Damn them all to HELLL!!!!!! (Pentax)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:32:05 -0800 (PST), wrote:

You completely missed the point, as usual. There are NO experts on such matters.

There is no reason that we can't have experts on such matters.

Incorrect. No one person, or group of people, can possibly decide what all of the opposing viewpoints are to quotas/affirmative action for short people is, other than perhaps to say "No to any quotas for anyone," which doesn't really make for much of a discussion, now does it? Their guesses would not be any better than those of talk show host, or most anyone else.

Happily you are wrong. We are able to function because we have expert
bureaucratic agencies administering all sorts of things.

The fairness doctrine is about ensuring equal access, not about
restricting any specific speech.

If the talk show host wanted to have a guest spend an hour talking about affirmative action for short people, then the station would have to waste another hour about affirmative action for tall people, another hour about affirmative action for blondes, another about affirmative action for Presbyterians, etc. Faced with that, the station would probably choose to air something much less controversial. Result: free speech restricted.

An unfounded assumption.

It's obviously best to keep the government out of it.

I disagree. My right to access limited public resources is being
defended by my government in this case. I fully support it, and would
consider it anarchy for the government to abdicate its responsibility.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 1:52:57 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:32:05 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

You completely missed the point, as usual. There are NO experts on such matters.

There is no reason that we can't have experts on such matters.

Incorrect. No one person, or group of people, can possibly decide what all of the opposing viewpoints are to quotas/affirmative action for short people is, other than perhaps to say "No to any quotas for anyone," which doesn't really make for much of a discussion, now does it? Their guesses would not be any better than those of talk show host, or most anyone else.

Happily you are wrong. We are able to function because we have expert
bureaucratic agencies administering all sorts of things.

The existent of other, often questionable, bureaucracies, has no bearing on the fact that the fairness doctrine would be in effect setting up a ministry of propaganda.

The fairness doctrine is about ensuring equal access, not about
restricting any specific speech.

If the talk show host wanted to have a guest spend an hour talking about affirmative action for short people, then the station would have to waste another hour about affirmative action for tall people, another hour about affirmative action for blondes, another about affirmative action for Presbyterians, etc. Faced with that, the station would probably choose to air something much less controversial. Result: free speech restricted.

An unfounded assumption.

Incorrect. It is a perfectly plausible scenario for a government run amok to do such things, were we stupid enough to give it such powers.

It's obviously best to keep the government out of it.

I disagree. My right to access limited public resources is being
defended by my government in this case.

What is it that you wish to say about affirmative action for short people?

I fully support it, and would
consider it anarchy for the government to abdicate its responsibility.

The only responsibility the govt might have is to allocate frequencies and work to ensure that no station interferes with the broadcasts of others. For the govt to control content via the fairness doctrine would be fascism, pure and simple.

On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:35:17 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Happily you are wrong. We are able to function because we have expert
bureaucratic agencies administering all sorts of things.

The existent of other, often questionable, bureaucracies, has no bearing on the fact that the fairness doctrine would be in effect setting up a ministry of propaganda.

Boy, you really need some better meds to deal with that paranoia.

On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 2:50:06 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Mar 2016 11:35:17 -0800 (PST), wsnell01 wrote:

Happily you are wrong. We are able to function because we have expert
bureaucratic agencies administering all sorts of things.

The existent of other, often questionable, bureaucracies, has no bearing on the fact that the fairness doctrine would be in effect setting up a ministry of propaganda.

Boy, you really need some better meds to deal with that paranoia.

Let's see, government goons decide that they don't like the political views of some talk show host, so they force his station's owner to air views that the goons like. The station owner backs down, removes the host from the air, and plays music and sports instead.

Oh, and go see your lawyer, ASAP, you libel-spewing ****head.

On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 21:02:13 UTC+1, wrote:

Let's see, government goons decide that they don't like the political views of some talk show host, so they force his station's owner to air views that the goons like. The station owner backs down, removes the host from the air, and plays music and sports instead.


I see the BBC is blaming all of America's socio-eco-comic problems on Bruise Sprangsteen.
Who [allegedly] sold the country down "the river" for a pair of £260/£180 minimum price tickets to his own concert.
Or something like that.

Chump in charge of America's nuclear arsenal?
It's no wonder BMI plan to replace him with a supercomputer!
Let's all vote for BMI's supercomputer!
You know it makes [no] sense! [At all!]

On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:47:57 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 21:02:13 UTC+1, wrote:

Let's see, government goons decide that they don't like the political views of some talk show host, so they force his station's owner to air views that the goons like. The station owner backs down, removes the host from the air, and plays music and sports instead.


I see the BBC is blaming all of America's socio-eco-comic problems on Bruise Sprangsteen.

BBC = government agency with control over broadcast content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ned_by_the_BBC

wrote:
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:47:57 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 21:02:13 UTC+1, wrote:

Let's see, government goons decide that they don't like the political
views of some talk show host, so they force his station's owner to air
views that the goons like. The station owner backs down, removes the
host from the air, and plays music and sports instead.


I see the BBC is blaming all of America's socio-eco-comic problems on Bruise Sprangsteen.

BBC = government agency with control over broadcast content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ned_by_the_BBC



The BBC is not a government agency. Many British governments have seen it
as an enemy.
Both the left and right complain that I 't's on the other side.
Go back to Fox News and Breitbart.

wrote:
On Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9:47:57 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 21:02:13 UTC+1, wrote:

Let's see, government goons decide that they don't like the political
views of some talk show host, so they force his station's owner to air
views that the goons like. The station owner backs down, removes the
host from the air, and plays music and sports instead.


I see the BBC is blaming all of America's socio-eco-comic problems on Bruise Sprangsteen.

BBC = government agency with control over broadcast content:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ned_by_the_BBC


Everyone who reads this will understand your comprehension difficulties.

For someone who hates the BBC you must read it a lot. It took quite a bit
of digging to find this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35890784

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:02:34 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

The BBC is not a government agency.

It is a government agency. You should read its Charter more carefully.

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 9:14:08 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Everyone who reads this will understand your comprehension difficulties.

It is quite clear that the BBC is a very different sort of beast, compared to NBC, for example, which has always been purely commercial and yet more "trustworthy."