http://www.examiner.com/x-3704-Columbia-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d27-FCC-diversity-czar-proves-Obama-govt-has-declared-war-on-America

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/28/video-fcc-diversity-czar-chavezs-venezuela-incredible-democratic-revol

So I have not seen this discussed in SB yet. Obama's new FCC "Diversity" Czar, Mark Lloyd, is an admitted communist and has been on record praising the socialist take over of Venezuela. He has also said he admired Chavez's take over of private media in Venezuela. This is Obama's round about way to reinstate the fairness doctrine, by regulating, fining and eventually forcing private talk radio stations out of business by 100% fines for not being diverse enough. Its obvious this is his way of trying to destroy talk radio, which we all know is predominantly conservative. In my humble opinion, this is blatantly un-American and un-constitutional, to try and mandate the privately owned radio stations. We all know if Bush tried to pull some kind of blatant silencing of opposition, the media would be up in arms. But honestly, its scary times in America when the government is trying to covertly destroy private media simply because they disagree with the party line. In the fairness doctrine thread from a while back, many of you self proclaimed libs said you disagreed with it, so I hope you can see the threat to freedom in this intention as well. Discuss.

8/31/2009 7:22:04 PM

1. I'm going to add this to my topics.

2. In 2012, when you're proven wrong, I'll ask Duke to btt this.

3. ...

4. Profit.



These links are hilarious.

"FCC 'diversity czar' proves Obama gov't has declared war on America."

FACT.

[Edited on August 31, 2009 at 7:25 PM. Reason : ]

8/31/2009 7:24:08 PM

ok, the point was not to critique the articles I posted, yes they are editorial. The point is to discuss the real threat this poses. An you know, I hope to God in 2012 you are right and I am wrong, but lets not think that Obama would not love to crush talk radio however he can,

8/31/2009 7:29:18 PM

Quote :

"but lets not think that Obama would not love to crush talk radio however he can"

Really? Really?. Never in my cookiest moments did I think Bush would've destroyed the NY Times if he could've.

8/31/2009 7:33:29 PM

Bush, despite all his short comings, was not the level of absolute power seeker that Obama is

8/31/2009 7:34:47 PM

Seriously friend, you are off your fucking rocker.

The question is, how many times does Obama need to say he is opposed to the Fairness Doctrine before it settles in with the far right?

8/31/2009 7:40:50 PM

Really?

8/31/2009 7:41:42 PM

I was no fan of the patriot act. And we have discussed that, as well as Bush's short comings in detail over the last 8 years. Now, lets stay on focus and discuss Obama. I personally am not cool with either side eroding the constitution, and it seems Obama is all about it.

8/31/2009 7:46:57 PM

What new aspects of the Constitution is Obama "eroding" that previous Presidents haven't already touched?

8/31/2009 7:49:30 PM

message_topic.aspx?topic=571267

8/31/2009 7:59:50 PM

lets see, some of these he has done, others he wants to do: government taking over private business, firing CEOs of private companies, appointing over 40 Czars that are unelected unapproved and unaccountable(yes Bush had a few too but not close to Obama), single payer health care, FCC destruction of private media, telling people to report "false hoods" about his programs,

8/31/2009 8:03:58 PM

Even accepting your frothy, Salisburyboy-approaching hyperbole as fact, it's still nothing new to the last 80 years of the Presidency

8/31/2009 8:07:28 PM

To my knowledge, i did not use any hyperbole

8/31/2009 8:21:20 PM

Then you should continue reading the sentence.

8/31/2009 8:23:09 PM

Just thought I'd throw a few talk radio stars out there for purposes of spicing up the discussion. I bet Obama sure wants to put them out of business.

Ronald Reagan, Jr.
Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr. (born January 17, 1954 in Washington, D.C.) is the third of eleven children born to Ethel Skakel Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy and is the nephew of John F. Kennedy and Edward M. Kennedy. He is an attorney specializing in environmental law and co-host of Ring of Fire on the Air America Radio network.-wiki


Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Ronald Prescott Reagan (born May 20, 1958 in Los Angeles, California), usually known as Ron Reagan and sometimes as Ronald Reagan, Jr., is the son of the former President of the United States Ronald Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan. He is currently a political pundit for the cable television network MSNBC, and was a talk radio host and chief political analyst for KIRO radio in Seattle until his show was canceled on August 8, 2007. On September 8, 2008, The Ron Reagan Show made its debut as an Air America Media radio show; the program is a three hour daily show airing from 6–9 PM (ET). He is notable for his liberal views, which contrast with the conservative views held by his father.


Al Franken


Thom Hartmann


Randi Rhodes


Rachel Maddow


Ed Shultz

8/31/2009 11:52:42 PM

Quote :

" Related Articles: Dear Republicans, Stop Acting Crazy Ted Kennedy: a legacy of everything America is against Rooster crowings from Stone Mountain on ExpostfactObamalism etc Obama settles the public option debate and challenges you to know any better The 'Liberal Lion' stalked your rights "

9/1/2009 12:49:09 AM

I, too, saw Glenn Beck today.

9/1/2009 1:04:42 AM

Last I heard, Obama wanted to create a "Civilian Defense" force of some kind that had equal membership and budget to the regular military. The person who told me about this claimed that this thing existed, and was virtually identical to the SS.

I will file this thread into roughly the same nonsense category.

9/1/2009 1:22:28 AM

Quote :

"Bush, despite all his short comings, was not the level of absolute power seeker that Obama is"

yeah...that was dick cheney.

9/1/2009 1:24:39 AM

I'm pretty much convinced that anything Obama does will be stupid, improperly implemented, and wrongly maintained. However, the worst part is, is that many American's have their Obama blinders on (^) and the only thing they can see/think is either "Blame Bush" or "Blame Chaney" or provide another reference to said administration instead of offering useful information. It's amazing if you were to step back and look - someone posts about Obama's missteps or shortcoming... someone with Obama Blinders retourts with something such as ^

9/1/2009 10:04:22 AM

Hey numbnuts, he was responding to a Bush apologist.

The worst part is when Bush apologists use their examples to show the evils of Obama, no one should be allowed to retort in any way without wdprice3 calling the whambulance.

9/1/2009 10:09:04 AM

Quote :

"I'm pretty much convinced that anything Obama does will be stupid, improperly implemented, and wrongly maintained."

and that is equally stupid in the opposite direction. you're CONVINCED 7.5 months into his presidency that not only has obama failed at everything he has done, but that he will fail at everything that he attempts. you don't even have to know what that action is. it will fail. you'll just figure out why when it happens.

[Edited on September 1, 2009 at 10:10 AM. Reason : .]

9/1/2009 10:09:59 AM

Quote :

"What new aspects of the Constitution is Obama "eroding" that previous Presidents haven't already touched?"

See, I have a problem with this. Instead of dick-swinging about whose candidate was worse than the other's it'd be nice if we simply opposed asinine policies and questionable power-grabs no matter who crafted them.

And I would not underestimate the collectivist and statist tendencies of this administration any more than I would underestimate the fascist and statist tendencies of the old administration. Barack Obama comes from an intellectual school which is suspicious of the idea of a self organizing society. This is going to be reflected in his policy decisions and his appointment. I don't think this is a radical assumption.

I mean the dude did praise Chavez in the video on there. Apparently he is a self-proclaimed communist. If that is the case, calling him a communist is not over-reacting

Quote :

"Just thought I'd throw a few talk radio stars out there for purposes of spicing up the discussion. I bet Obama sure wants to put them out of business."

I think the point here is that those are precisely the people who will not be targeted. If those guys are commercially successful, they should be allowed on the air. If they are not, they shouldn't. It shouldn't be at the discretion of a federal agency which radio shows are aired and which are not. Since the 1990s and the rise of conservative AM radio, the Democratic party has sought it's abolition or control. It was the first broadcast media voice that criticized them on a regular basis and after years of domination by television networks they didn't appreciate the competition.

To imply that any party would pursue an agenda that was favorable to them by regulatory means is not exactly an earth shattering proposition. I simply don't think it is irrational to assume that a Democratic President with a Democratic Congress and a Communist (apparently) "Fairness Czar" wouldn't want to go after the largest sector of the media which opposes them.

9/1/2009 11:13:29 AM

bush did the same for pbs and to a lesser extent public radio.

9/1/2009 11:28:31 AM

The difference there is that PBS is already a state broadcasting agency. It receives 15 - 20% of its funding through the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, which is a Federally created entity. Personally, I question the constitutionality of PBS, but the government can at least claim to have a reason for controlling it.

The Fairness Doctrine (what have we all learned about bills named after generic platitudes) is aimed at private commercial radio stations.

And again, even if Bush had gone after liberal and ostensibly liberal broadcasting THAT WOULDN'T MAKE IT FUCKING RIGHT!

9/1/2009 11:35:17 AM

and radio stations broadcast on public airwaves or at least that's the argument. i think the fairness doctrine is stupid. i don't think that the obama administration will pursue it. they seem to like to let their opponents look stupid in the loudest possible ways.

9/1/2009 11:38:11 AM

Quote :

"THAT WOULDN'T MAKE IT FUCKING RIGHT!"

I don't think anyone is saying it is. We're just laying out the plethora of reasons why Republican18's argument is dumb. One of which is the hypocrisy.

9/1/2009 11:53:56 AM

^^ Except the airwaves are only public in the sense that the FCC regulates their usage. The taxpayer doesn't spend $X dollars a year creating radio signals which people then use. They already exist.

^ His argument has some legitimacy. The reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine has been a minor league Democratic issue for some time. Along with the NEA publicly funding propaganda ( message_topic.aspx?topic=575007 ) it is something worth keeping an eye on. You may think R18 is a hypocrite but the argument still stands.


I'm as sick as anyone else of the shrills calls from an intellectually bankrupt right. Doesn't mean that there aren't kernels of truth buried in all the noise. I felt the same about the anti-war movement in 2003. I was opposed to the war in Iraq but the protesters in the street were doing nothing to attract Joe and Jane American to their cause.

9/1/2009 2:13:03 PM

guys, this is not about obama. These socialists have been planning this takeover for at least 6 years. A lot of the measures were put in place under the Bush administration. We are about to see a100% media tax and government controling most of the media and who media they don't control can hire.

/glen beck

9/1/2009 6:12:17 PM

6 years? Child please. We've been planning this since Eugene Debbs.

Go put that in your wikis youn'un and maybe you'll learn something.

9/1/2009 10:25:24 PM