News Flash: Liberals hate Fox NewsFollow

Via Wonkette:
http://wonkette.com/402167/fox-news-has-already-filmed-most-legendary-cable-news-moment-of-convention#comments

A reporter at Fox News braves the seething liberal masses of protesters outside the Denver convention, trying to see what their "message" was. Not long after they realized what station he was reporting for, the message quickly changed from "End the war" and became "@#%^ Fox News!"



The DNC is off to a great start, it seems.

Edited, Aug 25th 2008 12:49pm by catwho

I pray to Fox News TYVM >.>

We used to call that Christmas at my stepdad's house. But really, protests at the DNC shouldn't conform to the standards of seven year olds. Everything in society shouldn't be geared to kids.

Sometimes you watch the British Parliament and I wish our government were more like that. They mix it up and ****. None of this fake moralistic ********* Or at least it is different fake moralistic *********

Edited, Aug 25th 2008 1:09pm by Annabella

I'd be more concerned about the crowds and the noise than the content if I were considering taking Hannah to something like that. She's only three and she understands the difference between what is a word for grown ups to say and what isn't. She's not completely aware of everything that's socially acceptable yet, but she's not oblivious to it either. I can't imagine restricting her opportunity to experience a historical event because of something so inconsequential as "swearing". If there's a (non violent, obviously) protest outside of my voting place in November, I'm still bringing her...

Nexa

You still don't get it do you?



Which does not restrict someones view, just ensures that all sides are heard. Let's not pretend that it hasn't worked for both parties here.

And I couldn't imagine why the Right doesn't want it brought back when they rule the airwaves with Right side propaganda. I mean, who in the hell would want that to stop?

You should rephrase that to say they aren't in politics for very long. Someone unwilling to "play the game" will always lose to someone who is in this day and age.

Saying liberals are acting like raving lunatics is not the same as saying they don't have the right to say what they're saying. Similarly, having the right to say what you want doesn't remove my right to criticize what is said...

What if you're shouting fire in a crowded theater?

I'm not sure if you're joking or really do have no clue how the fairness doctrine really worked.

Was it anything like the policy that allows a mouse to smash a cat on the head with a frying pan before lighting him on fire, but not a woman's bare breast to be shown on children's television?

Yes. The same people who make that sort of decision would be the ones deciding if one person's talk was sufficiently "balanced" by someone else's.

So you'd be in favor of abolishing the FCC entirely?

Not necessarily. There's a world of difference between setting standards for age-appropriate content and determining whether a particular political viewpoint got its fair share of airtime this month on a given network. Imposing social norms in public forums isn't really equivalent to imposing a common political view.

If we were to follow the slippery slope you are proposing, then why keep public nudity illegal? Why not allow people to have sex in public too? Let's just eliminate all public decency laws since it's clearly absurd to adopt any sort of societal norm in that context, right?

Apples and Oranges really...


Oh. And for the record. I'd be pretty much all for removing all those sorts of social restrictions, if we *also* removed all the legal protections as well. So you're free to walk around ************ in front of children as often as you want, but everyone else in the society is free to apply their own "punishment" to deter your behavior as they see fit.

I think most people who endorse anarchy don't really understand that societies would most often become much more conservative than liberal as a result. Remove both the laws restricting behavior and the laws preventing people from restricting it on their own and you'll end up with a much more uniform society than we're currently used to. So as interesting as it may seem, I don't think most people would agree with the result.

I know you didn't take it that far, but I figured I'd just skip ahead... ;)

If you force a station to broadcast what you want to air we no longer have a first amendment because the 1rst amendment was specifically designed to allow for political speech that others may disagree with. This has nothing to do with broadcasting **** as all societies have social mores and norms that the super majority agree must be upheld. By forcing stations to comply with the govn regarding which political pundits they may air you are effectively ignoring the primary intent of the 1rst amendment.

Nope. The first amendment isn't involved at all.

This has been explained to you, already. I guess what you should do is try to pass a new amendment that prevents the government from regulating radio or television in any way. Oh wait, you don't want ****. A new amendment that prevent the government from regulating radio or television in ways other than what you like.

Good luck with that.