Senator Stabnow (D) Mich is Pushing for "Fairness Doctrine"

[GarfieldJL]

That's why it's so bad; it allowed the government to take as much power as needed. Hence why they created the Department of Homeland Security, yet another agency to watch over the public, as if we didn't have enough. In a time or national emergency, order becomes disrupted, allowing for anyone to take control; it has been done in the past, it will be done again.

 

That isn't going to fly because Bush would still be in power if that was the case.

 

Do conservative blogs count?

 

When they provide sources, and the sources corroborate what they say, and the source is legit and/or on the opposite side of the spectrum.

 

And you're the one who likes to poke at every little association of Mr. Obama, so you're equally guilty of smearing him.

 

I haven't even scratched the surface on Obama's associations, and that's the scary thing. I do view some associations as being offlimits, I'm not out on a witchhunt.

 

Bush? He lacks the cunning. The mastermind would be Cheney.

 

Again, that doesn't fly because they didn't take over the country.

 

Either way, you're paranoid about a liberal president destroying America.

...so you're still on the far right.

 

I'm actually not being paranoid, did you hear about his Chief of Staff having tax troubles too? Excuse me but that's how many people that got by his vetting process? Either he's an incompetitent idiot or it's a pattern.

 

...and yet others wish to lynch him.

 

That's them, I'm actually hoping that I'm wrong, but everything I've found thus far indicates that I'm right, as does his actions thus far.

 

well then, since it was right after we were attacked, case closed, i guess we don't need to worry especially when there's this facist fairness thing coming down the line i mean only the president of the united states opposes it if you don't count anybody else who disagrees with it that should be our #1 priority not warrantless searches and wiretapping and the government being able to monitor almost everything you do

 

If that were the case, you'd be in jail by now as would half the Mainstream Media.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

f that were the case, you'd be in jail by now as would half the Mainstream Media.

well i dont know if i can refute such flawless logic

 

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17244res20040415.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17246res20040415.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_patriot.html

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Suzref/patriot-act/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

[GarfieldJL]

http://action.aclu.org/reformthepatriotact/215.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17346leg20030320.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17244res20040415.html

http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/17246res20040415.html

 

Couldn't care less what the ACLU claims if they're your star-witness your case is in serious trouble.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act#Controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act_controversy

 

Haven't you said before that Wikipedia isn't a good source when it comes to contraversial issues.

 

http://feingold.senate.gov/issues_patriot.html

 

Here is a source to sit down and read but it is only talking hypotheticals, not giving instances of abuse.

 

http://www.lib.washington.edu/Suzref/patriot-act/

 

Uh if you look at the source's title it sounds more like a left-wing blog site than a University.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

 

Okay this article is kind of legit, but it missed the point, we're talking about two seperate issues, stiffling political opposition and trying to keep our sources of intelligence from being compromised.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Couldn't care less what the ACLU claims if they're your star-witness your case is in serious trouble.

welp, guess you can just ignore it outright. but wait, two of the aclu articles i linked to are collections of excerpts from conservatives and regardless of your preconceptions of the aclu their opinion is just as legitimate as anyone else's on this matter.

 

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

[GarfieldJL]

welp, guess you can just ignore it outright. but wait, two of the aclu articles i linked to are collections of excerpts from conservatives and regardless of your preconceptions of the aclu their opinion is just as legitimate as anyone else's on this matter.

 

Then why did you just post the ACLU articles, link to their sources and post those?

[True_Avery]

Then why did you just post the ACLU articles, link to their sources and post those?

To prove that you are more than ready to push someone else's opinions and facts aside due to your own skewed preconceptions, opting for only right sided conservative blogs over any other source that doesn't fit your world view.

 

Congrats on proving us right.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

To prove that you are more than ready to push someone else's opinions and facts aside due to your own skewed preconceptions, opting for only right sided conservative blogs over any other source that doesn't fit your world view.

 

Congrats on proving us right.

 

this plus i was too lazy to link each individual one.

[GarfieldJL]

so you're saying you believe that because the national enquirer said they're more credible than the nyt. thanks. that's really all i needed to hear.

 

No, I said that they had a higher standard of sourcing than the New York Times did especially concerning running page one stories about political figures. At least their story about John Edward's was accurate unlike the New York Times hitpiece on John McCain.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

and you're backing that up with a statement from the national enquirer.

 

 

 

gg

[GarfieldJL]

and you're backing that up with a statement from the national enquirer.

 

jmac, I'm not saying the Enquirer is a credible source, I'm saying the New York Times when it is concerning Republicans is even less credible than the the Enquirer.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

yes. i get that. i can read. i'm saying a guy from the national enquirer saying the same thing isn't confirmation of that.

[GarfieldJL]

yes. i get that. i can read. i'm saying a guy from the national enquirer saying the same thing isn't confirmation of that.

 

jmac, when you have two sources that have a grudge against someone because they were fired by that person because they were doing unethical behavior, would you consider those people to be valid sources when they hold a grudge against someone. And these two individuals were the only sources for the New York Times article.