A Republican senator is co-sponsoring a bill aimed at preventing Fairness Doctrine

[matt wade]

And I didn't deny that you found something, even though I doubt the Wing Nut got it right.

Bill Press was doing the interview. He's a liberal. He was the chair of the California Democratic Party. He has a liberal talk radio show. He's written books such as "Bush Must Go: The Top Ten Reasons Why George Bush Doesn't Deserve a Second Term".

You can hear the audio of the interview here:

http://www.billpressmedia.com/nsmpc/bps020509-stabenowFREE.mp3

 

[rbell]

There's one reason we need such regulations. People should know the truth. There is no substitute for truth in information.

Wow. So, in the interest of "truth," (read: one political viewpoint), you're willing to sacrifice one of our most sacred rights that many died to preserve?

This is a scary position--why are you against freedom of speech? Doesn't that strike you as problematic?

 

[LeBuick]

Wow. So, in the interest of "truth," (read: one political viewpoint), you're willing to sacrifice one of our most sacred rights that many died to preserve?

This is a scary position--why are you against freedom of speech? Doesn't that strike you as problematic?

The hair that divides Freedom of speech from defamation of character is opinion vs. stated fact. When one presents themselves as an authority in a field or area it is no longer their opinion, they are now making what people believe to be stated facts. That is not covered in the first amendment.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I suppose nobody cares that Stabenow's husband, the prostitute client [SIZE=-1]Tom Athans, is the CEO of the liberal Democracy Radio, and the executive V.P. of the failed Air America ?

Conflict of interest anyone ?



Nah, couldn't be.


And no, I will not provide a link. I'll leave it to you to make me a liar.


[/SIZE]

 

[rbell]

The hair that divides Freedom of speech from defamation of character is opinion vs. stated fact. When one presents themselves as an authority in a field or area it is no longer their opinion, they are now making what people believe to be stated facts. That is not covered in the first amendment.

So...since you disagree with a premise I make, you can use the force of government to shut me up?

What an unamerican, fascist viewpoint. Please never, ever run for office.

 

[targus]

The hair that divides Freedom of speech from defamation of character is opinion vs. stated fact. When one presents themselves as an authority in a field or area it is no longer their opinion, they are now making what people believe to be stated facts. That is not covered in the first amendment.

So you want to put the government in charge of "stated fact" aka the truth?

Shades of George Orwell !!!

 

[rbell]

The hair that divides Freedom of speech from defamation of character is opinion vs. stated fact. When one presents themselves as an authority in a field or area it is no longer their opinion, they are now making what people believe to be stated facts. That is not covered in the first amendment.

I wanted to quote this so you guys would understand how scary LeBuick's viewpoint is:

Opinion is not protected under the first amendment.​

I can't think of a more disturbing statement ever made on the BB.

 

[LeBuick]

So...since you disagree with a premise I make, you can use the force of government to shut me up?

What an unamerican, fascist viewpoint. Please never, ever run for office.

Isn't that the American way? If you don't like something you rally the government to make it illegal. I would hope all men would come to Christ so we don't need laws like that but since that's not happening I guess we need a law.

I'm not saying this to be facetious but you are doing the same with Abortion. You don't agree with their decisions (which are legal) so you want the government to make it illegal. It really is how we do it.

 

[LeBuick]

So you want to put the government in charge of "stated fact" aka the truth?

Shades of George Orwell !!!

No way Dude!!!! However, if I can prove in the court of law before a jury of our peers that you intentionally deceived, mislead or slandered for the purpose of swaying ones decision or destroying another's character then I would like there to be repercussions even if only monetary. I know that won't stop it from happening but it will keep the honest folks honest and fix some of the election rhetoric. Politicians are the worst...

 

[LeBuick]

I wanted to quote this so you guys would understand how scary LeBuick's viewpoint is:

Opinion is not protected under the first amendment.​

I can't think of a more disturbing statement ever made on the BB.

If you would read my statement carefully, I said opinion IS protected. It is falsely presenting a stated fact that is not.

When an economist makes a statement about the economy, it is not opinion, it is considered stated fact because he has expertise in the field. However we all know economist will and are intentionally skewing facts or eliminating truths to prove and support their philosophical point of view. I think we should hold an economist to the truth in what he says since his testimony is considered fact.

Same with a doctor and medical facts... etc...

Listen, Rush can say what he wants. We all know not to believe all he says. But when he has a guest that's an expert in the field, that expert should be accountable to the truth even if it' contrary to what Rush has been saying.

 

[Revmitchell]

When an economist makes a statement about the economy, it is not opinion, it is considered stated fact because he has expertise in the field.

This is blatantly false.

 

[matt wade]

When an economist makes a statement about the economy, it is not opinion, it is considered stated fact because he has expertise in the field. However we all know economist will and are intentionally skewing facts or eliminating truths to prove and support their philosophical point of view. I think we should hold an economist to the truth in what he says since his testimony is considered fact.

Hold on...first you say "it is not option, it is considered stated fact" then you say "we all know economist wil and are intentionally skewing facts".

So, what is it? Either is is considered fact or we know it is not fact. You can't have both.

 

[LeBuick]

Hold on...first you say "it is not option, it is considered stated fact" then you say "we all know economist wil and are intentionally skewing facts".

So, what is it? Either is is considered fact or we know it is not fact. You can't have both.

I fell it should be mandatory to be factual since they have presented themselves as experts in the field.

Secondly I said I am disappointed because that is not what's happening today.

 

[LeBuick]

This is blatantly false.

That's my opinion... :thumbsup:

 

[targus]

I fell it should be mandatory to be factual since they have presented themselves as experts in the field.

Secondly I said I am disappointed because that is not what's happening today.

If economic "experts" are skewing facts how would you know this?

At best you would have another economic "expert" telling you something different.

How would you know which is "factual" and which is skewed?

 

[rbell]

OK, I'll restate:

please agree with LeBuick if you want your First Amendment rights to apply.

Dude, you're digging a big hole with this one. Need a shovel?

 

[LeBuick]

If economic "experts" are skewing facts how would you know this?

At best you would have another economic "expert" telling you something different.

How would you know which is "factual" and which is skewed?

That's my point, we don't know who is right. However, if they were forced to tell the truth not only would we have agreement within the economist community but we'd know which way to point the country.

 

[LeBuick]

OK, I'll restate:

please agree with LeBuick if you want your First Amendment rights to apply.

Dude, you're digging a big hole with this one. Need a shovel?

Nope, I'm entitled to my opinion. I am covered by the first amendment.

 

[rbell]

When one presents themselves as an authority in a field or area it is no longer their opinion, they are now making what people believe to be stated facts. That is not covered in the first amendment.

The above was your exact quote. It limits freedom of speech far beyond anything the Founding Fathers ever did. I'll go further and say it is a shortsighted, anti-liberty, and incredibly stupid idea.

There's a reason our country still exists as it does. It is because we did not employ ideas such as yours above.

 

[Creyn]

If talk radio requires a "Fairness Doctrine", then liberal left-wing Hollywood needs to show us how its done, and every time I watch a movie by Spike Lee or Oliver Stone, they should interrupt it every ten minutes to present expert opinion that contradicts it...

Or just run a crawler underneath the whole time, like they have on news channels. It could say something like:

...s rap...This is Crap...This is Crap...This is Crap...This is Crap...This i...

You wonder where idiots like some that post here get their looney conspiracy theories? Its not from Rush freaking Limbaugh!