So your point was all along that you would welcome the competition? I'll bet nobody on here would've read that into how you phrased things.

Well here's what I would hope you come away with from this. First, I'm not a liberal. I'm not a conservative. I'm not left. I'm not right. I judge questions and issues on their merit and I clearly responded to you that I was in no way put off with the idea of any group owning parts of the media. My only gripe would be any one group owning a huge part of the media no matter what their political affilliation. I would think though that our current anti-trust laws would prevent that.

I don't want the government dictating what the media should be. I'd hope the American people were the ones smart enough to use their buying power to dictate that. That's what free enterprise is all about. However, history has shown clearly that unbridled free enterprise has the potential for huge abuses (such as abject fascism). I think we, as citizens and consumers have the ability to also control that risk but it may be necessary for governmental leaders to stifle the risk as well with legislative constraints.

The Constitution wasn't written to give rights to huge corporations and ultra-powerful men. It clearly addressed the individual. There's a fine line between allowing that individual to become, through overwhelming wealth, so much more powerful than the rest of the citizens that they begin to take rights, privacy, and freedoms away from them.

Ultimately it has to be a balance. Both left and right tend to argue against that fearing that unless they get the balance tipped their way, they're vulnerable to takeover. I just can't buy into that line of thinking.

Art