El Rushbo probably won’t lose his influence if he were on Sirius or XM, but losing local talk show hosts would hurt. In southeast Wisconsin, hosts such as Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling are the counter to the liberal lapdogs at the Milwaukee Journal or the Wisconsin State Journal who do nothing but advance the liberal agenda.

great points. That is where I see this going also. Why bother with the (un)fairness doctrine when you can go other avenues that are not as blantantly obvious.

However, as Brian Anderson pointed out the other day in the NY Post, The Messiah plans on requiring an increased amount of local programming, which will cut into the syndicated national radio shows and He plans on creating community boards to monitor programming.

Now you can guess who will be on those boards. That’s right. Community organizers. Leftwing rabble-rousers. ACORN types. Willing to protest outside of radio stations and harass station management when it comes to license renewal, the period for which Obama wants to shorten from 8 years to 2.

End result? They don’t need the (Un)Fairness Doctrine to get rid of El Rushbo. Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and other national shows will be dumped, as will (here in Wisconsin) local conservative shows such as Charlie Sykes and Mark Belling.

In their place will be home and garden shows, entertainment, local yakkers who host shows where people call in with puppies for sale or to swap recipes.

Socialized broadband will extend this to the Internet.

Barack Obama’s socialistic plan for the internet should worry everyone….

On October 22nd, 2008 at 1:44 am, Truesoldier said:

72 ?!?!?! Thats freezing!

At one time, I was in Saudi in January and it was 90. The outdoor pool was closed because it was TOO COLD lol.

Seriously, what is the plan? It’s going to be easier to fight the oppression if we’re pro-active.

Hard to say. The Doctrine would most likely be updated to reflect todays society, so I’m sure a lot of avenues around it would be closed. However there would always be a way to wrap onto the framework in order to meet the letter of the law and avoid the spirit.

Before these idiots in congress screwed us over regarding the bailout, I would have said the Doctrine could not be put in place in this era. But since they are ignoring the will of the people, who knows what they can push through.

I dont think they could do it very fast, and if they do, the backlash at the 2010 election will be massive. As it is, the independants will realize within the next year that they shouldnt have been drinking the kool-aid.

Telling a toddler not to reach up and touch a hot stove is never as effective as letting them touch the red hot coil.

On October 22nd, 2008 at 1:30 am, RogerCfromSD said:
Assuming there IS a return to the Fairness Doctrine, and, that even web sites are compelled to abide by it, what will we do?

See, I just dont see a return to the fairness doctrine at all especially on the web. It could backfire on the Libs if they did it and I believe they realized it and that is why the talk died out. They realize they have far more to loose as they have a tight grip on the Old Media (and the polls show that the American people realize it). Not to mention could you imagine sites like KOS and DU having to allow equal time on their sites?

Thanks for the info. As for the weather, it is a bit hazy and 72 out at the moment. We had some great thunder storms last night though.

Already, the upstream media propagandizes for the socialists. They effectively prevent certain stories from being seen by the multitude of Americans who may not use the Internet as a source of information. If people don’t know about instances of oppression, that oppression will continue unabated.

So, what will become of free speech after the socialists implement their unconstitutional nonsense?

Seriously, what is the plan? It’s going to be easier to fight the oppression if we’re pro-active.

BTW its “36 °F / 2.7 °C Light Snow” here at this moment… hows the weather in Iraq?

The Case Against Senator Obama’s National CTO
October 21, 2008 – 1:54 am PDT – by Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins 40 Comments

I asked the question back in August, and I ask it again now: Why do we need a national CTO? BusinessWeek asks the question today, and everyone and their brother is rushing to weigh in on the answer. Even though pundits back in August erroneously attributed the idea of the creation of a national CTO to both candidates, it is only Senator Obama who’s called for the creation of a national CTO.

According to BusinessWeek, it appears to be mostly for the purposes of the creation of a nationalized broadband establishment, or at least that’s how they paint it. I’m uncertain if that’s simply the spin that BusinessWeek is putting on the story, or if that’s the actual intention of Obama’s promised cabinet appointment.
.
.
.
But Let’s Pretend For a Moment It Is All About Broadband
For years, already, the major telecommunications firms have been receiving major subsidies to wire up the world. In some instances where the telcos have performed as they have promised, it’s proven to be a boon to the economy. In most of the cases, though, the major telcos have taken the governmental subsidies and done very little to complete the work they were contracted for.

The first example that springs to mind is the case of AT&T and how they, as Slashdot put it, “Pillaged South Africa’s Economy.”