TexasCHLforum.com

hpcatx wrote:J Allen, I would suggest that this was one of the balances the framers sought when promoting limited national regulation through federalism. When decisions such as this are more regional, they can better represent the local populous -- which might be less diverse than a national snapshot. Of course, we've long since left that balance and it's arguable that these principles could ever be applied to radio/television broadcasts which naturally transcend state boundaries.

The melting pot has eroded even the regional tastes and attitudes, these days. In my youth, more so than now, New Englanders could be counted on to have certain characteristics of attitude, speech, conduct, with some outliers of course. Texans were famous for a certain persona, mostly exaggerated, of course, which not all exuded, but which were to a certain extent typical borne out of shared lifestyles, weather patterns, ancestries of the old settlers, etc. Texans had wet, and dry, counties intermingle, the anti saloon law, blue laws, and forbade branch banking and other eccentricities long after those features had mostly disappeared in the rest of the country.

We've always had to deal with people whose manners, attitudes, morals were different than what we believed was right.

rotor wrote:jimlongley, watch whatever you want. Perhaps this is not a civil debate anymore. Certainly not worth argueing about.

And I will also trust the FCC, in the absence of a better choice, to stand watch over the airwaves for me.

Although if it is not worth arguing about, I have to wonder why you kept on for so long.