not always mean you know whats best for everyone) and do want to fundamentally change the American political system, socialize and communize.

Well if we're talking about just radicals, I totally agree with you. I hardly think your average unionized dockworker wants the US to be run by soviets any more than I think your average used car dealer wants a paternal autocracy based on the Bible.

However, I do think radical right-wingers would like to institute a theocracy, if they could. Requiring a litmus test for a candidate's religious views, scrapping the 14th amendment, stepping on Supreme Court rulings they don't agree with. Hell, Huckabee himself said he wants to change the constitution to be more in line with the Bible and I wouldn't consider him a radical at all: he's about as deep right as you can get without crossing the street into Jihadville, but he does want to use the current political system to change the constitution, not revolution.

dasqoot: AR55: randomjsa: simpsonfan: Nazis, confederates. Sure makes you look good when you model your group on those who LOST.

Yet no matter how many times communism fails, no matter how many people it kills, no matter how many lives it destroys through tyranny and oppression it is still not universally reviled as one of the greatest evils of all time.

Using that logic, Capitalism has enslaved more humans and started more wars than Communism.

I don't even know if we've ever even had a communist country. The closest thing I can think of is kibbutzim..

Autonomous 1936 spain, Freetown Christiana , zapatistas, recovered factories movement , religious communes.

I don't even know if we've ever even had a communist country. The closest thing I can think of is kibbutzim.

Most adults here can agree, not everyone can handle true history. They want to avenge their forefathers or some stupid crap. Instead of enjoying the fruits of civilization.

By banning this text, they either.

1.) Prevented freaks from re-enacting history.
2.) Prevented freaks from revenge for acts long over.
3.) Prevented a future cult from forming.
4.) Prevented the public; which is 40% freaks, from ammunition to their fantasies.

I for one feel no less of a person, man, entity for never reading this text. So, why is it so important?

Mr Logo: What gets me about Russia, is that they have neo-Nazis. I just don't understand it.

In Moscow there are occasionally neo-Nazi rallies. It turns out that many in attendance are the bored spoiled children of highish party officials who want social change so they can preserve the high status they were born to.

TedNigma: I for one feel no less of a person, man, entity for never reading this text. So, why is it so important?

Psychoanalysts probably love it. Historians need it.

Hitler basically outlined his plan for World War 2, including dealing with the Jews and Bolsheviks and none of the Allies or Comintern apparently ever read the damn thing and figured out exactly what he was going to do, step by step. How he's going to get Italy and Germany to invade France and Russia.

Even knowing the entire plan of the loon, the USSR still signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and France let them annex Austria and the Sudetenland...knowing his only goal regarding France was beating the snot out of them.

IDK that's what I got out of reading it. The whole war was preventable because, hey, this lunatic wrote down everything he was going to do years before he did it. And it was banned in the countries he was going to declare war on.

ROFLMFAO!!

Gyrfalcon: "Communism" is not a discrete theory of government like Nazism or the Confederacy, at least not the way it has been implemented in the various incarnations. Stalinism, Marxist-Leninism, Maoism, etc., are all forms of communism that have been tried and found wanting, and are all reviled as great evils.

Communists however keep hoping that THEIR version of "communism" is going to work out better than the other "BAD" versions of communism that have obviously failed and failed miserably. "But if we just try again, maybe this time it will work!"

You are not up to snuff in your understanding of Communist ideology where you find notions like 'Continuous Revolution' and 'Permanent Revolution' where there is no goal state - instead the current state determines in what direction the revolution should move.

Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.

Well to be fair if anyone's a fair judge on what books should be banned it ought to be the person who's read all of them.

HairBolus: Mr Logo: What gets me about Russia, is that they have neo-Nazis. I just don't understand it.

In Moscow there are occasionally neo-Nazi rallies. It turns out that many in attendance are the bored spoiled children of highish party officials who want social change so they can preserve the high status they were born to.

Fail - Russia has always had mid to high level of anti-jewish sentiment. Russia was another example of a country that got capitalism/democracy forced down their throat (I say this as somebody who believes it is the best system, but you just can't do this overnight) and ended up with an economically dominant racial minority.

Look, I think the "jews run the economy" bullshiat is as destructive, untrue, and stupid as the next moderately well read person, but the same thing happened in many different countries, where the racially dominant population couldn't vote for years, and when given the chance to do so, went all populist and nationalistic. It isn't rocket science, and the idea that somebody can't at least *understand* the dynamics of why a small number of Russians don't outwardly identify themselves as neo-nazis is disappointing.

It turns out (to borrow your phrase) that many countries that convert to democracy/capitalism over a small time frame rebel against a racial minority that controls most of their economy. This isn't anti-jewish. The same thing happened in the Phillipines with the dominance of the minority of Chinese that owned most of the economy. The list goes on, and it happens to be pretty common, and is comically foreign to Americans who are not familiar with living in a country where a tiny racial minority runs most of the economy.

This is in no way a comment on races at all. It is simply the political and economic dynamics of many countries who are forced to overhaul (for good reason) their political and economic system. When it happens too fast, the power vacuum is rife for outside meddling, and it doesn't matter who takes advantage. The citizens become enraged, and nationalist ugliness ensues.

Venezuala .. pretty much everwhere in continental Africa ... it's amazing to watch the international academic economic and political world slowly coming around to the notion that you can't just turn a switch and hope capitalism/democracy suddenly bring out the best in people. The system is a goal, but do it too fast and you bring out what the US is in a much more minor light experiencing right now - people reacting to change, and vulnerable to demagoguery.

m2313: I don't even know if we've ever even had a communist country. The closest thing I can think of is kibbutzim..

Autonomous 1936 spain

Spain is an interesting one-- far more interesting than 1917 Russia in my opinion. It's a case of a full-scale authoritarian/reactionary revolution against a 'democratic' government.

Also one of the very few cases where Anarchists actually got a chance to set up their own communes. In Castelonia and Aragon, many of the industrial communes in 1936 were remarkably successful and you didn't find the wholesale extermination of entire classes as one found in 1917 Russia.

The classic problem was that the Anarchists were so true to themselves that they refused on principle to organize against the communist parties that were becoming more beholden to Soviet aid. In addition, the commies stressed central control which was necessary to effectively fight the nationalists.

The Brits and Frogs really screwed the pooch in their reaction to the war-- they figured if they helped at all, it would empower the Soviet-style commies when what in fact happened is that their lack of assistance provided an even greater boost to the Soviet types and justified the presence of the international Fascist types.

warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

yeah well we aren't taking the writer of the Declaration of Independence out of our kid's history books because he believed in a separation of church and state.

Headline is another example why Amercans should stay in school and learn they are no better,or worse than anyone else.
An amazing tribute to ignorance but subtard

warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

I'd be okay with banning Dan Brown.

Gee thanx, you dumb Commies. Now we gotta crank up the presses here. Or somewhere. Or somewhere else.

MrEricSir: warfarkingeagle: For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

Uh oh, it looks like you mistyped FoxNews.com. This is a different site, sorry about the confusion.

sorry, apparently MrEricSir doesn't like free speech!

/hipocrisy ftw!
//don't care what party you blindly follow cuz ur parents did, stfu

warfarkingeagle: For starters. I detest fascists on the right as much as totalitarian communists on the right, but it has been my experience that the radical left poses the greater threat to freedom. They are more pernicious for several reasons. Two of the most important being:

1. Radicals on the right do not want fundementally change the American political system

2. Radicals on the left are better educated (more education does not always mean you know whats best for everyone) and do want to fundamentally change the American political system, socialize and communize.

So right-wing extremists are moderates? I wasn't aware. Good to know I guess.

It's not like McVeigh was a radical right-winger, so your premise makes lots of sense.

Shrugging Atlas: Well to be fair if anyone's a fair judge on what books should be banned it ought to be the person who's read all of them.

I doubt that. She quits everything part way through.


jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS I can't think for myself!

FTFY

warfarkingeagle: but it has been my experience that the radical left poses the greater threat to freedom.

And that's how I know you are a tool.

RonEdwards: MrEricSir: warfarkingeagle: For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

Uh oh, it looks like you mistyped FoxNews.com. This is a different site, sorry about the confusion.

sorry, apparently MrEricSir doesn't like free speech!

/hipocrisy ftw!
//don't care what party you blindly follow cuz ur parents did, stfu


"don't care what party you blindly follow cuz ur parents did, stfu" sounds SO Free-speech-ish, LOL! I'll ignore your "cuz ur" teen shorthand assuming you were typing on a phone and needed to save yourself from typing the necessary letters.

Guaranteeing opposing views are heard does NOT equal anti-free speech. The very fact that you, and others, would pretend it does is in fact illustrative of your desire for opposing views being suppressed. You cannot call something "banning" when it's entirely inclusive, sorry, English does not work that way, neither does logic.

To pretend liberalism is in line with book banning is a joke. The factual, historical record proves otherwise. To pretend equal speech is somehow equivalent to suppressing speech is purely ignorant of truth. If you choose to live a life living in stupidity, unable to realize the difference between inclusion and prohibiting, then so be it, we can't make you more intelligent. I only serve you here to inform you that your point is ignoring things such as intelligent thought, and for my taking the time to tell you that you are welcome. Enjoy railing against the inevitable progress of mankind. Unfortunately for you, the future will be full of ideological defeats as the old, ignorant ways of your parents are defeated and squashed. Take solace in knowing you will be better off for it. Good luck.

It looks like the age old method of republican debate is alive and well here. Lie, then mis-attribute, sprinkle in a few gallons of false accusations, add a few cups of historical ignorance, and shake violently for eighteen hours.

NOBODY without bias would ever say liberalism is against free speech. in fact, liberals ensure too much free speech according to every conservative who has ever opposed such issues. This is NOT even a debate here, it's a matter of facing the truth. As a moderate, I cannot ignore the truth. If you have some relevant fact that proves otherwise then by all means, express it, I'm not some conservative unable to handle true opposition that proves me wrong.

crab66: warfarkingeagle: but it has been my experience that the radical left poses the greater threat to freedom.

And that's how I know you are a tool.
^^^^^^^^^^
Likewise

Doink_Boink: It looks like the age old method of republican debate is alive and well here. Lie, then mis-attribute, sprinkle in a few gallons of false accusations, add a few cups of historical ignorance, and shake violently for eighteen hours.

NOBODY without bias would ever say liberalism is against free speech. in fact, liberals ensure too much free speech according to every conservative who has ever opposed such issues. This is NOT even a debate here, it's a matter of facing the truth. As a moderate, I cannot ignore the truth. If you have some relevant fact that proves otherwise then by all means, express it, I'm not some conservative unable to handle true opposition that proves me wrong.

This proof is in 100 years of radical left-wing thought in the United States. You know, the apologists. Your boldfaced statement is a very astute conclusion, you're just on the wrong side.

jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

the fairness doctrine didn't block anyone's free speech. matter of fact it protected it. now it's possible for any entity to present only one side of the issues uncontested.

soseussme: warfarkingeagle: For starters. I detest fascists on the right as much as totalitarian communists on the right, but it has been my experience that the radical left poses the greater threat to freedom. They are more pernicious for several reasons. Two of the most important being:

1. Radicals on the right do not want fundementally change the American political system

2. Radicals on the left are better educated (more education does not always mean you know whats best for everyone) and do want to fundamentally change the American political system, socialize and communize.

So right-wing extremists are moderates? I wasn't aware. Good to know I guess.

It's not like McVeigh was a radical right-winger, so your premise makes lots of sense.

Tim McVeigh and his ilk, while insane, simply want the federal government to leave them alone. They want more freedom, not less. They just need to work on how they express this desire. McVeigh was human garbage.

Degenz: Way to instantly spark widespread interest and create a lucrative black market for something most people probably never gave a shiat about.

It's got historical value, but very little literary value. It's like a modern steel refinery keeping a leather bellows-- interesting to put on the wall by a little historical marker, but not actually any good for running a furnace.

Hobodeluxe: jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

the fairness doctrine didn't block anyone's free speech. matter of fact it protected it. now it's possible for any entity to present only one side of the issues uncontested.

Erroneous statement is erroneous. I assume Wiki could tell you why. Basically all of your Dems make love to it because they know it can be used to silence right wing talk show hosts who are a threat to left's hegemonic goals.

warfarkingeagle: Hobodeluxe: jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

the fairness doctrine didn't block anyone's free speech. matter of fact it protected it. now it's possible for any entity to present only one side of the issues uncontested.

Erroneous statement is erroneous. I assume Wiki could tell you why. Basically all of your Dems make love to it because they know it can be used to silence right wing talk show hosts who are a threat to left's hegemonic goals.

warfarkingeagle: Hobodeluxe: jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

the fairness doctrine didn't block anyone's free speech. matter of fact it protected it. now it's possible for any entity to present only one side of the issues uncontested.

Erroneous statement is erroneous. I assume Wiki could tell you why. Basically all of your Dems make love to it because they know it can be used to silence right wing talk show hosts who are a threat to left's hegemonic goals.

all the fairness doctrine did was enforce equal time.
how did it curtail the freedom of speech by allowing both sides to be presented?

I consider myself indepdent, and i know this is going to get flamed but im going to say it anyways. The natural cycle of civilizations is to grow from freedom to gov't bondage. The main tool of gov't bondage is cencorship of speech. The political body within the US that is moving the US in this cycle is the liberal left. No one can deny the country is becoming more liberal, not conservative. As such, it is the politcal liberal left that will eventual impose legislation that will stiffle our freedom of speech. The same could happen if the country was becoming more conservative, i.e. Germany/Hitler, but the West is moving left, and Communism is not a question of "will it happen," bt "when will it happen?" We could prevent it if there was some balance in the country, but no conservative could win the presidency runnin on policies that would undermine gov't control. We have past the point of peventing it.

Hobodeluxe: warfarkingeagle: Hobodeluxe: jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

the fairness doctrine didn't block anyone's free speech. matter of fact it protected it. now it's possible for any entity to present only one side of the issues uncontested.

Erroneous statement is erroneous. I assume Wiki could tell you why. Basically all of your Dems make love to it because they know it can be used to silence right wing talk show hosts who are a threat to left's hegemonic goals.

warfarkingeagle: Hobodeluxe: jdmac: warfarkingeagle: Britney Spear's Speculum: I know who inquired about banning books.



For farks sake, it's left-wingers who are always trying to ban free speech, it's dangerous to the totalitarianism that underlies their political goals. Fairness Doctrine mean anything to anyone?

THIS!

the fairness doctrine didn't block anyone's free speech. matter of fact it protected it. now it's possible for any entity to present only one side of the issues uncontested.

Erroneous statement is erroneous. I assume Wiki could tell you why. Basically all of your Dems make love to it because they know it can be used to silence right wing talk show hosts who are a threat to left's hegemonic goals.

all the fairness doctrine did was enforce equal time.
how did it curtail the freedom of speech by allowing both sides to be presented?

No, what it does is say that you cannot present your views unless you give equal time to the other view. We live in a free society, we don't need this garbage. If you don't like something, change the channel. Or, you could do what Gore and them did and start an all liberal radio network. This failed(went bankrupt). Americans don't want to listen to the Olbermans and the Gores whine. Because this failed, the Gore people want to try the fairness doctrine again.

Gdalescrboz: I consider myself indepdent, and i know this is going to get flamed but im going to say it anyways. The natural cycle of civilizations is to grow from freedom to gov't bondage. The main tool of gov't bondage is cencorship of speech. The political body within the US that is moving the US in this cycle is the liberal left. No one can deny the country is becoming more liberal, not conservative. As such, it is the politcal liberal left that will eventual impose legislation that will stiffle our freedom of speech. The same could happen if the country was becoming more conservative, i.e. Germany/Hitler, but the West is moving left, and Communism is not a question of "will it happen," bt "when will it happen?" We could prevent it if there was some balance in the country, but no conservative could win the presidency runnin on policies that would undermine gov't control. We have past the point of peventing it.


you're blinkered

Gdalescrboz: I consider myself indepdent, and i know this is going to get flamed but im going to say it anyways. The natural cycle of civilizations is to grow from freedom to gov't bondage. The main tool of gov't bondage is cencorship of speech. The political body within the US that is moving the US in this cycle is the liberal left. No one can deny the country is becoming more liberal, not conservative. As such, it is the politcal liberal left that will eventual impose legislation that will stiffle our freedom of speech. The same could happen if the country was becoming more conservative, i.e. Germany/Hitler, but the West is moving left, and Communism is not a question of "will it happen," bt "when will it happen?" We could prevent it if there was some balance in the country, but no conservative could win the presidency runnin on policies that would undermine gov't control. We have past the point of peventing it.

When Conservatives trample civil rights they are breaking the law; when Liberals trample civil rights they are enforcing the law.

warfarkingeagle: No, what it does is say that you cannot present your views unless you give equal time to the other view. We live in a free society, we don't need this garbage. If you don't like something, change the channel. Or, you could do what Gore and them did and start an all liberal radio network. This failed(went bankrupt). Americans don't want to listen to the Olbermans and the Gores whine. Because this failed, the Gore people want to try the fairness doctrine again

what it does is guarantee one political view isn't pushed by the corporate media. what if the state ran the media and all you got was pro Obama stuff all the time and had not way to counter it?
He had all the media networks working for him because he let them consolidate and control the message? and the people like Hannity and Limbaugh couldn't get corporate sponsors and were forced to operate like Democracy Now or Air America on donations with no corporate sponsorship.
Should money be the only voice you hear? What the super rich who can afford to but tv time and radio time want you to hear?

back before the Fairness doctrine was repealed we had people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater debate the conservative side of the issues. Now we have raving lunatics pretending to set each other on fire and crying over some contrived conspiracy on the blackboard and flag waving plumbers.

JQPublic: Gdalescrboz: I consider myself indepdent, and i know this is going to get flamed but im going to say it anyways. The natural cycle of civilizations is to grow from freedom to gov't bondage. The main tool of gov't bondage is cencorship of speech. The political body within the US that is moving the US in this cycle is the liberal left. No one can deny the country is becoming more liberal, not conservative. As such, it is the politcal liberal left that will eventual impose legislation that will stiffle our freedom of speech. The same could happen if the country was becoming more conservative, i.e. Germany/Hitler, but the West is moving left, and Communism is not a question of "will it happen," bt "when will it happen?" We could prevent it if there was some balance in the country, but no conservative could win the presidency runnin on policies that would undermine gov't control. We have past the point of peventing it.

When Conservatives trample civil rights they are breaking the law; when Liberals trample civil rights they are enforcing the law.

what civil rights have the left trampled of yours?

the only right the fairness doctrine trampled was the right to lie to the public uncontested.

Hobodeluxe 2010-03-27 05:05:03 AM
warfarkingeagle: No, what it does is say that you cannot present your views unless you give equal time to the other view. We live in a free society, we don't need this garbage. If you don't like something, change the channel. Or, you could do what Gore and them did and start an all liberal radio network. This failed(went bankrupt). Americans don't want to listen to the Olbermans and the Gores whine. Because this failed, the Gore people want to try the fairness doctrine again

what it does is guarantee one political view isn't pushed by the corporate media. what if the state ran the media and all you got was pro Obama stuff all the time and had not way to counter it?
He had all the media networks working for him because he let them consolidate and control the message? and the people like Hannity and Limbaugh couldn't get corporate sponsors and were forced to operate like Democracy Now or Air America on donations with no corporate sponsorship.
Should money be the only voice you hear? What the super rich who can afford to but tv time and radio time want you to hear?

back before the Fairness doctrine was repealed we had people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater debate the conservative side of the issues. Now we have raving lunatics pretending to set each other on fire and crying over some contrived conspiracy on the blackboard and flag waving plumbers.

If the state controled all media outlets they sure as fark woudlnt put out both sides of the debate. You know why? Because its called a Totalitarian state when the state controls media outlets. The Fairness Doctrine was made for one sole purpose, chip away at the contol conservatives have on radio talk shows. For whatever reason all attemps by the left to get involved with talk radio have failed.

Hobodeluxe 2010-03-27 05:07:35 AM
JQPublic: Gdalescrboz: I consider myself indepdent, and i know this is going to get flamed but im going to say it anyways. The natural cycle of civilizations is to grow from freedom to gov't bondage. The main tool of gov't bondage is cencorship of speech. The political body within the US that is moving the US in this cycle is the liberal left. No one can deny the country is becoming more liberal, not conservative. As such, it is the politcal liberal left that will eventual impose legislation that will stiffle our freedom of speech. The same could happen if the country was becoming more conservative, i.e. Germany/Hitler, but the West is moving left, and Communism is not a question of "will it happen," bt "when will it happen?" We could prevent it if there was some balance in the country, but no conservative could win the presidency runnin on policies that would undermine gov't control. We have past the point of peventing it.

When Conservatives trample civil rights they are breaking the law; when Liberals trample civil rights they are enforcing the law.

what civil rights have the left trampled of yours?

Well, off the top of my head, as of a few days ago i am now required to have health insurance or i get fined.

Hobodeluxe: warfarkingeagle: No, what it does is say that you cannot present your views unless you give equal time to the other view. We live in a free society, we don't need this garbage. If you don't like something, change the channel. Or, you could do what Gore and them did and start an all liberal radio network. This failed(went bankrupt). Americans don't want to listen to the Olbermans and the Gores whine. Because this failed, the Gore people want to try the fairness doctrine again

what it does is guarantee one political view isn't pushed by the corporate media. what if the state ran the media and all you got was pro Obama stuff all the time and had not way to counter it?
He had all the media networks working for him because he let them consolidate and control the message? and the people like Hannity and Limbaugh couldn't get corporate sponsors and were forced to operate like Democracy Now or Air America on donations with no corporate sponsorship.
Should money be the only voice you hear? What the super rich who can afford to but tv time and radio time want you to hear?

back before the Fairness doctrine was repealed we had people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater debate the conservative side of the issues. Now we have raving lunatics pretending to set each other on fire and crying over some contrived conspiracy on the blackboard and flag waving plumbers.

No, you change the channel if you don't like something. Foxnews doesn't get the highest ratings because they are simply there. People choose to put it on and give (or because you seem to like the word "donation" better, they donate) their money to Rupert. There are two other all news networks that don't get the ratings of Fox when you put them together. Limbaugh, same concept. The fairness doctrine is useless, not needed. Free market is free.

Gdalescrboz: If the state controled all media outlets they sure as fark woudlnt put out both sides of the debate. You know why? Because its called a Totalitarian state when the state controls media outlets. The Fairness Doctrine was made for one sole purpose, chip away at the contol conservatives have on radio talk shows. For whatever reason all attemps by the left to get involved with talk radio have failed.

chip away at the control. no. to offer up an honest debate and to keep them from lying without calling them out on it yes.
what good is a one way conversation all the time other than to produce propaganda? if you have the better argument you wouldn't be afraid of debating it. matter of fact you'd want to debate it and blow apart the other sides arguments.
IF you were on the side of truth.

if not then I could see why you'd want to keep it one way.

Gdalescrboz: Hobodeluxe 2010-03-27 05:07:35 AM
JQPublic: Gdalescrboz: I consider myself indepdent, and i know this is going to get flamed but im going to say it anyways. The natural cycle of civilizations is to grow from freedom to gov't bondage. The main tool of gov't bondage is cencorship of speech. The political body within the US that is moving the US in this cycle is the liberal left. No one can deny the country is becoming more liberal, not conservative. As such, it is the politcal liberal left that will eventual impose legislation that will stiffle our freedom of speech. The same could happen if the country was becoming more conservative, i.e. Germany/Hitler, but the West is moving left, and Communism is not a question of "will it happen," bt "when will it happen?" We could prevent it if there was some balance in the country, but no conservative could win the presidency runnin on policies that would undermine gov't control. We have past the point of peventing it.

When Conservatives trample civil rights they are breaking the law; when Liberals trample civil rights they are enforcing the law.

what civil rights have the left trampled of yours?

Well, off the top of my head, as of a few days ago i am now required to have health insurance or i get fined.

so you have a right to freeload off the public safety net is what you're saying? I mean the taxpayer pays for the indigent care in the end. and a lot of people like you know that safety net is there and they have to treat you. so now instead of being able to freeload they have to pay in.
sounds kinda bootstrappy to me. Less welfare.