stix1972, I feel Obama is a living Commander Queeg (Caine Mutany) when it comes to questions.

It’s just the children and grandchildren of the 60s generation

That would be the precise definition of “a whole new generation” hehe.

That aside, thank you for your assist on Obama’s support of the fairness doctrine. I would have responded along those lines, but with no where near the depth of detail, or allocution. Great job.

In response to the multiple mentions that no one forms their opinions from a Crue (or other) show, don’t be so sure. While they might not lead kids and others to form complete, cohesive opinions, it is this kind of propaganda that sparks the uneducated rebellion that has been instrumental in the shifting views of the current war in addition to wars of the past.

I don’t advocate that anything is done to stop these kinds of messages, I just think that it is important that we all be aware of them, and counter their influence with our own messages. I still plan on taking my kids to entertaining concerts, I will just continue to spend time before and after discussing what we saw and heard and educating them in a way that I think is a little more proper.

We have a whole new generation of idiots who think Che Gueverra is a hero and that Fidel Castro is misunderstood. They think that Hugo Chavez is a modern day Don Quixote and that socialism is just the cutest thing to come our way since Hello Kitty!

Slight correction, Wisdom. It’s not a whole new generation. It’s just the children and grandchildren of the 60s generation, raised on Joan Baez, Bob Dylan, etal. Political activism was all the rage in my youth, and permeated every genre of music. Protesting war and government was right up their with glorifying drugs. It was, after all, the 60s.

But I wouldn’t sweat it, Wisdom. Ran the rock world in a former career, and took in many Crue and other rock concerts via back stage. It’s all a show, put together by their management and created specifically to raise a reaction and participation from the crowd. Considering the tragic results of Great White’s pyrotechnics, getting a rush from a bunch of metal heads by flashing and demeaning GWB is probably a safer option.

I seriously doubt anyone forms their political opinions from a Crue (or others) show… even the young headbangers. They have SNL, Jon Stewart and Colbert for that. LOL

Barak Obama doesn’t support the revival of the fairness doctrine. Not sure where you got that idea.

Not so fast, Fit. If he genuinely “doesn’t support the revival,” he would have signed on and lent support to both Broadcaster Freedom Act bills presented in the Senate last summer. He did not.. and neither did any other DNC member.

Being BHO, adept at forked tongue, I do not rest easy in his carefully chosen language INRE the Fairness Doctrine… i.e., via Ortiz (his public mouthpiece on the issue)

“Sen. Obama does not support reimposing the Fairness Doctrine on broadcasters,” press secretary Michael Ortiz said in an e-mail to B&C late Wednesday.

“He considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible,” Ortiz added. “That is why Sen. Obama supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

He’s against the revival because he’s got other kinds of legislation in mind for controlling the media that will do the same…

i.e. ownership caps (a new definition of “monopoly” by Obama?)

regulations on “network neutrality”, (and who defines and enforces “neutrality”?)

and “increasing minority ownership”. (what’s this entail… telling a broadcast owner to sell to minorities to keep a “quota”??)

I think The Technology Liberation Front said it best, IMHO:

While welcome, the Obama statement was hardly a vigorous denunciation of the doctrine, or its chilling effect on speech. In fact, it doesn’t seem the senator actually opposes the rule, as opposed to not supporting its return. (Notably, he hasn’t yet signed onto the “Broadcaster Freedom Act,” which would ban its re-imposition). According to Ortiz, the reason for the senator’s non-support is that he “considers this debate to be a distraction from the conversation we should be having about opening up the airwaves and modern communications to as many diverse viewpoints as possible.”

Not because it is a violation of free speech principles, or because it is insidious government censorship, not even because it is counter-productive, but because it’s a “distraction.”

A distraction from what, you ask? Other forms of media regulation of course, including, according to Ortiz: “media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets.”

As has been argued many times before (including here, here, here, here, here, and here) it looks like the battle against government interference in media won’t end with the Fairness Doctrine, but will continue – and in fact is already under way — under different names.

They are very correct. The public, aware of the notable absence of “fairness” in the “Fairness Doctrine” aren’t likely to support such sweeping legislation. However the freedom of speech grab, little by little under these other legislations, are easier to sneak by an asleep at the political wheel electorate.

Barak Obama doesn’t support the revival of the fairness doctrine. Not sure where you got that idea.

But I do not think anyone really takes their politics from any of these people, if they do I really feel sorry for them. Why take any word from people that almost killed themselves with Heroin and alcohol.

Oh and Gregory, how will Obamassiah take criticism when he can’t even take a tough question????

Why should they know? Spend all day getting drunk in college reading kaka. Schools won’t even teach basic accounting. How else are kids supposed to know where money comes from? capitalism only trives thru entrepenurialship.

Obama is the false prophet. He is bought and paid for. The Che fans will be sorry.

‘Rock rebellion? Of course! But it does beg the question, how much influence should a bunch of former drug addicts have on America’s political climate?’

He added:

‘America is going to hell in a hand basket and it is going fast!’

Great question Wisdom. And you’re right about the hell in a hand basket part.

As noted political pundit, lynching advocate, noted racial theorist and country singer Toby Keith uttered his analysis of the Democratic candidate Barrack Obama in an interview with the esteemed (by comparison) Glenn Beck:

“I think the black people would say he [Obama] don’t talk, act or carry himself as a black person.”

Well, I don’t know what that means,” Keith drawled, “but I think that that’s what they would say. Even though the black society would pull for him I still think that they think in the back of their mind that the only reason he is in [the general election] is because he talks, acts and carries himself as a Caucasian.”