An Atheist Educator

In his continued effort to unleash the truth upon the chief liar and spreader of misinformation, Clay Baiker steers John Williams back to his classic faux pas about the Fairness Doctrine.
And, wow, talk about a total take-down, Baiker pummels him.
—————
Clay Baiker

John Williams, that’s it? That’s your defense for documented lies, misinformation, and ignorance, that you don’t like my attitude?

You said “…didn’t you threaten a contractor by saying people should not use him?”

No, I didn’t. Why are you telling a lie that I did? This will have to be added to the list

You said “clay being condesending and attacks with ad hominem.”

Like I said, that you don’t like my attitude and that your self-esteem suffers making you think I am “condescending,” is not excuse for your many documented lies, misinformation, and ignorance.

You said “So who are the intolerant people here. Liberal democrats. The brown shirts would be proud!”

Of course, you then resort to invoking Godwin’s Law.

Why don’t you attempt (good luck with that) to explain your documented lies, misinformation, and ignoranceinstead of deflecting? Like I’ve said before, even if your claims about me were true, how does that erase yourdocumented lies, misinformation, and ignorance which are much more egregious than anything you falsely accuse me of.

 

John Williams

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE

fairness doctrine likely unconstitutional yet clay wants to bring it back to get rid of Rush Limbaugh and bring back Air America.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40009.pdf

Fairness doctrine would likely limit free speech.
https://www.heritage.org/government-regulation/report/why-the-fairness-doctrine-anything-fair

Removal of Fairness Doctrine allowed conservative talk shows (meaning it blocked them when in effect)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fairness-doctrine-in-one-post/2011/08/23/gIQAN8CXZJ_blog.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.8887d27be11b

Fairness Doctrine likely to increase lawsuits limiting free speech.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/96594/

It was Republicans who complained that the doctrine was a way to discourage controversial speech, and the doctrine’s fall precipitated the rise of conservative talk radio.
https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/sz%C3%B3ka-warns-hill-against-web-fairness-doctrine

In February 1989, the FCC concluded that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the Fairness Doctrine had been unconstitutional because it “restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters”.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-lead-to-the-demise-of-respectful-political-discourse_us_58b33175e4b0658fc20f96f6

It is DEMOCRATS who want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”.

How come clay doesn’t want to bring the fairness doctrine to the newspapers and the main stream media. Because liberals own them and clay doesn’t want fairness, just liberal propaganda. He doesn’t want the Fairness Doctrine applied to NPR.

Clay Baiker

John Williams, you are WAYYYY off the mark. There are three major problem with your attempt to rehabilitate your soiled credibility:

#1 – it contains more lies

#2 – you are addressing issues around reinstating the Fairness Doctrine when our original discussion focused on it from a historical point, that is, what impacts it had.

#3 – you do not retract or even cover the lies from our original discussion

Let’s deal with #1 first. You said

“fairness doctrine likely unconstitutional yet clay wants to bring it back to get rid of Rush Limbaugh and bring back Air America.”

That is a lie. I NEVER claimed to want the Fairness Doctrine to return, or that I want to get rid of Rush Limbaugh (heck, I’ve been listening to him since he was in Sacramento), nor did I never comment about the value having of Air America one way or another. Why do you blatantly lie to defend your own lies?

It MAY be unconstitutional but that is undecided AND its constitutionality has nothing to do with the lies you told.

Dealing with #2, you said:

Fairness doctrine would likely limit free speech.
Fairness Doctrine likely to increase lawsuits limiting free speech.

The first is only opinion of a single judge. The second is simply an opinion piece from the Heritage Foundation and certainly contestable. (It is also interesting that YOU cite the Heritage Foundation, the organization responsible for the design of ObamaCare, a reality you ignore when that is brought up.)

What MIGHT happen has nothing to do with the lies and misinformation you told about what DID happen when the FD was in effect, which WAS the focus of the original discussion.

As for #3, none of this erases those LIES you told in the original discussion and, in fact, you double down on them here.

Let’s deal with your lies along with your new suggestions:

Removal of Fairness Doctrine allowed conservative talk shows (meaning it blocked them when in effect)

That is a complete lie and one you made before when you claimed that the FD “stifled” reporting of the news. This is the heart of your original lie and one the that I completely falsified.

I have asked you in the past that if it “it blocked them when in effect,” how do you account for the many conservative broadcasters who were on the air for decades, while the FD was in effect, many on a daily basis? And, if you listen to these broadcasts, and I have listened to hundreds of them, they are at least as extremist as the conservative talkers we have today. How is it possible if your claim is true?

Let’s take a look at my original falsification of your claim:

“Prior to 1987 when the Doctrine was repealed, there were plenty of politically bias shows on both radio and television and they were NOT giving “equal time” to the opposition. I suggest you look up H.L. Hunt and the programming he provided along with others like Dan Smoot, Billy James Hargis, and “God’s Angriest Man” Carl McIntire. Then there was William Buckley, Fulton Lewis, Charles Fuller, shows like “Answers for Americans,” “Life Line,” “The Fact Forum,” “The Voice of Americanism,” and all the radio and TV content produced by the John Birch Society and played on radio and TV stations across the country.”

How do you account for all of that if “it blocked them when in effect?”

That IS the main point you avoid addressing. It is your MAIN LIE.

You said “It was Republicans who complained that the doctrine was a way to discourage controversial speech, and the doctrine’s fall precipitated the rise of conservative talk radio.”

The truth is more complex. Republicans/conservatives had plenty of coverage and access during the FD as I pointed out before, so that claim is specious at best. That the demise of the FD led to the increase in conservative talk is true, HOWEVER, not because that content was blocked previously WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED. It was NOT blocked.

Here is what actually took place. Broadcasters knew for decades that because of the nature of how conservative talk worked, how it fed the fear factor of conservatives, and how outrage created an addictive factor in that audience, they wanted to have 24/7 conservative talk if they could because it was MORE VALUABLE in terms of advertising dollars. Not having to offer opposing and varied views allowed them to maximize profits. You see, it’s all about the money.

And what about your claim:

“People were demanding equal time on air FOR FREE. This meant that stations were afraid to put on political shows for fear of too many requests to respond.”

That was wrong on two counts:

1) the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with the “equal time requirement”
2) the equal time requirement only applied to political candidates, not the general public

This was a MAJOR lie of yours and one you continue to ignore.

Finally you said “How come clay doesn’t want to bring the fairness doctrine to the newspapers and the main stream media.”

The reason the Fairness Doctrine was only applied to to broadcasters is because they are using public airwaves that are a limited resource.

You said “Because liberals own them and clay doesn’t want fairness, just liberal propaganda. He doesn’t want the Fairness Doctrine applied to NPR.”

All lies, which is what you still do. You are still ignorant about how the Fairness Doctrine worked, what effect it had, and you still have it confused with the equal time requirement.

Advertisements

Yes, it has been a while but it is time for some updates.

Over on the HelenaIR things are about the same with some commenters bringing truth to the masses and others spreading misinformation as their only defense in the face of facts.

Long-time commenter MtMadeMan (AKA: Marvin Marshawn, John Williams, et al.) has ramped up his misinformation campaign.  One of the high points (or low points) was when he went off as a know-it-all about the Fairness Doctrine last July.  Commenter Clay Baiker took him for a ride through history and John Williams kept digging himself a deeper and deeper hole as he revealed he knew nothing about the Fairness Doctrine other than what he probably picked up on Rush Limbaugh’s show.

Since John Williams is reticent to admit to his lies and failures, it’s about time to archive them here.

John Williams’ lies:

– that the Fairness Doctrine “stifled” reporting of the news (“The fairness doctrine made it nearly impossible to report the news……The fairness doctrine stifled the news.”)

– lies about the equal time requirement

– lies about education with a study that refuted his claims

– lies about when a fetus is a fetus

– lies about which party passed the Civil Rights act (“More conservatives voted for the Civil Rights Act than liberal democrats….”)

– lies about which president repealed the Fairness Docrine (“Also somebody pointed out after clay blamed Reagan for removing the Fairness Doctrine that is was actually Bill Clinton.”)

– claims without anything to back them up (“I also notice a HUGE number of liberals cheering for the economy to collapse.”)

– Why investment income is taxed at a lower rate than wages: “Because the money was already taxed once. And income is not guaranteed like wages.”

– “Obama hated Jews. Just look at how he treated Isreal.”

————

Clay Baiker commented regarding the GOP in Texas trying to outlaw the teaching of critical thinking skills in the public schools and that in Montana it is mandated by law to teach those skills. John Williams’ take:

“Clay has finally revealed his true agenda. A national re-education program to train the people in proper thinking. No doubt DNC approved thinking. Tell me clay, will the graduates of your re-education program get a tattoo on their arms to signify passing the test? The radical liberals agenda is revealed.”

When confronted with this later, John Williams said

“I don’t recall being against teaching critical skills. I think you are taking my comments out of context to fit your biased view of me.”

————
Another one of his whoppers:

John Williams said “After all Al Gore predicted the poles would be ice free by now.”

Clay Baiker respeonded:

Al Gore didn’t predict that. He was reporting what one scientist said.

In fact, let’s look at what he said in that video:

“…some of the models suggest that there is a 75% chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice free in the next 5 to 7 years.”

Notice the words “north polar” and “some of the models” and “75% chance” and “during some of the summer.”

That is NOT what John said: “<b>the poles would be</b> ice free by now.”

————

Then there was his fallacious attack on Joe Biden:

John Williams Jan 18, 2018 11:20am
You must be delusional. OLD Joe gropes while being photographed.

That was thoroughly debunked here:

https://www.snopes.com/joe-biden-grope-photograph/

———-

Some more of his lies:

“Evil never takes a day off, even Christmas, i.e., clay.”

“FYI, clay is never right, but according to him he is never wrong.”


 

This is, of course, just a sample but it should give any reader an idea of how he has zero credibility.

It’s time to update the goings on at the HelenaIR, one of the few news sites that still permits anonymous commenting.

Several commenters have been pummeling The General and this guy must really be a glutton for punishment because he keeps coming back for more.

In a recent article about Governor Bullock exploring a presidential run, we have this dialog:

michele O’brien Jul 18, 2017 4:49pm

Yes! And maybe I will run for Pope!!!

Clay Baaker Jul 18, 2017 5:09pm

michele O’brien said “And maybe I will run for Pope!!!”

Why, do you have a thing for altar boys?

John Williams Jul 18, 2017 8:34pm

clay again with the ad hominem attacks with an added layer of homophobia.

 

You see that?!?!?  Clay takes a shot at michele and gets a dig in at the Catholics and their crimes of promoting and covering up pedophilia in their ranks.  The General sees those crimes as acceptable by his retort that Clay is being homophobic.

Is The General that lame?  Is he that much of a simpleton that he doesn’t realize what he just said?  Or is he really giving pedophilia a pass?

Maybe a bit of all of those.

On the HelenaIR, if you put a BB in can and rattle it around, this is what you get:

“It was Hillary Clinton who said that not accepting the results of the election was horrifying and un-American. Shortly after she lost she questioned the election. Since the election liberal Democrats have done nothing but question the election and say it was stolen. Liberals have rioted and destroyed property. They have beaten people they disagree with. They have shut down free speech with violence and celebrated their denial of others to speak. They have shut down parades with threats of violence. They have threatened to blow up the White House. They have asked for the military to overthrow the President. They say that they will not accept President Trump. They say Republicans are the threat to society. But it is the liberal Democrats who are creating all of the violence. Because they are the new fascist “Brown Shirts” trying to destroy the country. They are the ones who are un-American.”

This from the “mind” of Jack or John, probably the commenter formerly known as MtMadeMan/Marvin Marshawn.  It is a summary of pretty much every comment he has ever made.  Just compare this to a summary provided here over two years ago:

A new general in the house

One would think that after being shown in error so many times that a bit of learning would take place, but no, this one is only interested in maintaining his bifurcated worldview and makes his idiotic comments to continually reinforce those for himself and stem the clanging of cognitive dissonance that those who pummel him with facts and logic bring upon him.  He is just another example of someone who can’t discuss a topic with an level of intellectual prowess, but works from the position that whatever he already thinks must be right and he needs to defend it at any cost.  After all, it’s his own ego that is at stake.

And, just like his rube-cousin dietz1963, he will not admit when he is in error.  He runs away from the discussion and then claims:

“I also see the ole’ Greggie boy thinks that I have nothing other to do than to answer his prattle. He also uses propaganda to insinuate that because I have not jumped into his muddy fray I am avoiding his pigsty because of some ASSumed fear.”

The “fear” reference is hardly “assumed.”

We know from current neurological research that the “conservative” brain DOES work off of fear.  For some that is greater than others.  Just check this out,

Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds

Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives’ Political Attitudes

Jack/John could be the poster child for these results.  Even after Trump wins the election and the GOP controls both houses of Congress, Jack/John is still railing against the liberals and Democrats.  He can’t even enjoy the victory of the right because he is so overcome with fear.  Just reread his comment that opened this article.

But, let’s face it, it’s great that people like him give us direct incite into the fear-based conservative simple mind.  It’s an opportunity to expose it for the low-intellect, reptilian-brain behavior that it is.

It also needs to be said that Jack/John and his ilk do not represent ALL conservatives by any means.  There are great conservative thinkers out there, we just don’t see them as commenters on the HelenaIR.  What we do see are commenters like Jack/John attacking the likes of George Will because thinkers like Will are able to process these things at a level the that rubes will never achieve.  Will, generally, writes over their heads, even with his metaphors and analogies, like in his recent column, where he said:

“Government policy is like a Calder mobile — touch something here and things jiggle over there. “

How many of the rubes even know what a “Calder mobile” is?  Some might have looked it up but we can just imagine them staring off into space trying to understand what Will meant by it.  Let’s face it, it’s above their pay grade.

 

 

 

It’s been a bit of time since the HelenaIR did a massive house cleaning and sent many of the most active commenters on the site packing.  For the most part this has been a very good move.  No longer do we have to deal with the likes of dietz1963/Michael Di/Stephen Di and his uninformed musings, his outright lies about others, and his false bravado that was so easily turned into mush with a few whacks from the Stick of Logic.

It is obvious that some former commenters are still active either under their original persona or new ones.  What is really different is that even though there are opposing viewpoints offered, the dialog doesn’t immediately digress into the the rote of personal attacks, fueled primarily by the likes of dietz1963 and getaclue.  Speaking of getaclue, he was banned for his idiocy and has, most likely, resurfaced under more than one nom de plume and is generally ignored since his comments are nothing more than pure snark.

Supporting all causes conservative we have John Williams who carries the “us versus them” banner on high and avoids engaging in dialog where he knows his position is vulnerable.  He does battle primarily with Matt Cahill who, generally, puts him in his place.

Truth and logic is upheld by The Bees, Bob Balhiser and Bill Bentley.  Always quick with the facts and an occasional witticism, they raise the level of dialog out of the swamp that was created by dietz1963, MtMadeMan, getaclue, countrydoc, dolphind3, and their troll buddies.

And we have Greg Baker, never short on opinions, able to back things up with facts, and he brings in a dose or two of humor.

It has also been interesting to watch how the HelenaIR has tweaked their site to make commenting less, well, convenient.  In the past, the most recent opinion pieces were listed on the front page, under Opinion, and the comment count made it easy to see which one was the most “trending.”  I am sure many commenters would hit the site and rapidly scroll down to that section to participate in the dialog.  Now that section is continually populated with column from some news service that provides what amounts to academic’s views of the world.  Not only are these pieces not specific to Montana, for the most part the topics are boring and writers appear to be doing little more than performing mental masturbation.  That these articles rarely receive a comment indicates the truth of this but probably also shows that they achieve the goal of the site’s online manager.

 

Someone really has their panties in a bunch at the Helena IR regarding the recent mass banning of commenters.  This wannabe “Inspector” is now trolling the site whining about how “Greg Baker” is really James Daggett or Atheist Educator or whomever and they all need to be banned from the site.  He parades around under the moniker Javier Escondo and is making a bit of a nuisance of himself.  Here are a few of his comments:

 

Javier Escondo Mar 12, 2017 9:09am

You are totally wrong sir. Atheist Educator, James Dagget and Greg Baker…..all the same person, still commenting, still lying, still demeaning, still stirring up trouble. I guess the rules dont apply to liberals, and neither does free speech.
EDITOR: I demand an answer from you on why you continue to allow AE, James Dagget aka Greg Baker to comment? I demand his expulsion immediately! He/she has broken the rules, by your own law, ban him/her!

 

Javier Escondo Mar 11, 2017 7:16am

You mean nice to see Lee allows liberal commenters? People are now banned or have been banned for voicing their opinions, I would like to introduce you to the new age, aka anti constitutionalism, aka communism. Very much like Hitler did, the IR news is banning people from commenting that they do not like the opinion of. Sickening!

 

Javier Escondo Mar 11, 2017 7:15pm

More lies from the “ban” er in chief. You are such a fool it’s hard to read without getting a headache.
You are he alt-left, you are more bigoted than anyone here, you don’t even understand what the term “bigot” means. I love it when you alternative fact revelers use he term “rhetoric” you can’t even use the term in a sentence pertaining to its meaning, and you claim to be educated?
Lacfiado’s………
Btw, why did you ban other posters? Can’t handle the truth? Why did you change your name yet again? Something you want to share?
Don’t ban me bro!

 

Javier Escondo Mar 11, 2017 7:40pm

What would you think if your mothers told you you were aborted? Oh yea, you wouldn’t think anything.

 

Javier Escondo Mar 11, 2017 7:13am

Why? Did he do something you disagreed with? looks like his banning was your doing Greg, how many have you cried about and had banned. Or, how do you know he is banned? And who are you really?
This is shameful, you guys always cry about tolerance, yet you cannot practice what you preach? I guess I am next? Yes, ban me too, ban the Mexican!
What line was crossed, seriously, I would like to know what Dan did that you so vehemently disagreed with that you have gotten away with?
Enough with the banning, enough with the deleting, if you cannot accept someone else’s opinion then ban commenting altogether. My god, this site is as bad as the Facebook site, nothing but aliases and phony profiles. Time for you to go, all of you since we all know you are fake!
I got an idea HR. How about, you charge people to comment. Charge them a .01 fee to a credit card that has real names on it and that is how you get your name posted, from your credit card. That will take care of people acting like pseudo intellectuals since they will have their names online!

Javier Escondo Mar 11, 2017 7:16pm

I’m waiting for an answer. Answer my question you cowardous fool!

 

Javier Escondo Mar 12, 2017 9:13am

Matt:”The Republican Party has quietly watched the alarming two-year rise in hate crimes and hate speech against Jews, people of color and other marginalized groups across Montana and the US. ”
You mean the trashing of cemeteries by democrats who tried to paint it as a right wing or republican act?
Or how about those bomb threats, made by a Obama supporting African American? Do you people even think before you write a LTE? THere are thousands of instances across the nation where these “hate” crimes were proven to be done by your folks. Yes of course there is hate on the right, but the left exemplifies it.

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

 

So, there you have it.  Another raving loon who can’t handle the truth.  As for the identity of this unhappy person, does it really matter?  Of course not.  He was never considered a credible source of anything and was always a prime example of the DunningKruger effect.  He is intimated by the cognitive skills of others and this inferiority causes him to lash out instead of improving himself.  He plays the ultimate victim.  It’s always the fault of someone else whenever he loses, which is often when the game is one of intellect.

Am I close, DP?

 

 

It was recently mentioned in the press that “Mike Gulledge named publisher of the Missoulian, Ravalli Republic in regional restructure.”  It appears that one of his first acts was to eliminate online commenting on that paper’s site just as had been eliminated on his other paper’s site, the Billings Gazette.  Here is the Missoulian’s rationale.

Considering that the level of discussion on the Missoulian had declined in the past year, particularly from a commenter, “Ross,” it probably comes as no surprise.

Speaking of “Ross,” if you aren’t familiar with him but are familiar with commenters on the Helena IR, Ross is the twin of Dan Richardson/getaclue.  And, after a year or two of what fully defines “trolling” and attempts at starting “flame wars,” Dan/getaclue has been banned from the Helena IR.

Over on this thread, The bad, the ugly and the good: The Trump Effect in Montana, a LTE from the ACLU, Dan/getaclue jumped in with his usual inane attacks and made references to “lies” that he saw in the LTE. He claimed that Trump was planning of prosecuting anyone who spreads “fake news” and other false information and that the ACLU would be brought up on criminal charges.  He, of course, was wrong.  One commenter ever reminded him that he had posted a fake news web site a few months ago so he, and Trump himself, would be in line for prosecution themselves.

Dan/getaclue, went on a posting tirade, several that I missed reading, and it appears that the Helena IR had enough of this troll and banned his account.  Going to his user profile yields the evidence:  https://helenair.com/users/profile/getaclue/

So, Dan/getaclue goes the way of his comrade in arms, deitz1963, leaving the comment threads open to the thinkers.  The stench of their presence is barely a memory.