Cmiller

Profile

Blog Entries

Photos & Videos

Comments

>> View all 42 comments

Stats

Questions

>> View all of Cmiller's 9 questions feed

SodaFeed

Latest Question

US DiscussionsView Results
Embed:

Embed this Question anywhere and follow Cmiller's latest Question.

Top SodaHeads

Top Comments

  • The fairness doctrine IS NOT a violation of the cons... The fairness doctrine IS NOT a violation of the constitution, what do you think? (more)

    +3 raves I would say that as long as congress does not make it a law and FCC reinstitutes it as a "ru... I would say that as long as congress does not make it a law and FCC reinstitutes it as a "rule" it would be a matter of interpretation and enforcement on a case by case basis as to whether it violates the First Amendment. There is something to be said about the word “abridging” in first amendment; its meaning is also is a matter of interpretation. Just reading the first amendment you would think it would be clear that the fairness doctrine is unconstitutional.
    Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Back in the day 1937, the FCC was more concerned about ownership and limited media outlets along with the Federal Government not wanting one entity to have a monopoly of the limited frequencies for obvious reasons. Today that reasoning is useless given the vast capabilities there are.” The fairness doctrine ran parallel to Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1937 which required stations to offer "equal opportunity" to all legally qualified political candidates for any office if they had allowed any person running in that office to use the station. The attempt was to balance--to force an even handedness. Section 315 exempted news programs, interviews and documentaries. But the doctrine would include such efforts. Another major difference should be noted here: Section 315 was federal law, passed by Congress. The fairness doctrine was simply FCC policy.”
    “1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.”
    The practicality of the “Fairness Doctrine” is obsolete given the almost unlimited number of media outlets there are now and the issue of the Federal Governments concern based on those limited numbers is null. Section 315 is unconstitutional because it is law.
    The broad scope of the first amendment is very narrow when it comes to politics. It’s free speech to wipe crap on a statue of the Pope and put it on display in a public place but to get on the radio and say that you think liberal policies wipe crap on America is not. There is another agenda besides “limited frequencies” and it will again backfire if it’s made law. I look at this like the abortion issue a paradox.     (more)

  • What would you really like to see happen during the ... What would you really like to see happen during the debate tonight? (more)

    +5 raves Obama actually answering a question without the psychobabble and spin.

  • What bothers me the most about Governer Sarah Palin.... What bothers me the most about Governer Sarah Palin..... (more)

    +7 raves As a Midwest farmer, I can think of a lot of reasons to “kill” an endangered or protected animal.... As a Midwest farmer, I can think of a lot of reasons to “kill” an endangered or protected animal.
    They are killing a family member or neighbor.
    They are killing or damaging my livestock.
    They are damaging my crops.
    They are a nuisance.
    They render my property unsafe.
    They are diseased.
    They killed my dog.
    My family is starving.
    Sorry, I’m a little higher up on the food chain. When a predatory animal is killing my food and my livelihood, It’s game on. The Missouri Department of Conservation recognizes the importance of livestock preservation as does The Alaska wildlife department. These animals are not defenseless prey animals like a cow or horse ect. Here in Missouri, a few years back, legislators started screwing with the hunting of deer. Now the population is so massive we blood thirsty animal murders can’t kill enough of them to keep people from dying in car accidents by hitting them. They stomp and eat our crops and ruin our land. They spread disease because there are too many. Some communities are now having the cops hunt right in the middle of town to kill the deer.
    Selective harvesting of prey animals is a must. Kansas City MO has to kill coyotes by the thousands every year because they are causing plane crashes. They are being sucked through the engines on take off and landing.
    We have bobcats, cougars, wolves, bears, wild dogs, ect. Sorry, food is not cheep. If I have to start killing predatory or prey animals to protect my family and my livestock so be it. I think that is where Gov. Palin is on the right track with selective harvesting. It's a necessity to preserve the food supply for humans.     (more)
>> View all Top Comments

Groups

or
Cancel