See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. Right Voices » Blog Archive » The Unfairness Doctrine: Backoff Dems
2. Elitist Ruling Class « Toms FlashBacks
3. Michelle Malkin - whereIstand.com

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #1
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm, Cepperson said:

   Its like the draft stuff every so often…Dems pull that stuff out and try to say its the Republicans that are doing the bad.

   No shame at all.

2. #2
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 12:41 pm, puhiawa said:

   The FD is Unconstitutional on it’s face. After the Kelo decision, though, it is apparent that some members of the Cout haven’t read the Constitution.

3. #3
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm, The Raging Republican said:

   So long freedoms…….FLUSH!

4. #4
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm, JammieWearingFool said:

   Democrats are such sniveling babies. Having over 90% of the media in their back pockets just isn’t enough for them.

5. #5
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 1:21 pm, dzodda said:

   Tell the Dems to pack it up and move to Cuba. I’m sure they’ll get fair and balanced media there… AND state health care!

6. #6
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 1:23 pm, johnv40 said:

   The Democrats are a bunch of crybabies.

7. #7
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm, bloodhound said:

   Re-read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, suggests former judge-turned-Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican.

   “The Constitution protects free speech, not equal speech,” he educates. “Congress is to make no law abridging the freedom of speech whether we like the speech or not. It’s simple, speech is to be free, not fair. Fair is too subjective a word. Our grandfathers guaranteed us free speech, not fair speech, and there is a big difference.”

   Nor the right to be heard!

8. #8
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 1:39 pm, Pulchritudinous Patriot said:

   I love Ted Poe. We lost a great judge, but gained a great Representative. He’s one of the few in D.C, that has a pair.

9. #9
   On July 2nd, 2007 at 2:10 pm, DaleC said:

   This FD seems like a ploy to divert our attention away from all the things they admitted they could do about the illegals.
   I will not forget that 4.4 billion. Remember tamper-proof ID , deportation , employer accountability . All possible during the shamnesty debate.
   The anti-shamnesty Senators should be pushing for funding to enforce our laws . This is just insulting.

10. #10
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 2:14 pm, SteveG said:

    Radio Radio by Elvis Costello comes to mind.

    If you don’t like it, turn it off or throw it out the window.

    I think the left is insane.
    If they want fairness, they outta purge the fake scholars out there who use state money to publish lies disguised as scholarship. (Then of course they cite themselves repeatedly ala Ward Churchill). But that would require honesty and humility, so I guess that’s out.

11. #11
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 2:43 pm, DirkBelig said:

    In case anyone was unclear as to what percentage the “total” part of “totalitarian” referred to, let this be a sound reminder that anything less than 100% control of information by the Left is unacceptable to the Left.

    “Equal time” for a liberal means one person saying, “America is evil. Bush is evil. Capitalism is evil.”, followed by a interval of similar length filled by a second speaker saying, “You’ve got that right! You tell it! Speak truth to power!

12. #12
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 2:56 pm, Jewels said:

    excellent points.

    would LOVE to see their reaction if tv news were threatened with an equally ridiculous “fairness” doctrine. (can already hear the distant sounds of millions of libs backpeddling.)

13. #13
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 3:30 pm, On-my-soap-box said:

    Do not dismiss this as going away. Did you all not pay attention to shame-nesty? If, indeed, the MSM own 90% of the market share does it not stand to reason they have 90% of the big money lobbyists? The politico’s will not be interested in what is right as much as they believe in what will get the elected – money.

    Call now, call often. Write in, write often. Emails are great too. Make some noise or be left wondering what happened.

14. #14
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 3:35 pm, englishqueen01 said:

    The two main arguments for the UnFairness Doctrine that I hear from liberals on other blogs are these:

    1. The media is not liberal.
    2. The fact that media outlets are owned by corporations PROVES the media is not libera.

    Which works well with what DirkBelig said in #10 - to the left, capitalism/corporations=conservatives=evil. An argument that’s a non-starter with me.

    Also building on #10, it’s doubtful the UnFairness Doctrine would apply to liberal stations and - if it did - they’d find the most liberal “conservative” available, put him/her on the air and be done with it. While, naturally, demanding REAL liberals be put on conservative stations.

15. #15
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 4:35 pm, RobM1981 said:

    Will NPR have to be split up and balanced?

    Since NPR is on 24/7 on every radio market in the USA, this would be an absolute coup. People like Mark Levin, Wilkow, etc. who are only in a handful of markets could have their voices heard.

    Can you imagine Mark Levin during a fund raising drive for PUBLIC RADIO??? I’d stay home from work just to listen…

16. #16
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 5:22 pm, Leatherneck said:

    There is nothing fair about the Fairness Doctrine. It is just a way for Liberals to control freedom of speech. Just look who is for it.

17. #17
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 5:46 pm, hadsil said:

    On July 2nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm, JammieWearingFool said:
    Democrats are such sniveling babies. Having over 90% of the media in their back pockets just isn’t enough for them.

    Hmm, reminds me of some People of Peace who aren’t satisfied with 90% of the Middle East.

    Make that 99% give or take a .1%

18. #18
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 7:40 pm, BobUSMC said:

    This very funny JPEG says it all whereas liberal hypocrisy and the Fairness Doctrine is concerned.

    http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y173/EDSAndy/2007-06-30FairnessDoctrine.jpg

19. #19
    On July 2nd, 2007 at 7:57 pm, DaleC said:

    Kirsten spoke out against these Senators and the FD today on Cavuto . Couldn’t believe my ears ..

20. #20
    On July 3rd, 2007 at 12:04 am, theloneranger said:

    I think this “Fairness Doctrine” business is an empty threat. There are just too many options around the MSM these days besides Talk Radio, such as Blogs, satellites, streaming, IPods, etc.

    It won’t be long until you can listen to Limbaugh or Hannity on your cell phone with ease.

    The Genie is out of the Bottle Lefties, and there’s NO putting him back.

21. #21
    On July 3rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm, pickax411 said:

    I believe that the “Fairness Doctrine” and the those elected officials that are pushing for its reinstatement do so from a desire to RULE than a desire to Serve the public. I think that the Courier Post editorial board are starting to hear echo’s of King George and the British parliament in the words coming out of Washington D.C. these days and they might be worried.

22. #22
    On July 3rd, 2007 at 6:33 pm, duff65 said:

    I want the “fairness” applied to network television. Ninety percent of the shows would either be off the air or their would be a corresponding show that had to be aired. When you have 90% of the broadcast medium can’t you just stop and smell the roses.

23. #23
    On July 3rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm, palani said:

    When all voices are given equal time, we will find ourselves in a Tower of Babel. Many liberals simply cannot comprehend that all religions, practices, beliefs, motives, and people are not necessarily worthy of the same measures of respect and acceptance.

24. #24
    On July 4th, 2007 at 6:04 pm, Chief RZ said:

    palani, you said it well. They think that they have a monopoly on ideas and that theirs are the only correct ones. I wonder where their “diversity” philosophy fits now?

25. #25
    On July 5th, 2007 at 9:33 am, sherlock said:

    Any politician who has ever advocated the regulation of the content of any information media, even in an offhand remark, should be regarded as unfit for public office under the US Constitution.
    If you can’t even read and understand the 1st Amendment, I am not interested in finding out what you “think” about the rest.