Political Discussion =/= Pornography

[Greg the dogsitter]

Ted King wrote: You are trying to curtail my freedom to block somebody. All you conservatives jump to conclusions without connecting the dots and you make unsubstantiated generalizations.

Excellent!

[Greg the dogsitter]

Black Landlord wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=Greg the dogsitter]
I'm just going to block everyone.

samintx wrote:
I guess if you don't agree 100% with someone here you block them, is that right? As if no person has a point to listen to? Ah, that sounds really rational. Just block messages from everyone you don't agree with...the American way?

You are trying to curtail my freedom to block somebody. All you conservatives jump to conclusions without connecting the dots and you make unsubstantiated generalizations.
Allow me.

Greg was joking. The idea of perusing the forum with every single member on "ignore" was meant to be absurd. It was h u m o r.
Well, irony, really.
That's it. Consider yourself blocked.

[NeverMind]

Gutenberg wrote:
The righties get most of their exercise by jumping to conclusions. Then they do a little stretching of what was said. There's no profit in taking them seriously.

Bravo. Wait, are we still waiting for the Obama birth certificate?

[mikeylikesit]

What happens if I block myself?

[Gutenberg]

NeverMind wrote:

Bravo. Wait, are we still waiting for the Obama birth certificate?

We have seen Obama's birth certificate. However, we will never see a birth certificate that will satisfy some people.

[Stizzealth]

As for the argument that a Democratic congress does not mean that the Fairness Doctrine will necessarily pass, I will give you that. However, it is MUCH more likely than it was under a Republican majority. After all, both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, the Majority Leaders of the respective houses of Congress, have come out in support of the Fairness Doctrine.

Furthermore, Ted seems determined to deconstruct an argument that I never made. He says that my statement that the argument of allowing the government to regulate anything means that the government can regulate anything, as is argued by Chuckie Schumer, oversimplifies the issue. I don't doubt that there is more than one fallacious argument in the push for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, but the aforementioned argument is the one Chuck Schumer used.

As for one of the other statements in your diatribe, I would argue that the Fairness Doctrine is politically motivated. It is a foregone conclusion that such a doctrine would deal a serious blow to conservative talk radio hosts because the stations that host them would also have to host liberal bloviators. The fact of the matter is that liberal talk radio isn't nearly as popular and doesn't get as many listeners, thus the stations would need to charge less for advertising. It's much easier for the station to dump both hosts than try to make people listen to the liberal host.

[swampy]

The Libs had their own radio station (Air America). It was a complete and total failure. Me thinks they just can't handle the success of the right wing stations. So, Schumer and crowd want to take their perceived ball (the public airwaves) and go home.

[Greg the dogsitter]

mikeylikesit wrote:
What happens if I block myself?

Just what you think. Try it!

[pbarra1]

For arguments sake lets say that 1 hour of time on Rush's show cost the station $100,000 and from that $100,000 comes his salary and production costs. Advertising revenue during that hour defrays that cost such that the station ends up making money. Since they "must give an hour for the same price to a host of the opposite political persuasion" the stations should offer Rush one hour of time on their station for $200,000 and Rush would be responsible for selling the advertising and keeping whatever profits he could generate from said advertising. Host of the other persuasion would be offered the same 1 hour of air time at the "same price" and they could also keep whatever advertising profits were left over after they paid for their hour of airtime. Not only would this insure that each persuasion gets airtime for the "same price" but also guarantees the station makes money as non-conservative talk radio is not exactly a money maker (remember Air America in NYC)? My numbers may be off but I hope you get my point.

Also, if they were allowed an hour of lib talk for every hour of conservative talk it should follow a set schedule so that conservatives would know to tune in say at the start of every even hour and libs could tune in every odd hour. This would also allow for hosts to refute what each other said during the last hour.

[mikeylikesit]

swampy wrote:
The Libs had their own radio station (Air America). It was a complete and total failure. Me thinks they just can't handle the success of the right wing stations. So, Schumer and crowd want to take their perceived ball (the public airwaves) and go home.

It's like the misplaced tax cuts and deregulation of banks, we just want to roll things back to where they were. You can identify with rollbacks, can't you?