OT: Red States to Secede

Factually incorrect. The flawed dereg was in already in place, but Gray "was the guy" for the long term contracts.

Ted Kennedy should head up the ATF...seems he has some experience in alcohol consumption and banning gun rights!....Ross

I guess Al Gore should head up the Department of Education since he "Invented the Internet".........Ross

You are correct...I lived there during that mess and watched the whole thing unfold...Ross

Frankly, i hate blue and red; how about green, or yellow, or orange (which one can eat)?

No. You reds go ahead and secede. By the way, we have a good national anthem for you. It's not currently being used and it fits Bush's political philosophy quite well:

That's an interesting statement (soviet national anthem) since the "blue states" believe in a political philosophy that boarders on socialism????????? Just an observation not a personal attack....take care Paul............Ross

Totally false, and a gratuitous smear on half the country.

Right.

Well....explain your comment....all you provided was rhetoric and hey...I was not trying to troll Paul just was making an observation.... But as they say...don't discuss politics or religion with friends and family....I guess we could add NG's to that too...Have a great one Win....Ross

Just one other comment....You said "Half the Country"...well, if that was the case we would have a different president.....????????

A natural consequence of progressive income taxes. The richer states get back less than they pay, and the less-rich come out ahead. The Democratic party is now the party of the rich.

John

Strange. The 'red' states are net recipients of federal subsidies.

Since Reagan killed off the FCC's Fairness Clause, you have to be rich to mount an effective campaign in the 1st place; corporate media sure won't give you air time for free

--unless you're Gov. Musclehead.

Does that make them socialists?....And please be more specic....In any event have a great eveing Paul and I *did * never mean to troll ya!...take care, Ross

Since the "Fairness Clause" was never in any way "fair", let it rest in peace. The market of ideas is a far better regulator of "fair" than the FCC could ever pretend to be. "Fairness" *might* have been resonable before there were a thousand channels of TeeVee and a billion Internet Bloggers.

Clinton wasn't rich. Carter wasn't rich. It's hard to even say Bush is rich, at least enough to *buy* an election. OTOH, I don't see BillyG as emporer either.

So, your point (other than the one on your shoulders) is? Why should anyone get anything *free*? Do you think you're somehow owed something?

It was better than what we have now.

No, but their parties were

--and all other parties were largely locked out of the process.

Shoot. I thought you were using a new word I could learn.

As an equal owner of the airwaves (with all other Americans), yes I do. Any candidate who can demonstrate support above a specified threshold should get an equal chance to be heard in the market of ideas. The current number of TeeVee channels or anything else is irrelevant.

You're sick. With the "Fairness Clause" Dan Blather would never have been ferreted out. Perhpas you think that's somehow "beter", but I certainly don't.

Ah, so you want to shif the goalposts. Go right ahead and make a further fool of yourself.

Tupos happen. Fools are.

You bloody fool, why do you think *you* have any right to tell another what to say? There is plenty of room (and bandwidth, unless your brain is limited to the 12 lower channels) in the market for different ideas, it's certainly better than the bland non-intelligible crap from NBC/CBS/ABC.

The Fairness Docterine was simply a ideological monopoly for the broadcasters. They could say anything without the other side having any voice. ...which is exactly what you're proposing. Fuck you!

Not *what to say*. You've managed to miss my main point entirely. Here it is again:

To expand: To c>>Any candidate who can demonstrate support above a specified threshold

You seem to be saying that money is the only metric of worth; if you can't buy out the corporate media, you don't deserve air time. You also seem to be saying that exclusion is a good thing. We tried exclusion before 1965. It didn't work well.

I'm not talking about talking heads from the network. I'm talking about candidates going head-to-head.

No thanks. I'll pass.

Setting limits to free political speech will cause it to either stop or become irrelevent. In the case of talk radio, it would be advantageous for the left to destroy it. It seems like the left is doing very well on the internet (yet another kind of communications and 'publishing.') It would be attrocious for anti-free speech legislation to succeed against either the internet or talk radio.

Those who advocate for the government to try to control free POLITICAL speech are mostly doing so for the benefit of their own political interests.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to avoid conflating POLITICAL speech with ENTERTAINMENT speech that has little/no political content. Speech that is commercial instead of political is certainly subject to a little more regulation -- e.g. advert billboards, paid radio adverts or other business signage. Political advertisements on someone's lawn SHOULD be relatively protected, and as long as the property owner is responsible (doesn't leave signage trash in their yard, etc), then political notices SHOULD be allowed.

If someone is expressing their opinion (without being paid for a given opinion -- e.g. NOT Armstrong's behavior), then that should be/is protected speech. If someone is being paid to express a certain opinion, then that is probably subject to some kind of regulation.

Paid political speech shouldn't be interfered with -- but it is disappointing that the current/recent US government has worked to suppress certain kinds of political speech.

Soros is incredibly rich (far more than Bush, Carter, Clinton.) Kerry and wife are very rich also.

If the government starts managing the airwaves again, then the current free speech similar to newspapers will be suppressed.

Historically, anyone who could own a newspaper had more 'free speech' than other people. In a similar way, the radio stations are now 'free' in a way similar to newspapers.