Maybe I might plug in my phone and ask somebody at G.V.''Sonny''
Montgomery V.A.Center if I can get those tablets for free.Of course,
there would be a co-pay attatched to that.
cuhulin

In article
,
bpnjensen wrote:

On Oct 22, 6:52*pm, Telamon
wrote:
In article ,





*dxAce wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"MNMikeW" wrote in message
...
wrote in message

m..
.
On Oct 16, 6:04 pm, wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=242205
cuhulin
Between Beck and O'Reilly Fox will blow everyone out of the
sky with viewership ratings - they're an AWESOME pair!

Until the Dopeocrats fix it with the fairness doctrine.

Fairness doctrine would not take anyone off the air, only
require equal time for the other side. Fox News should not
have a problem with that if they were to actually be true to
their slogan "Fair and Balanced".

Aside from that, the doctrine only applies during election
season. Conservative talk radio (really almost all of it has
been so from the beginning many decades ago) existed
coincident with the original doctrine, with almost no legal
issues. A station or network had to pretty much specifically
be 'in the tank' for a given candidate to elicit any legal
action by the Commission.
As I recall, all it took to be compliant was an open offer
for opposing view points.

I believe that was precisely the situation, yes.

But the thing is, it's just a hassle for the stations...

And, the Liberal/Democrat/Marxists are big into hassling, bribery
and extortion... just ask Jesse Jackson!

Talk radio on AM and FM once upon a time was all Liberal all the
time. Not only did I not care for that point of view many of these
left leaning hosts were disgusting, despicable people. Two of these
I recall was Tom Leykis and another was Bernie Ward.

Bernie finally got a jail sentence for child porn.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../08/29/BAG212J
O5B.D TL

Leykis is still free but one day I expect to read about him being
behind bars for getting caught doing some disgusting thing.
http://www.blowmeuptom.com/


So, Leykis is despicable because - Why? He talks about things that
make you blush?

You just want an excuse to bad-mouth him because he's middle-liberal,
and to you and other ideologues that's a dirty word.

No I bad mouth him for the reason I stated. The speaks about and
advocates immoral behavior. He clearly abuses his position as a public
speaker.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

In article , Dave
wrote:

MNMikeW wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message
...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"MNMikeW" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Oct 16, 6:04 pm, wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=242205
cuhulin
Between Beck and O'Reilly Fox will blow everyone out of the sky
with viewership ratings - they're an AWESOME pair!

Until the Dopeocrats fix it with the fairness doctrine.

Fairness doctrine would not take anyone off the air, only require
equal time for the other side. Fox News should not have a problem
with that if they were to actually be true to their slogan "Fair
and Balanced".

Aside from that, the doctrine only applies during election
season. Conservative talk radio (really almost all of it has been
so from the beginning many decades ago) existed coincident with
the original doctrine, with almost no legal issues. A station or
network had to pretty much specifically be 'in the tank' for a
given candidate to elicit any legal action by the Commission.
As I recall, all it took to be compliant was an open offer for
opposing view points.

Equal time. Have an hour conservative show, have a hour liberal
show. We saw how the liberals did with the AirAmerica disaster.


I don't think that's how it would work. In Los Angeles Clear Channel
owns 3 talkers: KFI, which caters to the knuckle dragging mouth
breathers; KLAC, Sports; and KTLK, which is Progressive Talk (your
Air America provides some programs, as does Jones Radio and Nova M).

In Los Angeles Clear Channel is pretty well-balanced ideologically.
On the other hand, there are many markets that are brimming with
right-wing hate radio, and nothing to counter. They really need to
balance things out, lest the people get a warped view of the world.
Hopefully, just the threat of a "Fairness Doctrine" law would be
enough to get these guys to loosen up. BTW, there never was Fairness
Doctrine legislation.
It was always an executive order.

You talk about "they". "They" otherwise known as the public don't need
you to dictate what "we" all need. Air America has failed so start your
own liberal talk syndication show if you think you can make a go of it.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California

On Oct 23, 7:38*am, bpnjensen wrote:
On Oct 22, 6:52*pm, Telamon



wrote:
In article ,

*dxAce wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Brenda Ann wrote:
"MNMikeW" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
..
.
On Oct 16, 6:04 pm, wrote:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/r...?ArtNum=242205
cuhulin
Between Beck and O'Reilly Fox will blow everyone out of the sky with
viewership ratings - they're an AWESOME pair!

Until the Dopeocrats fix it with the fairness doctrine.

Fairness doctrine would not take anyone off the air, only require equal
time for the other side. Fox News should not have a problem with that if
they were to actually be true to their slogan "Fair and Balanced".

Aside from that, the doctrine only applies during election season.

Telamon wrote:


You talk about "they". "They" otherwise known as the public don't need
you to dictate what "we" all need. Air America has failed so start your
own liberal talk syndication show if you think you can make a go of it.


Democracy needs an informed electorate to work. If the public square
only allows speakers from a certain viewpoint to have their say, the
public doesn't get the smörgåsbord of ideas it needs.

This idea is enshrined in the First Amendment.

RHF wrote:


BpnJ - Acutally "libEral" is really two dirty words
"Libe" and "Eral" sharing a common vowel "E" ;-} ~ RHF
.

The USA was founded by radical liberals, er, liberal radicals, er freaks.

On Oct 23, 5:50*pm, Telamon
wrote:

No I bad mouth him for the reason I stated. The speaks about and
advocates immoral behavior. He clearly abuses his position as a public
speaker.

--
Telamon
Ventura, California- Hide quoted text -

I feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh ;-)

I think we need to recognize that your statement is an opinion and not
a fact. In any case, factually, what he advocates is not illegal.
Like most people on the radio, his goal is to fill a nitch and
entertain, which of course leads to earning a living. Like Limbaugh.

Bruce

"Dave" wrote in message
...
Telamon wrote:


You talk about "they". "They" otherwise known as the public don't need
you to dictate what "we" all need. Air America has failed so start your
own liberal talk syndication show if you think you can make a go of it.


Democracy needs an informed electorate to work. If the public square only
allows speakers from a certain viewpoint to have their say, the public
doesn't get the smörgåsbord of ideas it needs.

This idea is enshrined in the First Amendment.

And the leftys are trying to do away with a certian side of the debate.
Since they cannot compete in the free market, they need to legislate it.
They make it sound like there are no liberal viewpoints out there.

On Oct 24, 8:08*am, "MNMikeW" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...

Telamon wrote:

You talk about "they". "They" otherwise known as the public don't need
you to dictate what "we" all need. Air America has failed so start your
own liberal talk syndication show if you think you can make a go of it..

Democracy needs an informed electorate to work. *If the public square only
allows speakers from a certain viewpoint to have their say, the public
doesn't get the smörgåsbord of ideas it needs.

This idea is enshrined in the First Amendment.

And the leftys are trying to do away with a certian side of the debate.
Since they cannot compete in the free market, they need to legislate it.
They make it sound like there are no liberal viewpoints out there.

Do you realize that each of these sentences is a broad and unsupported
generalization that is practically impossible to substantiate?

"bpnjensen" wrote in message
...
On Oct 24, 8:08 am, "MNMikeW" wrote:
"Dave" wrote in message

...

Telamon wrote:

You talk about "they". "They" otherwise known as the public don't need
you to dictate what "we" all need. Air America has failed so start your
own liberal talk syndication show if you think you can make a go of it.

Democracy needs an informed electorate to work. If the public square
only
allows speakers from a certain viewpoint to have their say, the public
doesn't get the smörgåsbord of ideas it needs.

This idea is enshrined in the First Amendment.

And the leftys are trying to do away with a certian side of the debate.
Since they cannot compete in the free market, they need to legislate it.
They make it sound like there are no liberal viewpoints out there.

Do you realize that each of these sentences is a broad and unsupported
generalization that is practically impossible to substantiate?

The only reason they are bringing this up again is talk radio. Guess which
viewpoint is dominate on talk radio, take your time. Liberals tried talk
radio, how did that work out?