Republicans champion "allowing another viewpoint to be represented"

[zbdent]

well, only if it's "Intelligent Design".

When it comes to political discussions, political persuasions, discussions about homosexuality, representation in the media, etc., then they sing a different tune.

Isn't it funny that the party which constantly whines about being under-represented in the media is afraid to resume the regulation which for decades forced the "liberal media" to give opposing viewpoints equal time?

[xxqqqzme]

1. there R many 'isn't it funny'

examples when it comes 2 rethugs.

[ixion]

2. like any emotionally disturbed third grader

they only use these things when they suit their argument. :freak: :dunce:

[Inland]

3. Handicapping to give lies a chance for victory over truth.

We want nothing better than a close horse race between ideologies.

If it's a fact about Iraq or Bush, then the truth has to be hobbled.

If it's ID, then it has to be aided by elevating it to a science.

See? We want the lies to have a fighting chance against truth. Why not?

[kenny blankenship]

4. They want to bring back "equal time" and the fairness doctrine do they?

well there you have it: proof positive that anyone can change.

[zbdent]

7. No, the point is that they whine about not being represented

but the "equal time" clause would mean that Faux News would actually have to devote half its time to Democrats, and most of the "liberal media" would actually promote the "liberal agenda" - and they want to avoid that . . .

[BOSSHOG]

5. But only discuss abstinence when talking about sex

Such a chuckle to hear the little christians vowing to maintain their virginity until married. So they have every kind of sexual encounter except vaginal intercourse, then look mommy and daddy in the eye and brag how they are maintaining their virginity and the preacher says praise the lord, thats our future. What a thorougly sad and pathetic existence they live.

[RandomKoolzip]

6. Conservatism is such a mean-spirited, closed-off way of thinking...

...that it was deservedly marginalized for decades. Its adherents had to pay megabucks to get their pet philosophy a hearing in the mainstream, and, since the CEOs of most media corporations dig conservatism (and the piles of money it represents) too, they've decided to hitch their wagons to it.


Equal time, my crotch. Some ideas truly don't deserve "equal time." When ideas, legislation, and ideologies run counter to what is best for the greatest number of people, those ideas, legislation, and ideologies shouldn't have an equal hearing in the public square. The fact that there needs to be a billion+ dollar think tank/foundation system in place to prop up conservatism in the media speaks volumes to this; without that system in place, conservatism would recede to the margins again, because its tenets are anti-human.

[GracieM]

8. Torn on equal time

Time on an idea should be proportional to it's merit.

But then who decides on the merit? Murdoch? Whoever has the most money?

But the equal time theory gives equal time to earth is flat...

[RandomKoolzip]

9. That's exactly my point.

The danger of "equal time" is that some psycho billionaire who believes in the most radical form of conservatism, or even a billionaire who thinks Hitler was right, can buy time to air his psychotic thoughts in the mainstream, or even create a a network to promote them (i.e. Fox).

Without that money, though, his ideas and ideology would dissipate in the marketplace of ideas, because they're anti-human, without merit (except for CEO's) and terribly unpleasant. What we're seeing in the mass media today is exactly that scheme being played out; dangerous fringe ideologies are having credibility bestowed on them because their promoters have more money and infrastrucure than those who promote what used to be called "moderate" ideas (aka standard-issue liberalism).

[GracieM]

10. Why is free speech so expensive?

In order to be heard, you need to have money.