Fairness ? Doctrine

Kerry supports it.

After running this through the smugness and cluelessness filters what he is saying is essentially ' while we had the Republican view suppressed all was well. Once that suppression came off and their views were allowed into the free market of ideas we found our ideas uncompetetive. So we need to suppress their opinions so ours don't look so clueless.'

Durbin supports it.

"It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine [...] I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they're in a better position to make a decision." Senator, I have heard your side. I have no choice but to hear your side. ( insert MSM list here. ) I have heard and the picture above is my reaction to it.

Kucinich is throwing a party.

"How in the world did we end up in this war in Iraq when one study said that only three news sources that opposed the war were able to get on the air out of 393. What does that say. Was there an uninhibited exchange of ideas." He did not identify the study. Guess he must not watch much televison, read the papers or venture onto the net.

When the opportunity for presidential candidates of their party to present their positions in the forum of public debate on FoxNews came along they declined. That makes it difficult to believe in their sincerity. I will cut Kucinich some slack here. He was willing to do it but the majority refused. The whole intent of their effort to revive the Fairness Doctrine is to force us to hear something we've already heard on ( insert MSM list here ) and aren't buying.

Thinking people are not interested in a bunch of adolescent crap about Bushitlerburton, war for oil, worst president, evil Cheney and the whole litany of moronic bumper-sticker thin opinions. It is hard to take those types seriously.... for thinking people...

Have you ever noticed that many of the voices of leftist causes are actors and commedians ? It is because the Left in this country is a pretentious joke.

But the thing that really raises my ire is that anybody in our Congress could even consider curtailing the oppositions voice when considering that:

Amendment I
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.