Agreed! "Fairness Doctrine" is a joke. is really
Posted By: CENSORSHIP Doctrine... nothing fair about it.nm on 2009-02-26
In Reply to: The vast majority of mass media is liberal based....... - and media diversity is dangerous.......
nm
Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old. To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Agreed. Your post is a joke but one that flopped.
Try again.
The Carter Doctrine.....
hmmmm. Very, very interesting article. I'm not sure I agree with some of the broad unsubstantiated statements but all in all, a very interesting article. Thanks for posting!
The Bush Doctrine
What about the Bush doctrine?
REMEMBER George W. Bush? He was the president who warned in 2002 that Iran and North Korea were part of an "axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world." On his watch, he vowed, the United States would "not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."
Bush was the leader who pledged at his second inauguration to support "democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." He let it be known that the truculence of rogues and dictators would not be indulged. "Some," he said pointedly, "have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve - and have found it firm."
Whatever became of him? The president who in the wake of Sept. 11 posed a stark choice to the sponsors of jihadist violence - "You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists" - where is he now? And, more important, where is the foreign policy he once stood for?
For some time now it has been apparent that the Bush Doctrine - with the single exception of Iraq - didn't survive the Bush presidency. Notwithstanding the president's heartfelt words about supporting democratic reformers, for example, dissidents and freedom-seekers have largely been forgotten.
So it has gone in one country after another. In Russia, in Saudi Arabia, in China, the Bush administration's commitment to liberty and democratic reform has subsided into little more than lip service. The principled "freedom agenda" Bush championed so ardently has evaporated. In its place is the old "realist" agenda he had sworn to overhaul: stability, business-as-usual, stand-by-your-(strong)man.
What about those dangerous regimes that were seeking the world's most destructive weapons?
In a dispiriting Weekly Standard cover story on Condoleezza Rice's record as secretary of state, Stephen Hayes notes that six years after Bush vowed to keep Iran and North Korea from going nuclear, "North Korea is a nuclear power and Iran is either on the brink . . . or making substantial progress." Despite a "seemingly endless series of multilateral negotiations" aimed at neutralizing the two dictatorships, Pyongyang and Tehran have grown more, not less, provocative. "And in each case," Hayes writes, "the State Department has gone out of its way to avoid dealing with these provocations lest they jeopardize our diplomacy."
The Bush Doctrine was clear: Any regime aiding terrorists or other enemies of the United States would pay a severe price. Yet when North Korea was caught providing nuclear technology to Syria, the State Department wanted the news kept secret - for fear, writes Hayes, that public disclosure of North Korea's proliferati on might ruin negotiations. When he asked Rice what price Iran has paid for arming and training the Iraqi insurgents who kill US troops, she replied vaguely that "there are lots of consequences" but mentioned only the capture of an Iranian paramilitary commander in Irbil 18 months ago. "Well," she said, when pressed on whether she would negotiate with Iran even as it foments terrorism, "we've said we would talk about everything, all right."
Back in 2000, Rice faulted the Clinton administration for being so obsessed with the trees of diplomacy that it repeatedly missed the forest of US national interest. "Multilateral agreements and institutions should not be ends in themselves," she wrote in an essay for Foreign Affairs. Now, alas, she presides over an all-too-Clintonian foreign policy in which negotiations and agreements outweigh actual improvement and change. From North Korea to the Palestinian Authority to the United Nations, the principles of the Bush Doctrine are forgotten. "We have gone," one State Department official sadly tells Hayes, "from a policy of preemption to a policy of preemptive capitulation." Is that to be the epitaph of Bush's foreign policy?
VOTE FOR MORE OF THE MCSAME!!!!!
Fairness Doctrine
oh no its not. Geez. Please watch the actual news programs.
The Fairness Doctrine
No one in the Democratic party ever seriously considered restoring the Fairness Doctrine. Someone occasionally will bring it up, but it never goes beyond committee and it dies there. It's not on the Democratic agenda nor will it be. It's yet another canard invented by the right-wing noise machine.
More Fairness Doctrine
The Senate voted to approve a bill granting representation to Washington DC in congress. However, Senate Republican Steering Committee Chairman Jim DeMint (S.C.) and Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman John Thune (S.D.) added a totally unrelated amendment to the bill prohibiting reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. The Senate passed the measure 87-11.
In response, Senate Majority Whip D*ck Durbin (D-Ill) proposed an amendment that called for the FCC to encourage diversity in media ownership. This proposal simply re-stated current existing law. It passed 57-41 despite the fact that every single Republican in the Senate voted against it.
So to summarize, the Senate passed an amendment to allow congressional voting privileges for Washington DC, but Senate Republicans added a totally unrelated amendment that prohibits reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, which the FCC wasn't considering and the Obama administration never supported. Nevertheless, the Democratic-controlled Senate overwhelmingly passed it anyway 87-11. Then, when a Democrat introduced a measure to "encourage diversity in media ownership," every single Senate Republican voted against it.
DeMint told reporters that Democratic efforts to legally encourage diversity in media ownership would open a "back door to censorship."
Uh, okay Jim. Whatever you say. Could this be because the vast majority of the mass media in this country are owned by Republicans? Liberal bias in the media? Gimme a break.
There are many tenets to the Bush Doctrine...
if he had been honest, when she asked for clarification, he should have given it, if he was seeking the truth. Either his researchers screwed up, or he deliberately set her up.
It is called the Fairness Doctrine Act
s
Fairness Doctrine, cont.
Did Pelosi write or sponsor or introduce a bill regarding the Fairness Doctrine? Is it on the Democratic Party platform? Is there pending legislation in the House or the Senate?
The Fairness Doctrine was started in 1949 when media outlets were very limited. It was stopped in 1987 and is unenforceable. Again, the right-wing noise machine takes a remark out of context and tries to build an issue where none exists.
It's ridiculous that the president actually had to announce the fact that Democrats have no intention of trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=68d07041-7dbc-451d-a18a-752567145610
Fairness Doctrine is Alive and Well
DH told me it's in our paper today, that Schumer is promoting it, but I couldn't find anything on line.
I did find a few articles and the one posted below is the most recent (by Sen. Inhofe) that I could find:
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/93765
Go to the Trinity website and read their doctrine...
no amount of good deeds cover racism. The man is a racist and thinks Louis Farrakhan is a great man. Louis Farrakhan,Nation of Islam...need I say more? (Talking about Wright, not Obama). He was not "associated" with Trinity. He was a member. Wright baptized at least one of his children. Obama stated Wright was his mentor. There was clearly much more than an "association" and at first Obama defended him, until his handlers told him that he would tank his Presidential bid, then he started distancing himself. That is the real Barack Obama, the politician. Win at all costs, even if you throw your lifelong mentor/friend under the bus. That sounds more like the "same old Washington" to me than hope and change. Sorry...that's the way I feel. As I have said before, I would like to sit both of them down, inject a little sodium pentothal and let regular folks ask them some questions. No news commentators, not pundits, just regular off-the-street folks. THEN and only THEN will we know what Obama really feels and thinks. And how he really feels and thinks is how he will govern. Surely we have learned that by now as far as politicians go. How many have actually done what they said they were going to do...?
I will not be voting for Obama, because I don't like his voting record, which does not match what he is saying now (which, in me, automatically arouses mistrust), I am not comfortable with is associations in south Chicago including his Daley connections, and I think both he and his wife have racist tendencies. He may be 1/2 white and 1/2 black, but he considers himself black and you can bet the farm Michelle considers him black as well. Read up a little on her. Wowser.
And just because Reverend Wright lived in a generation where life in America was different...America IS different now. Preaching hate from the pulpit is not consistent with the Christianity I know, and I don't care if it is a white racist in South Mississippi doing it or a black racist in Chicago doing it...it is still wrong in my books. God said many would come as wolves in sheep's clothing...and many would identify themselves with His name (Christians), but they would not be of Him. It should be obvious by how they live their lives both in the pulpit and outside it, and I believe Reverend wright's actions speak for themselves. As do the KKK, who also profess that they are doing God's work. Both of them seriously delusional, and seriously racist. And both wrong. In my opinion. But, that is an attitude, on both sides, that we don't need running this country. We have a virulent racist in Congress right now...Robert Byrd, Dem from W VA I believe. Was an imperial wizard in the Klan. Has had numerous verbal racist gaffes over the year, but his state keeps sending him back. SIGH. Oh well...that was not the subject.
I just hope people get past the packaging on Obama and try to get inside the box. Not nearly as pretty on the inside....again, my opinion after research and no, I do not get it from Fox News...lol. I have read Obama's books, and I am reading other books now concerning him, and if I see something in the book that is stated as fact I am verifying it. If you want to know the real Obama, look deep.
Here's a clue. Ever heard of the Bush Doctrine?
somehow I think you might have more on the ball than she does.
Obama opposes Reinstating Fairness Doctrine
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/18/white-house-opposes-fairness-doctrine/
Agreed. nm
x
Yes, agreed.
Will ignore them and not read them. I feel better already.
Agreed
Of course not everyone feels the same, but there are a large enough number of current and former military that do feel that way. Not everyone thinks this was/is a valuable effort, and feel the cost is high, both financially and otherwise.
Agreed, but we need to take it one war
If we can't take on a little po-dunk country like Afghanistan and finish the job, then what on earth makes him think we can take on TWO countries simultaneously? (And we'll never finish the job in Iraq, either.) If we'd done what we SHOULD have done to Afghanistan after 9/11, we could have finished the job in a couple of days, and sent a HUGE 'Don't mess with us' message to the rest of the Middle East.
agreed :) nm
yah
Agreed....nm
x
Agreed
If she wants to play in the big leagues, she needs to act like she should be there. She is a total embarrassment and not qualified to be where she is.
Yes, I said that. I never said I agreed with everything...
McCain said. He, in fact, is not as conservative as I would like him to be. I don't agree with every word that rolls out of his mouth (unlike Obama fans). I certainly see there are flaws. However...none of them come minutely close to Obama's flaws. So, yes, I am supporting him. Do I live to hear or hang on every word that falls out of his mouth...no.
You just can't keep from ridiculing can ya? Is it part of your DNC DNA?
Agreed.
that in the 11th hour of the campaign, the conservative base trots out a token black intellectual elitist, the likes of whom out of the Obama camp they have been trashing for weeks now as being socialist/communist, terrorist "elite" (in a 4-letter word context) Anti-American militants. Mr. Sowell makes a mockery of his own credentials by endorsing the gloom and doom Armageddon you have been hawking ad nauseum for months and months, all falling on deaf ears, thrusting McC poll numbers into a deep plunge and turning off their own party members who are defecting over to the other side in droves. You are preaching to the choir here and that's fine. Nothing wrong with that, except to say the ones you need to be "ENERGIZING" would be the undecideds who have resoundingly rejected these scare tactics in a preference to embrace the simple notion of hope...and still you haven't caught on.
Agreed.
But I doubt we will stay out of it. In fact, this act is probably right on schedule to help Bush with his martial law plan. All we "need" is another attack to "help" it along.
I understand the desire of some to never turn our backs on Israel. What if Israel has a corrupt, deadly government that commits heinous deeds that are against everything the Bible stands for? Do we support that kind of government or do we support the people who inhabit the land of Israel?
As we've seen from our own recent election, sometimes there's a big difference between a government and its people.
Just wondering.
Agreed. (NM)
dd
Agreed!
Of course, all the leftists here will come out of the woodwork to profess how open-minded and non-judgemental they are.
Yet these are the same bitter, spiteful vipers who took tremendous glee in pouncing on Palin and jeering at McCain.
I cannot believe how self-righteous they have turned lately.
The 'bandwagon' has become an armored tank.
Can't wait for the pendulum to swing back to sanity after the next four years of this lousy social experiment.
Agreed...(sm)
Yeah, I was the first to snap during the posted farewell to Bush below. I apologize. Regardless of my opinions of Bush, I should have shown more respect for those who thought differently and should have just not said anything at all. Thankfully, you have shown me what a butt head I was.
I appreciate your post, as should others, from both sides, and I join you in the hope for prosperity for all.
Disclaimer: This does not mean I won't continue the fight...LOL.
Agreed!
nm
Agreed!
nm
Agreed. (nm)
Agreed! nm
nm
I never assumed all agreed with it. sm
But no one condemned it. It's like that movie, the Accused. Those who stood and watched were as guilty as those who raped the girl. It's a comment on today's society in general, no matter what your political persuasian.
Agreed about earning except
that is on a more personal level. People who come to our country need to respect us because they are our guests. As hosts, we do deserve respect. Anyone who disrespects their host is not welcome again, right? If you can't respect your host, then you need to excuse yourself and LEAVE.
As for our leaders, my personal opinion of Billie Bob C. is very low, in fact so low that it probably could not get any further down there and for reasons that should be self-evident. However, when he was my president I did respect his office, his right to govern, and his decisions in governmental matters. Though he was sadly lacking in integrity, he was the president, had more education than I do, and certainly more knowledge of foreign affairs. I gave him benefit of the doubt because he was the elected president of my country. I did not vote for him. I did not like him. I did not use him for a role model for young people. I was ashamed of him. I did respect his office and that is something that liberals could take a good hard look at in themselves. Do you really believe that everything that our government and president does should have full disclosure in the here and now? Do they need to run everything they do by YOU? That is pretty funny. The posts I see let me know that you believe you should have the final word on everything and that your way is the only way and that you are a one-person catalyst to change. That is admirable, but in order to be effective you need to take a look and investigate things more clearly and quit falling for the BS at the Kos and all those other pathetic sites. Do you ever look further? Do you believe everything everyone tells you? After you research more you may find that you will change a few of your beliefs. Seriously.
I would have agreed with if he had chosen...
Ridge or Lieberman.....but I think he'll do just fine with Gov. Palin.
Agreed. And when it does mislead
nm
Agreed. He'd bury her too. She could
nm
I agreed with your comment....sm
about thinking that the people that are responsible for all this, should pay for it. Like all the people who walked away with millions from these institutions, as well as running them into the ground. But how could they do that?
I hate the fact that the taxpayers will have to pay for it. Did you hear that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats have added something like a 50 million dollar social package to this bill? So their little socialist agenda will be met, and make us pay even more.
I just don't get it sometimes....it goes on and on and on.....
Thanks for the link. I'll go read it later on my break.
Agreed. Just who will be doing the partying....
remains to be seen. lol.
Agreed - I don't particularly care for him either
I only watched last night because Rush was going to be on and I wanted to hear what he had to say. I don't always agree with Rush, but I am interested in hearing what he says.
The thing I don't like about Hannity's show is the panel discussion. Meatloaf and Fran Drescher? Please!!!
Agreed - all this is from the same folks...
who weren't afraid to refer to Bush as Hitler.
I think, though, it has more to do with him being a dem than being black, JMHO.
Agreed - all this is from the same folks...
who weren't afraid to refer to Bush as Hitler.
I think, though, it has more to do with him being a dem than being black, JMHO.
Some of them were surprised, but still agreed and
one even thought he was intelligent...all except that one woman who choked.
I'm not bashing and I never agreed to leave
but I am growing tired of this so that should give you some hope.
Agreed. And anyone who looks at it objectively and not through partisan...
glasses could see it too. Fox has a lot more Democrat contributors and commentators than MSNBC, the major broadcast outlets or CNN. And Fox has more viewers, so apparently it is the choice of a lot of Americans.
And as to the debates...Obama didn't want anything near a town hall before his convention. I read he was going to come up through the floor in a set that looks like a Greek temple to accept his nomination. I thought to myself you have GOT to be kidding. His spokesman didn't deny it, just said it was tastefully done. Okay, a tastefully done temple. Oh my. Well, I reserve any opinion until I see it.
Agreed. That electoral map is lookin'
xoxoxoxo
Also agreed....let's try to find that place...
where we were all Americans and party lines disappeared. If we could get that back without a major disaster to provoke it...therein lies the real hope and change for this country.
Agreed. That is your stipulation...and in fact...sm
can be applied to how the dems view Senator Obama, as well, and to again agree with your words, "ignore any evidence to the contrary" that may be facts.
You know, the fact that Gov. Palin stumbled a little in a few questions, because Charlie tried to trip her up on multiple occasions, just proves that she's human. She still aced the interview in my opinion, and I looked at all the facts.
We think you blindly follow the Obama, and conveniently ignore certain truths about him, his past, and his policies he wishes to institute.
It's much the same for both sides, isn't it.
I still agree to disagree.
Agreed, The stakes ARE high. nm
nm
Agreed....my only regret at the moment...sm
...is the ton of work that just showed up on my desk from my two itsy bitsy GT accts I have, which ain't so itsy bitsy....I won't be able to be around very much for the next week, and there looks like a bunch of new topics up above, which I may have to skim later...
Take it easy....
Agreed. I thought she did great
Not to mention she pointed out all the false statements Biden made and he just stood there with that simpy smirk on his face. He reminds me of a used car salesman, and not a very good one at that!
I agreed with your post! I was referring to the
I'm on YOUR side!
Agreed! Glad we have been safe.
nm
|