you didn't read the thread did you?

we already talked about the difference between news and entertainment

These sort of comments are what's so ridiculous about having any discussion...all common sense goes right out the window until something happens. And you wonder why I get sarcastic??? When LIBS can answer questions without resorting to the namecalling then maybe we can do more than take sarcastic swipes at the dumb things said.

Maybe you should take your own advice there kido.

I can't for the life of me figure out what you're saying. Calling Obama a muslim IS ignorance. None of your post makes any sense in the context of this conversation. This has been a relatively civil conversation less your posts and a couple hateful ones.

What advice should I be following?

I'm trying to figure out where the name calling is located.

Yeah, me too. And it appears to me that the 'Obama is a muslim' posts have been removed. I think the mods are at work as we 'speak'.

Yeah, I see that now. So that means this thread has been without 'name calling'.

I think it's odd how I am actually supporting the more 'conservative' side of this argument and yet I still get that kind of response. I don't think she even read the thread.

I am one of the biggest proponents of free speech, and I agree that any regulation or law that takes away individuals right to freely express their opinions without slandering or committing libel is unconstitutional.

In a perfect world any corporation, media outlet, and news wielding individual would objectively report both sides of each issue allowing the viewers to decided for themselves what to believe. However, this world has never existed. Since Hamilton spoke through the "Gazette of the Unites States" and Jefferson through the "National Gazette", people (specifically powerful individuals) have tried to influence public opinion through the "news". Is this wrong? Is this a bad thing?

Perhaps not. Perhaps we should start taking more responsibility ourselves in finding out the truth behind the events and issues. We live in much different times from that of Hamilton and Jefferson or even the time of origin of the Fairness Doctrine. Between the internet, television, magazines, newspapers, radio, smoke signals, lights shaped like bats in the sky and even word of mouth, I believe that we have plenty of sources to figure it out for ourselves.

And you should know I am "liberal", so I understand your disappointment when you hear about how "FOX News" "accidently" labels Mark Foley as a Democrat. It is plain as day what they are doing. Is it unfair...yes. Unconstitutional, no. There is no way to prove that it wasn't a mistake. (Plus we have Jon Stewart...he'll clear that up.)

I realize I am rambling...What am I trying to say? It truly is a slippery slope when you let bureaucrats decide what is fair, true, and honest. These are all things that we must decipher for ourselves. I guess we just have to live by that old saying, "Don't believe everything you hear/read/see?

Well I'm headed to bed. I did enjoy this thread, despite the two or three posts that really didn't contribute anything. It's a good thing when everyone can make their points, politely disagree, and share thoughts and ideas.

Gnite Winx. Always a pleasure.

Did anyone listen to Air America? It was the worst radio channel ever in creation. Maybe if there were better commentators on there, it would be ok. But it was like trying to listen to a math teacher explain calculus for hours. They just droned on and on.

Conservative radio has yelling, screaming, crazy people calling in, and is generally fun to listen too if you don't take it seriously. Not all people fall into the "news caster" category. Hannity, O Reilly, Limbaugh, are not news reporters. They don't report news. THEY DO COMMENTARY ON THEM. And when you think of it that way, it makes the Fairness Act sound like a little kid crying because nobody listens to his boring math speech.

And if that becomes law, i'm leaving the country because theres no more hope left in America, home of freedom of press and freedom of speech.

from earlier today...Rush says...

only liberals would think that “fairness” is something that can be implemented by government mandate. but that speaks to how they see the world. This country was founded up on the idea that all men are free, and that all should have equal opportunity to pursue life, liberty and happiness. But rather than equality of opportunity, liberals are only interested in equality of outcome.

Thus the Fairness Doctrine, which mandates “fairness” by forcing broadcasters to not select content based on what people actually want to see or hear (entertainment/informational value) but rather on ideological quotas.

Thus affirmative action, which mandates “fairness” by forcing employers and universities to select applicants and employees based not on merit, ability and achievement but rather on racial/gender quotas.

Thus welfare and wealth redistribution, which mandates “fairness” not by providing incentive for unsuccessful individuals to become successful but by punishing successful citizens for being too successful through the redistribution of their wealth to others.

It’s how the liberal mind works.

I think the Fairness Doctrine is something the Government will use to detour the American people away from what is really going on.

If the media can't lean to the right and push a few buttons, or lean to the left to push a few buttons, we will always be looking straight down centerfield. Never knowing who's on first, or more importantly who is on third and about to score.

What's on second.

If your looking down center field, second is in plain sight.

So, Obama here shortly I suppose.