tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post2682240002077165179..comments2023-08-20T07:06:14.115-04:00Comments on Thurber's Thoughts: Blade pushes Fairness DoctrineMaggiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-60643176293633257092009-02-17T21:27:00.000-05:002009-02-17T21:27:00.000-05:00Maggie,Judge Robert Bork put this in perspective s...Maggie,<BR/><BR/>Judge Robert Bork put this in perspective sometime back when speaking of "the equality of outcomes, rather than of opportunities". The Fairness Doctrine is only part of the larger plan to insure that everyone gets results (egalitarianism) rather than the opportunities (freedom) that our Founding Fathers sought for us.Timothy W Higginshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17118861693269565715noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-24128532719387070812009-02-15T16:09:00.000-05:002009-02-15T16:09:00.000-05:00That's a good question. Last week I reread Charlo...That's a good question. Last week I reread Charlotte Iserbyt's book, whom she referenced Francis Schaeffer and was reminded that he had much to say about what is happening now.<BR/><BR/>What you are talking about is what Francis Schaeffer referred to as "the line of despair" in his book, <I>The God Who is There"</I>. <BR/><BR/>Prof. Jerram Barrs described Schaeffer's line of despair:<BR/><BR/><I>Let us talk about what Schaeffer means by the line of despair. He suggests that in about 1890 in Europe and 1935 in the United States the whole way of thinking changed. You may have seen some diagrams in his book of the line of despair. Above that line, before 1890 in Europe and 1935 in the United States, people were rationalistic optimists with a unified view of knowledge. By that he means that up until those dates, it was taken for granted that human beings, by their own understanding and reason, would be able to understand life. There were answers to be found, and truth existed and could be discovered.<BR/>Moral values existed and could be discovered and applied to the individual and to society. While we may not have all the answers to our questions at the moment, eventually we would be able to find the answers. There was a unified view that everything would actually fit together. We can have a rational approach to knowledge, morality, truth, meaning, purpose, and society, and we will find answers.</I><BR/><BR/>Basically liberals have borrowed from Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard and Nietzche and delivered to the world through Marx, Engles, and Lenin.<BR/><BR/>To save you lots of reading the situation we find ourselves in today can be clearly understood by reading just this one transcribed speech by Francis Schaeffer back in 1982. It's not long.<BR/><BR/>http://www.peopleforlife.org/francis.htmlJay Otthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170850586783653546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-14880541810823308752009-02-15T15:37:00.000-05:002009-02-15T15:37:00.000-05:002Bn11FA - because attacking the messenger rather t...2Bn11FA - because attacking the messenger rather than the message is easier. If you can destroy your opponent, you never have to address the opponent's ideas for which you may not have a better concept.<BR/><BR/>I would also recommend that you read Saul Alinsky's works...this is part of his guidelines.<BR/><BR/>Some would say that when you know your argument will fail, you resort to the personal attack...and that seems to be what the leftists have learned over time.Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12677808307727487766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-47314101187315880722009-02-15T15:31:00.000-05:002009-02-15T15:31:00.000-05:00What I want to know is when did the Democrats shif...What I want to know is when did the Democrats shift to this progressive/liberal pattern of destroying opponents rather than arguing their ideas? I have read a number of books and it seems that this "control at all costs" mentality began way before the 60's and viet nam. How do people get this way? I went through public school and I am a conservative...I am not the standard to be sure...my parents were both in education and never bought the union view point. I guess rather than when, the question should be how did this change occur. There is just no rational thought put forth to counter conservative ideas. The underlying motto is Shoot the Messenger. I am perplexed and confounded.Hot Dog Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01819572375983795025noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21829866.post-13881187161756848502009-02-15T14:03:00.000-05:002009-02-15T14:03:00.000-05:00Here is an example of one of the Blade's half-trut...Here is an example of one of the Blade's half-truths in this article:<BR/> <BR/><I>In 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 that no one had a constitutional right to a radio station license, and the government had a right to regulate the limited radio spectrum.</I><BR/><BR/>The Blade failed to mention an important detail of the Supreme Court's ruling which also included a warning:<BR/><BR/><I>The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, <B>the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered.</B> Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.</I> (emphasis added)http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfmJay Otthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08170850586783653546noreply@blogger.com