1) Liberalism creates a feedback loop. It is usually impossible for a non-liberal to change a liberal’s mind about political issues because liberalism works like so: only liberals are credible sources of information. How do you know someone’s liberal? He espouses liberal doctrine. So, no matter how plausible what you say may be, it will be ignored if you’re not a liberal and if you are a liberal, of course, you probably agree with liberal views. This sort of close-mindedness makes liberals nearly impervious to any information that might undermine their beliefs.

2) Liberals sources of information are ever present. Conservatives are regularly exposed to the liberal viewpoint whether they want to be or not. That’s not necessarily so for liberals. Imagine the average day for liberals. They get up and read their local newspaper. It has a liberal viewpoint. They take their kids to school, where the teachers are liberal. Then they go to work, listen to NPR which has a liberal viewpoint on the way home, and then turn on the nightly news which also skews leftward. From there, they turn on TV and watch shows created by liberals that lean to the left, if they have any political viewpoint at all. Unless liberals actively seek out conservative viewpoints, which is unlikely, the only conservative arguments they’re probably going to hear are going to be through the heavily distorted, poorly translated, deeply skeptical lens of other liberals.

3) Liberals emphasize feeling superior, not superior results. Liberalism is all about appearances, not outcomes. What matters to liberals is how a program makes them FEEL about themselves, not whether it works or not. Thus a program like Headstart, which sounds good because it’s designed to help children read, makes liberals feel good about themselves, even though the program doesn’t work and wastes billions. A ban on DDT makes liberals feel good about themselves because they’re “protecting the environment” even though millions of people have died as a result. For liberals, it’s not what a program does in the real world; it’s about whether they feel better about themselves for supporting it.

4) Liberals are big believers in moral relativism. This spins them round and round because if the only thing that’s wrong is saying that there’s an absolute moral code, then you lose your ability to tell cause from effect, good from bad, and right from wrong. Taking being non-judgmental to the level that liberals do leaves them paralyzed, pondering “why they hate us” because they feel incapable of saying, “That’s wrong,” and doing something about it. If you’re against firm standards and condemning immoral behavior, then your moral compass won’t work and you’ll also be for immorality, as well as societal and cultural decay by default.

5) Liberals tend to view people as parts of groups, not individuals. One of the prejudices of liberalism is that they see everyone as part of a group, not as an individual. This can lead to rather bizarre disparities when say, a man from a group that they consider to be powerless, impoverished victims becomes the leader of the free world — and he’s challenged by a group of lower middle class white people who’ve banded together because individually they’re powerless. If you listen to the liberal rhetoric, you might think Barack Obama was a black Republican being surrounded by a KKK lynching party 100 years ago — as opposed to the single most powerful man in America abusing the authority of his office to attack ordinary Tea Partiers who have the audacity to speak the truth to power for the good of their country.

6) Liberals take a dim view of personal responsibility. Who’s at fault if a criminal commits a crime? The criminal or society? If someone creates a business and becomes a millionaire, is that the result of hard work and talent or luck? If you’re dirt poor, starving, and haven’t worked in 5 years, is that a personal failing or a failure of the state? Conservatives would tend to say the former in each case, while liberals would tend to say the latter. But when you disconnect what an individual does from the results that happen in his life, it’s very difficult to understand cause and effect in people’s lives.

…(read more)…

RPT’s Thoughts on Ron Paul

Published August 23, 2011May 5, 2017 by Papa Giorgio

Ron Paul DENIES conspiratorial beliefs about 9/11

Ron Paul AFFIRMS his belief in 9/11 conspiracies

The only thing that changed in the above videos is a public vs. a private setting.

American Spectator Article ~ Jeffrey Lord

The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present. ~ Jeffrey Lord

I was recently asked what I think about Ron Paul, and I realized that often I find myself in many-a-discussion about him. So I figured that I would post this larger commentary on him in order to simply reference it in the future rather than have many small discussion on Ron Paul. Before I continue however, I wish to state a few positive things about him to start.

I would love an administration to put him in charge of auditing the Federal Reserve… I think that would be one of the greatest things to happen to this bureaucracy called government. He knows the Constitution well, and the like. But I focus on my dislikes of him more than the likes, only because I deal with many people who do not really know Ron Paul enough to come to a conclusion negatively about him.

Firstly, the voter who would pull the lever for Ron Paul if given a chance is wide and varied… and I think this is the case for a multitude of reasons. Pot-heads like him because he is a Presidential candidate that wants to nix most laws against drugs. These people are not necessarily Libertarians (or even anarchists), and may want to increase the size and scope of government in the “cradle-to-grave” sense of social programs, but similar to some religious conservative’s position on single-issues (abortion for instance), they vote for Ron because in their mind’s eye this is the most important issue. That is, getting stoned without being arrested. These are typically Democrats or Green Party members in their voting habit when they do vote Party lines.

Obviously Libertarians (capital “L”) enjoy Ron Paul because he truly wishes to reduce the size of government to a level that most Ayn Rand style libertarians wish, as well as many conservatives. Where conservatives and capital “L” Libertarians differ is on drug laws, prostitution laws, and defense. For instance, Ron Paul often times talks about the Founder and their wanting to stop America from being embroiled in conflicts that didn’t involve the an immediate threat to our sovereignty. However, American history shows that the Founders embroiled our nation on many countries shores. I recommend the book that this quote comes from:

This was to be the first of many times that an American president would plot to overthrow a foreign government—a dangerous game but one that the Jefferson administration found as hard to pass up as many of its successors would. Wrote Madison:

“Although it does not accord with the general sentiments or views of the United States to intermiddle in the domestic contests of other countries, it cannot be unfair, in the prosecution of a just war, or the accomplishment of a reasonable peace, to turn to their advantage, the enmity and pretensions of others against a common foe.”

Max Boot, The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, pp. 23-24.

(source)

Many lower case “l” libertarians (like Eric Dondero over at Libertarian Republican [who worked for Ron Paul for near 15-years] and author/lawyer/and radio host ~ Larry Elder) still consider themselves libertarians (lower case), but want to effect policy by keeping the core of the Republican party true to the Constitutional Republic that was originally set up by its Founders. In other words, they realize they will never win in a third party situation — thus making their influence on politics null-and-void. The best way to change policy is to keep the Republican Party closer to their “classical liberal”, or “paleo-liberal” roots of small government — thus making their influence effectual. These people (like myself, like Reagan, like many conservatarians) want to get rid the Federal Government of at least eight departments, for instance: the Dept. of Agriculture, the Dept. of Education, and the like.

Many conservative Christians also enjoy Ron Paul because he is deeply involved in the conspiratorial view of history. This fits nicely into a portion of a Christian’s eschatology. From the Illuminati, to 9/11, to the New World Order (NWO), there seems to be an affinity to messages coming from Alex Jones and the Ron Paulers’ that believe there is a secret cabal running the world. What is interesting to me is that many Christians (which, as you will come to realize, I lump myself into) do not challenge their own positions on applying their eschatology to history. If we are to test our own faith against some standard, how much more peripheral aspects of it?

They [Christians] “anesthetize” themselves with religious positions they think are a) proven, as well as b) being above the normal verification principle – because they are “religious” in nature. This, believe it or not, is also why many stoners like him. I have met many an “anesthetized” person who believes the World Trade Towers were taken down by some governmental involvement and they feel some sort of affinity to Alex Jones and/or Ron Paul because of it. In fact, I would bet from personal experience that those who still believe that believed Bush was involved in the terror attacks on the Trade Towers from the original 35% of Democrats are primarily stoners (and those from the Republicans are primarily Christians who apply the NWO to Revelation).

They anesthetize themselves with mind numbing drugs that disorder critical thinking like many religious people do (most unwittingly). I KNOW, I WAS ONE OF THEM!

I think here we should break for those religiously minded to learn how to think a bit more critically about positions taken on history and conspiracies:

Reading about the Cold War and the meeting between Mao, Stalin, and Ho Chi Minh, is a great example of what I mention about this “secret cabal” keeping secret and unified what some blame them of keeping secret and unified on ~ it’s impossible. Even with this spreading of Communism what started out as unified effort became disjointed and fractured. Why? Man’s nature. I do not speak of a secular view of mankind that much like Rousseau believe we are good in our base nature, but a Biblical one.

From a close aid that worked for Ron Paul for 12-years:

“He [Ron Paul] is however, most certainly Anti-Israel wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all.”

(Gateway Pundit ~ LR)

Man’s proclivity to selfishness and opportunity will stop him from working well with his cohorts. You see this in every facet of life! Which is why the religious view of this NOW is self-deleting in my mind’s eye… the Christian gives more credence to man than God does.

[Differences] “The progressive sees racism and other evils as stages to move beyond; they are national problems to be solved, not human problems to be guarded against and punished. In fact, these evils are often made possible by the odd progressive belief that man will stop being bad if he is no longer restricted from being bad.”

Dale A. Berryhill, The Assault: Liberalism’s Attack on Religion, Freedom, and Democracy, (Lafayette LA: Huntington House Publishers, 1995), 31.

I critique a conservative view of conspiracism in a post on the documentary, The Agenda: Grinding America Down. You see, I was once the biggest NWO believers, having over a hundred books on the topic and every documentary the American Opinion Bookstore (AOB) had on the subject. I would visit Ezola Fosters’ store (when she was closer to the AOB) and have short interactions here-and-there before the time she ran as VP with Pat Buchanan. I was a John Bircher for many years and my turning back to my faith after jail threw me headlong into the fun study of eschatology.

I must point out from a post a long-time back that these conspiracy theories that some of the authors and speakers highlighted in Agenda believe in ultimately explains nothing:

I was once the biggest New World Order (NWO) guy there was. Ralph Epperson was a god of conspiracy theories in my view of history. But when I started to draw these conclusions out to their logical ends and started tracking down references used by these writers, I found that this belief is just that, a belief.

Listen, I will give a parallel to one of the many reasons I reject Darwinism as a reason that includes the rejection of the conspiratorial view of history.

“The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more ‘fit,’ or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is ‘fit’ (otherwise it wouldn’t exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. [I will add here that there is no way to quantify those unknowable animal parts in regards to the many aspects that nature could or would impose on all those parts.] If an organism possesses features that appears on the surface to be an inconvenient – such as the peacock’s tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag – the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit. So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It ‘explains’ everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason…. The truth is that Darwinism is so shapeless that it can be enlisted is support of any cause whatsoever…. Darwinism has over the years been championed by eugenicists, social Darwinists, racialists, free-market economists, liberals galore, Wilsonian progressives, and National Socialists, to give only a partial list. Karl Marx and Herbert Spencer, Communists and libertarians, and almost anyone in between, have at times found Darwinism to their liking.”

From an article by Tom Bethell in The American Spectator (magazine), July/August 2007, pp. 44-46.

So to is the conspiratorial view of history (Bilderbergers, Council of Foreign Relations, Banking Institutions, Rosicrucians, The Knights Templars, on-and-on). It is used by Marxists to libertarians and anarchists, liberal and conservatives. If someone or something disproves an aspect of this theory that person is a “shill” or the fact has been planted. It explains everything and therefore nothing.

(source)

A great example of this is comments one can find all over the Net, every fact or discrepancy is explained by the theory:

Alex Jones is being used by the elite. Why would Barbara Walters, a member of the CFR, have someone like Alex Jones on her show [the View]?

It explains nothing. Speaking from experience however, over time, I myself saw conspiracy EVERYWHERE. But a few things happened.

The first red flag for me: The John Birch magazine (The New American) said the government was somehow involved with the Murrah Federal building in Kansas (William F. Jasper, “Proof of Bombs and Cover-up,” The New American 14, no. 15 [July 1998]: 10-15.). I talk a bit about my transition from conspiracy guy to “normal” guy in my chapter on postmodernism in the church (see pages 7-10 of my chapter in my book). This is much of the business that surrounds conspiracies, that is, “unnamed sources.”

The second red flag for me was Y2K: Mind you, this was one of the few scares that incorporated in its believers people from all religious and political persuasions. But the stuff being said would happen by conspiracy minded people proved to be the death knell for any objectivity I previously afforded them.

The third thing was Michael Medved: I started to listen to Michael Medved’s Conspiracy Show where, on every full moon people get to call in for the full three hours of his show and talk conspiracies. I then returned to many of these books and reevaluated them; this time not taking for granted the sweeping claims of history as fact, but checking them out. I followed references, tracked down quotes, and the like. I finally realized this was something that thinking Christians can reject.

WHAT does this have to with Ron Paul — I am sure you are wondering.

Well, Ron Paul was a big supporter of the ideas fueling the John Birch Society. I know this because of a lecture I sat in on by Ron Paul and talking to friends close to his reelection people. I even had a short convo with him (face-to-face) about this New American issue about the CIA being involved in the Oklahoma bombing). He intimated he thought something was very fishy. Ron Paul is a believer in this evil cabal that causes these big events and catastrophes in history (WWI, WWII, Communism, capitalism, 9/11, and the like). For instance, here he is responding to a question on this topic:

New World Order – One World Government

On the Bilderbergers

So the question becomes: What do political/racist-cults, crazy liberal Cindy Sheehan, Marxist/pro Gaddafi Cynthia McKinney, and Ron Paul all have in common?

The answer?

Alex Jones.

As well as a belief that the U.S. Government, via conspiracies, was either a) behind the World Trade Towers attack, or b) knew of the attack and moved to strip us of our rights and to make money on Wall Street, or c) both.

For those who don’t know, Alex Jones is an absolute nut. From UFO’s to mind-control, this guy covers it all. But he is best known for his view that there is a secret cabal of bankers and corporate bigwigs that control… well… everything. If there are facts that disprove his theory, those facts are merely planted. This “control of everything” means anything that disagrees with the conspiratorial position is itself a conspiracy.

See my Alex Jones section, HERE

Ron Paul regularly appears on his radio show for Prison Planet, even as recent as July of 2011 (the link works even though it is showing a strike through it). Even his “Daily Paul” site posts this song about being crazy like Alex Jones (the link works even though it is showing a strike through it). So besides aligning himself with the belief that Bush and others in government (and throughout history, the Illuminati) regularly attack our own interests, Ron Paul also works closely with those he says he stands against.

There use to be a video [now gone] of Alex Jones falsely asserting that Galileo was imprisoned for saying the earth is round. Everyone knew at the time of Galileo that the earth was round, nor was he imprisoned for this belief. My point here is that if he got this easily known historical fact wrong — how much more should you distrust his claims in regards to 9/11?

FOXNews talks about Ron Paul’s conspiracy views discussed after a debate in the 2008 nomination process:

Alex Jones interviews Cindy Sheehan during the DNC 2008

Remember, Cindy supports Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. The question is, how can “Constitutionalists” (something Alex Jones says of himself and Ron Paul) support these views? Take note as well of the photo’s shown during this audio presentation… this is the type of thinking that are riding on Ron Paul’s coat tails. This movement will be the root-cause (if there ever were to be one) of anarchy and WWIII, not bankers and corporate heads. Marxists love Ron Paul, Alex Jones, and Cindy Sheehan. They are “Revolutionaries,” not General Electric and Citi Bank:

Cynthia McKinney’s Speech on Alex Jones “Prison Planet”

The following couple videos will show that another person who appears on Alex Jones’ radio show and in one of his documentaries ~ALONGSIDE RON PAUL~ her belief in our involvement with 9/11, Iraq war mantras, anti-Israel, and the like.

Cynthia McKinney’s Exit from Congress.

Her “security detail” are from the New Black Panthers, who are Marxist in their politics. They are what I like to term a political cult. Here is a short clip about her security detail getting into a tussle with “white folk,” otherwise known as “crackers.” She is a racist and surrounds herself with racists (shown later):

This example of Ron Paul’s intimate relationship in the past with the John Birch Society, there crazy evolved conspiracies beyond the sounding of the group, with Alex Jones, and doing documentaries about 9/11 with Cynthia McKinney exclude Ron Paul from my list as a serious candidate in any respect. The last portion of this post should not be see as “guilt by coincidence,” but, “guilt by proxy.” Guilt by proxy is a much more powerful connection that by chance. Another reason I dislike him is that whenever he looses a primary run he always asks his followers to vote Green Party, or Independent, rather than Republican… another hint he is not truly a Republican!

This comes a day after the second round of “debates” between the 2012 Republican Presidential contenders. Here are some reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul.

For more clear thinking like this from Michael Medved… I invite you to become a Medhead: https://www.medvedmedhead.com/

Penn Jillette Talking About the 1st Amendment Without Historical Reference

Published August 23, 2011 by Papa Giorgio

Separation of Church and State

David Horowitz` Freedom Center and the Wednesday Morning Club Invites Andrew Breitbart to Speak (Q&A Included)

Published August 23, 2011 by Papa Giorgio

More Tales from the All-Unknowing Al Sharpton

Published August 22, 2011 by Papa Giorgio

Norah O`Donnell at CBS can`t believe Republicans would nominate a candidate who didn`t believe in Global Warming

Published August 22, 2011August 23, 2011 by Papa Giorgio

Here is an older referencing of the many dissenters of anthropogenic global warming:

32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

At a press conference on May 19, Arthur Robinson, Ph.D., announced the release of the names of 32,000 scientists who have signed a strongly worded petition dissenting from the alarmist assertions of Al Gore and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Fears of catastrophic human-caused global warming, requiring draconian energy rationing, are the basis for policies supported by all three leading Presidential candidates: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John McCain.

Al Gore claims that “the debate is over,” and that there are only a “few” remaining “skeptics.”

“In Ph.D. scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC project. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it,” states Robinson. Signers include more than 9,000 Ph.Ds.

Most signatures were obtained by mailing to lists of university professors and a compendium that constitutes a “Who’s Who” of American scientists.

“How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?” asks Lawrence Solomon (Financial Post 5/17/08). He reviews the history of previous petitions, including the Heidelberg Appeal, which ultimately obtained 4,000 signatures, including 72 Nobel Prize winners. In numbers, the Oregon Petition Project vastly exceeds all others, having gathered some 17,800 signatures in 2001—“all the more astounding because of the unequivocal stand these scientists took.”

“Not only did they dispute that there was convincing evidence of harm from carbon dioxide emissions, they asserted that Kyoto itself would harm the global environment because ‘increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth.’”

…(read more)….

GOOD NEWS! Fairness Doctrine No More

Published August 22, 2011November 26, 2017 by Papa Giorgio

This is somewhat related to my newer posts such as:

Democrat Camille Paglia notes the undemocratic nature of Democrats — via CAN I JUST FINISH MY WAFFLE:

“I don’t get it. I don’t get it.

The essence of the 1960’s was about free speech. That’s what Lenny Bruce and Berkley were about. It was about free speech.

And not for one second should the government be wandering into the surveillance or montoring of the ideological content of talk radio.

They have betrayed the soul of the democrat party to even mention this.

Every true liberal democrat should be standing up in defense of talk radio no matter how heinous they may think what is being said is.

This is immature — immature for people of one party to try to squelch or erase the thoughts of another.

Liberals have a strangle hold on the major media and have had for 50 years.

What more do liberals want?

Talk radio rose as a counter to that fact. And I talk as a democrat…

Here is some HERITAGE FOUNDATION background:

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, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule’s constitutionality should be reconsidered. 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.

As an independent regulatory agency, the FCC has the power to reimpose the doctrine without congressional or executive action. So far, the Commission has taken no position on the Hollings-Hefner legislation or expressed an interest in reregulating on its own. Current FCC Chairman James Quello, though, has stated that, “The fairness doctrine doesn’t belong in a country that’s dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.” (Doug Halonen, “Twelve to Watch in 1993,” Electronic Media, January 25, 1993, p. 66.) The Clinton Administration has not taken an official position on the legislation.

Supporters of reviving the fairness doctrine base their argument on the very same three faulty premises that the FCC and most judicial rulings have rejected.

Faulty Premise #1: The “scarce” amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Supporters of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Yet, just because the spectrum within which broadcast frequencies are found has boundaries, it does not mean that there is a practical shortage of views being heard over the airwaves. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only 2,881 radio and 98 television stations existed. By 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. Likewise, the number of radios in use jumped from 85.2 million in 1950 to 527.4 million by 1988, and televisions in use went from 4 million to 175.5 million during that period. (“The Fairness Doctrine,” National Association of Broadcasters, Backgrounder (1989).)

Even if it may once have been possible to monopolize the airwaves, and to deny access to certain viewpoints, that is impossible today. A wide variety of opinions is available to the public through radios, cable channels, and even computers. With America on the verge of information superhighways and 500-channel televisions, there is little prospect of speech being stifled.

Faulty Premise #2: “Fairness” or “fair access” is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is “fair” nor enforce it.

The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of “fairness” itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, “fairness” apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what “fair access” is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, “License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings.” (Thomas W. Hazlett, “The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment,” The Public interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, “We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue.” (Tony Snow, “Return of the Fairness Demon,” The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters “fairly” represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.

Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine “had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial h of public importance,” and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. (“FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine,” Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Even liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo has argued that, “Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press.” (Mario Cuomo, “The Unfairness Doctrine,” The New York Times, September 20, 1993, p. A19.)……

Here is a classic example of the debate in the 80’s: