"Its clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal
assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are
now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the
Fairness Doctrine by stealth”

The amendment is nearly identical to a policy position outlined by the
White House that says:

“Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the
ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media
outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public
interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's
spectrum.”

Similarly, the [Soros-Funded] Center for American Progress,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6709

headed by former Obama transition leader John Podesta,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

published a report that called for new “localism” and “ownership
diversity” regulations to balance conservative talk radio with
[government propaganda/government paid for] progressive talk radio.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=44588

wrote:
"Its clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal
assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are
now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the
Fairness Doctrine by stealth”

The amendment is nearly identical to a policy position outlined by the
White House that says:

“Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the
ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media
outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public
interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's
spectrum.”

Similarly, the [Soros-Funded] Center for American Progress,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6709

headed by former Obama transition leader John Podesta,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

published a report that called for new “localism” and “ownership
diversity” regulations to balance conservative talk radio with
[government propaganda/government paid for] progressive talk radio.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=44588

You must be sort of stupid. That's not at all what the article says.
The bill is about breaking up these huge media conglomerates that have
monopolized the airwaves. It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh,
regardless of what Pence says. He's a Republican. Of course he's for
these huge media monopoolies, and he's framing the argument as something
it isn't as a smoke-and-mirrors tactic to make it look like it's about
free speech. It's a 1984 argument, doublespeak, when it's the Democrats
that are merely trying to put diversity and free speech back into radio
by returning the programming to local choices. It's that simple.

--
__________________________________________________ __
Alric Knebel

On Mar 7, 1:56*am, Alric Knebel wrote:
wrote:
"Its clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal
assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are
now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the
Fairness Doctrine by stealth”

The amendment is nearly identical to a policy position outlined by the
White House that says:

“Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the
ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media
outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public
interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's
spectrum.”

Similarly, *the [Soros-Funded] Center for American Progress,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6709

headed by former Obama transition leader John Podesta,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

published a report that called for new “localism” and “ownership
diversity” regulations to balance conservative talk radio with
[government propaganda/government paid for] progressive talk radio.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=44588

You must be sort of stupid. *That's not at all what the article says.
The bill is about breaking up these huge media conglomerates that have
monopolized the airwaves. *It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh,
regardless of what Pence says. *He's a Republican. *Of course he's for
these huge media monopoolies, and he's framing the argument as something
it isn't as a smoke-and-mirrors tactic to make it look like it's about
free speech. *It's a 1984 argument, doublespeak, when it's the Democrats
that are merely trying to put diversity and free speech back into radio
by returning the programming to local choices. *It's that simple.

HEIL HITLER! - it's that simple.

wrote:
On Mar 7, 1:56 am, Alric Knebel wrote:
wrote:
"Its clear to me that Democrats, having failed in their frontal
assault on talk radio in America through the Fairness Doctrine, are
now shifting strategy to a form of regulation that is essentially the
Fairness Doctrine by stealth”
The amendment is nearly identical to a policy position outlined by the
White House that says:
“Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Encourage diversity in the
ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media
outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public
interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's
spectrum.”
Similarly, the [Soros-Funded] Center for American Progress,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6709
headed by former Obama transition leader John Podesta,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626
published a report that called for new “localism” and “ownership
diversity” regulations to balance conservative talk radio with
[government propaganda/government paid for] progressive talk radio.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=44588
You must be sort of stupid. That's not at all what the article says.
The bill is about breaking up these huge media conglomerates that have
monopolized the airwaves. It had nothing to do with Rush Limbaugh,
regardless of what Pence says. He's a Republican. Of course he's for
these huge media monopoolies, and he's framing the argument as something
it isn't as a smoke-and-mirrors tactic to make it look like it's about
free speech. It's a 1984 argument, doublespeak, when it's the Democrats
that are merely trying to put diversity and free speech back into radio
by returning the programming to local choices. It's that simple.

HEIL HITLER! - it's that simple.

LOL!

What's that law, about how long it takes for a person to make some
reference to Hitler in a thread?

--
__________________________________________________ __
Alric Knebel

Alric Knebel wrote:


What's that law, about how long it takes for a person to make some
reference to Hitler in a thread?


The dumbass rule.

On Mar 8, 3:17*am, "~ RHF" wrote:
On Mar 7, 10:45*am, dave wrote:
- - Alric Knebel wrote:
- - What's that law, about how long it takes for a person
- - to make some reference to Hitler in a thread?

- The dumbass rule.

That would be "DumbAss rVlE"
[u-styled-as-a-V]

Yeah - We call it a "DAVE" ;;-} ~ RHF
*.

Dave and his onion head friends - LOL!!!!

On Mar 8, 3:37*am, Alric Knebel wrote:
Brenda Ann wrote:
"dave" wrote in message
om...
Alric Knebel wrote:

What's that law, about how long it takes for a person to make some
reference to Hitler in a thread?

The dumbass rule.

That would be Godwin's Law... but it seems to only apply to those on the
left when invoked by those on the right, and not vice-versa.

I call bullcarp on it entirely.. since there were, are, and will be those
who will be compared from time to time more or less accurately to Nazis, and
only their actions should determine discourse, not some fool's "law".

In this case, the law applied.

--
__________________________________________________ __
Alric Knebel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

HEIL HITLER!