“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

WOW, welcome to the USS of Amerika

This brings to mind the so-called "Fairness Doctrine". A more accurate name would be the " Shut up the Conservatives Doctrine".

Mike comes on this site and says anything he wishes and then claims that he is stifled, shut up, or limited in his spectrum of acceptable opinion, and appears to claim that he is kept "passive and obedient". It is absolutely amazing to me that he can engage in such oxymoronism. Blaming the meda and the people of opposite views from your own, for their lack of acceptance, may not be their fault it is that your views suck. In a nation as free as ours with the net and the blogs etcetera y'all are just being spoilt brats looking for someone to blame for your own lack of a functioning brain. While this statement is absolutely philosophicaly and logically true there is no evidence that it is impirically true especially in the United States. Mike and Jim's jumping to conclusions that Prof Chomsky is at all talking about the US is naiviety to the nth degree.

Waffler, completely wrong again. I've given numerous examples of the unlawful destruction of this once free nation. Though many of my actions have been stifled as I pursue freedom and liberty (I being much freer than most), happy slaves such as the Waffler set get upset at true liberty, justifying misinterpretions, by necessity - accept shallow perceptions, set forth lies, and give off subject statements in support of bonded servant status. (by way of example: your feeble attempt to disparage me here was off subject of the quote) On subject, exemplified by the current bailouts, we only here the R's and D's - given to the public via controlled media, solutions. We are not hearing lawful solutions such as eliminating the FED as Ron Paul had suggested (starting with a competing medium of exchange); or, to the housing crisis: let the financial entities go bankrupt, let sound companies buy the profitable mortgages and other sound assets and the people losing their homes buy their specific home out of the bankruptcy for a dollar or what ever they can afford. The mismanaged company would be gone, people would stay in their homes, the economy would just keep going.

The last year of debates is a good example. Keep everyone hacking at the branches and ignore the root. All this debate about bailing out the banks is to prevent the people who borrowed from the bankrupt entity from not having to pay it back. Like Mike said, if the banks weren't bailed out, then the borrowers debts would be cleared. No we can't let that happen because the entire point is to keep people in debt -- never to clear it, just keep refinancing and borrowing more. Imagine the little guy getting a break for a change!

Again Mike comes on here says what ever he wants to say in total freedom and then complains and calls this land the USS Amerika. His complaint about the lack of freedom while he is at the same time exercisng his is nothing but an act of moronism. If others choose not to exercise their freedom in the same way that Mike does does not mean that they don't have it, it just means they just think Mike is a moron.

This guy is one of the few reasonable men on the left. He would defend my right to be heard. That is unusual for a leftist. Most would support the "fairness" doctrine strictly because it will stop any disagreement with the left on the air waves. Make no mistake they are going to the net next. The only chance we have is to scare the crap out of them. The congressmen will protect their jobs even if it means leaving freedom of speech alone temporarily.

Well said, Mike. Obviously there are some here who prove Goethe's words: "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free". So long as there is some perceived freedom, most slaves believe that they are free. Yellow Journalism especially runs rampant in the United States. I don't even like McCain but our media sure showed that they didn't like him either... Talk about "fair and balance" eh? Obama got more than 75% of the media airtime, newspaper, and magazine reports over McCain. An official apology was issued by several newspapers for their bias during the campaign -- OOPS! So much for an empty apology! Their candidate won -- OOPS, we're sorry! It is ironic that Waffler is condemning Mike for not allowing "freedom," when it is Mike's philosophy that allows for the greatest amount of personal/individual freedom of almost anyone that posts on this forum. Waffler's all about "freedom", but is for licensing; Waffler's all about "freedom", but is for Democracy (majority rule without exception, which has ALWAYS lead to tyrannical dictatorships through an oligarchical transition); Waffler is all about "freedom", but is against individual rights; Waffler is all about "freedom" but is a progressive in matters of taxation, property rights, and government welfare; Waffler is all about "freedom", but is a walking contradiction to anything freedom has or will ever stand for. The dichotomy of Waffler's concept of "freedom" and actual freedom is a vast chasm wherein the spirit of Liberty quickly commits suicide; all such false philosophy as Waffler adheres will only lead to empty promises of "change" (but change FROM what TO what?), and the false ideas and practices that our founders fought against and died trying to eradicate out of our system of government in making our great, glorious, and wonderful country.

Waffler is paid to troll through this site and consume everyone's time with useless comments that tend to make little sense at all.

The Fariness Doctrine is to allow other opinions on the air. The FCC is supposed to be handing out licenses with the caveat that the broadcasters do so in the interest of the public. If you're old enough you would remember the day when there were Free Speech Messages... Air time provided for free to citizens to express their viewpoints on political, economic, or other issues of public interest. That used to be required by law. That was struck down by the Telecommunications Act, along with the restrictions established to prevent media monopolies. Free marketers don't think far enough ahead to realize that the system they support fosters monopolies, and those serve no one but the monopoly themselves.