It’s a weak argument but with enough democrats in power that won’t matter:
Asked if he is a supporter of telling radio stations what content they should have, Schumer used the fair and balanced line, claiming that critics of the Fairness Doctrine are being inconsistent.
“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that… But you can’t say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That’s not consistent.”
In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, “It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.”
Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, “I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.”
3 Responses
Readers are solely responsible for the comments they post. Comments do not necessarily reflect the opinion or approval of Blogs of War or John Little.
November 18th, 2008 at 11:46 am
some of your data is incompleat. To desine a dasie cutter 15,000 lbs clay more mine. Usely it a pop pop fiz fiz. an the tarest is gone. then there the three bounce rule. I get to bounce him\her agest a concret wall three time before turning them in.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
A BLATANT LOGICAL FALICY – to fool simple minds
Schumer says…“The very same people who don’t want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air”
We have a constitutional provision that grants a GENERAL condition of freedom of speech.
With pronography, we have a SPECIFIC case where we make an EXCEPTION to the otherwise fondational principle of the GENERAL condition in order to meet reasonable standards of decency (something dems have little concern for, in general).
The mind game that Schumer is playing is to say that because we have made a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION then there is no reason for us to now go and replace the gold standard of the GENERAL condition with the SPECIFIC EXCEPTION.
It won’t be long before no freedom of speech is allowed, but they make an exception for pornography (and any other perversion they or their constituents have the hots for).
It’s sick twisted Leftist “reasoning” and such obvious double speak that if I am the only one who sees the problem (haven’t heard or read anyone else say that) then we are really in deep trouble.
November 25th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
CORRECTION
“… there is no reason for us to now NOT go and replace …”