Monday, June 25, 2007

Feinstein Equals Fascist, But Does Not Equal Fairness

Check out what the so-called "liberal", anti-liberty, pro-fascism, pure-evil twat Senator Dianne Feinstein had to say about free speech on FNS yesterday:

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened. But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It’s explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. This is a very complicated bill. It’s seven titles. Most people don’t know what’s in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day.

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I’m looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

Color me shocked. First off, let's look at her insane assertions about the immigration bill. If anyone is dwelling in extremism and hyperbole, it is Feinstein. She is being "explosive," and downright insulting, suggesting that those that hold different views, be they listeners or hosts, regarding this bill someone are ignorant of what is in it. Believe it or not, Dumb-anne, those opposing the bill are fully aware of what the legislation entails. People are aware it is "complicated," but complexity does not necessarily translate to actual reform or effectiveness, especially considering that we have the laws we need already on the books, and they have not been enforced. Disagreeing with whether or not this bill works, or is fair, is not the same as not comprehending what it does.

She also puts forth the moronic "silent amnesty" argument in favor of this bill, but fails to address the fact that those opposed to it want neither silent, nor government endorsed, amnesty. People on and listening to talk radio are quite aware that the current administration and Congress does NOTHING to enforce the laws of the land now, in fact granting "silent amnesty," but fails to fix it. This bill only makes things worse, will encourage more illegal immigration, rewards illegal behavior, and offers no real solution. If she actually LISTENED to some talk radio, she would hear that hosts go into the flaws in the current system all the time. It's bullshit to assert that because people are opposed to this current attempt to "fix" the system, that they are opposed to fixing the system at all. There was an attempt to start fixing the system last year - by building hundreds of miles of new border fence (not a comprehensive fix by any means, but a start) - which was passed by Congress and signed into law, yet that has not yet been built.

Equally insulting is the assertion that talk radio "pushes" people into certain opinions, views or actions. People listen to talk radio hosts because they agree with them (or enjoy disagreeing with them). It's not like they've suddenly become brainwashed by the radio waves. Heck, what would motivate them to tune-in in the first place? What is most chilling about Feinstein's pathetic attempt at reasoning here is that somehow this disagreement justifies censorship or governmental control of media content. And even worse, it targets only a tiny sliver of the media and biased opinion. What you will not hear Feinstein calling for is a Fairness Doctrine effecting the editorial sections of liberal newspapers, liberal bias in college classrooms, leftist slant on TV News or comedy shows, left-wing bias in movies or music, or any of a million other forums. And what amazes me is that liberals and Democrats will foam at the mouth in these forums, online, etc., about how Bush and the Republicans are attempting to erode civil liberties with the Patriot Act or calling for an end to bias in college education, but have no problem pissing all over the 1st Amendment when it comes to opinions that don't fall in sync with their own.

Guess what, Dumb-anne, you or anyone else has no right to "present the other side" on someone else's editorial forum. And attempting to silence dissenting opinion is about as fascist as you can get. But it's about the sort of utter hypocrisy I've come to expect from the Democratic Party. No wonder Congress has an approval rating as low as Bush's.

No comments: