16 Jun 09 08:23, TOM WALKER wrote to ROY WITT:


 RW>> RW>> TW> Then when ihs version of the "Fairness
Doctrine"(NO matter
 RW>> what
 RW>> RW>> they
 RW>> RW>> TW> call it) will cut off theri most effective method of
 RW>> RW>> communicating.

 RW>> RW>> Rush says that they'll not be able to legislate him off the
 RW>> radio,
 RW>> RW>> because the EIB won't be subject to that Fairness BS, since he
 RW>> owns
 RW>> RW>> it. And then, there's always sattellite radio.

 RW>> TW> Well How many Transmittiong Stations does he OWN.

 RW>> Contracts, remember contracts?

 TW> Under and re-inacted "Fairness Doctrine Contracts would be
 TW> basicly and if the station was Froced by Lawsuit to carry them out
 TW> ther WOULD NOT BE RENEWED!!!

By the same token, forced by law suit to live up to the contract or pay a
big amount of money for compensation to void it. In order for the
'contract' to be voided without compensation to the injured party, your
'fairness doctrine' would have to void such contracts. Of course, all of
this would be decided in court and not over O'bama's desk.

                R\%/itt

Joy lives in the fight, in the attempt, in the suffering involved, not in
the victory itself.

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000