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

[GarfieldJL]

That is an extremely paranoid and alarmist stance. There is no evidence for Obama's administration to manipulate the census, and I'm sure it's just more of Fox News' typical anti-Obama tactics, as always.

 

Explains why MSNBC also reported it but said it was perfectly understandible and a good thing...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29046718/

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Explains why MSNBC also reported it but said it was perfectly understandible and a good thing...

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29046718/

Yes, yes it does. Your point?

[Darth Avlectus]

People can have their own opinions. Although I will admit that it does seem rather unproffessional. I prefer news/media that is generally neutral. Of course this may be near impossible because everyone has their own biases.

While I didn't agree with the politics of Tim Russert, I respect the guy because he was, in my humble opinion, the last of objectivity in journalism.

 

Just out of curiousity, what is the dangerous situation this country is in right now?

From your perspective.

 

Not sure of his perspective but mine:

 

Regarding the fairness doctrine itself, if Obama opposes it for real, then he has common sense. If Obama isn't for real, that would be foolish for him. However let us steer away from him and his Obama maniacs shall we?

 

So, Stanbow is pushing for it? He's a fool--unless he wants freedom of speech to be controlled.

 

A fairness doctrine would basically require all the media to adopt the opposite viewpoint for some significant air time period (50%, something like that?).

Since the majority of left wing media would be forced (I mean if it IS actually going to live up to its namesake and *TRULY* be fair) to adopt right wing viewpoints for a good bit of the time...well those on the left would be shooting themselves in the foot. Now instead of having the roughly 70/30 political monopoly over the media they have now, it would be 50/50 again.

 

Whoops.

 

If it has primarily the goal of weakening right wing talk radio in mind, this would backfire drastically. They would be doing themselves more harm than good to enact it just to lash out at conservative media.....unless they had something larger in mind? Perhaps, but I won't get into BS conspiracy theory.

 

If "fairness" has gotten a new definition I don't know about: to in fact destroy and eradicate any right wing media whatsoever so that only moderate and left remain. Then those pushing it are making a very smart decision for themselves.

 

To which I would respond: I thought the motto was "country first"? Guess I thought wrong. Say bye-bye to the first amendment.

 

As-is, the ball is in their home court the left has the advantage in media--don't ruin it for yourself.

 

So why wouldn't those on the right support it? That is because it gives government control over freedom of speech--how ever subtle it may be.

The subtle stuff is usually not watched carefully and snowballs over time. That's not domino fallacy--that's the way things happen, just anyone knows this.

 

Government control is a double edged sword and can cut both ways. Whose going to stop the government--more government? The people subjugated their freedom of speech? HAAAA! Kick them out of office after law is enacted? Too late.

 

Clarification: Cut both ways as in help or hinder, especially where freedoms are at stake--not just regulate to mutually benefit both parties.

 

...and yet, with the government and media controlled so utterly and completely by "the left", you poor persecuted right-wingers still managed to push through the PATRIOT ACT

 

I'd just like to clarify something:

Bush was more a best of both worlds self-serving RINO than conservative: Don't think that *every* conservative blindly, unquestioningly, and absolutely embraced it. I remember how (then) lesser known right wing radio talk show hosts (Laura Ingram, Mark Levin, Michael Savage) were lambasting radio host Rush Limbaugh for his absolute support of it and the president--paying no heed to the way it takes away personal freedoms.

 

While the right wing is for better protections, yes, the right wing is also against bigger government (an argument the left uses often in numerous areas). There were conservatives torn up about it and quite wary that it gave so many indiscriminant government controls over things and snuffed out personal freedoms.

 

The media has always been to the left. News corporations are their own entities. They can, just like anything else, choose what to report and how to report it. Even if they use freedom of speech to deprecate freedom of speech. Again protected under the first amendment.

 

The Fairness Doctrine works both ways. If you're concerned with all the media in the States being biased to the left, then I'd have thought you'd be for regulations making them objective, not against?

 

Because not all on the right are not that short sighted--to do something to potentially sacrifice freedom of speech just to get a quick and easy advantage over leftist media monopoly. Even a clear cut victory in media means nothing if the principle on which it is founded is sacrificed and destroyed.

 

Please try to understand the apprehension that, while something ideally sounds nice on paper, S*** (quite often) does happen. Practically--that would be another matter.

 

PEOPLE run the government, so for the same reason capitalism unfettered becomes monopoly, government can also become a fascistic nightmare: human nature.

 

Counter that by enforcing it with machines and computers? AND What ultimately gives the orders to those machines, and programs the computers? (Thanks in advance.)

 

Regulations only seem to work when there is (regardless of political alignment) strong leadership and management that doesn't look the other way.

Selective enforcement and copping an attitude saying that something is "unenforceable" is how it begins to break down. We wouldn't even know about that happening until it is too late and the goniffs are already securely in office and screwing things up nicely for us all.

 

If regulations to keep things ACTUALLY fair in media were not subject to selective enforcement by weasel senators (that'll be the day:smirk2:)--I would be all for it. Untouchable will never happen.

 

A big reason for corruption is bribes? Why stop there? Half the reason bribes succeed is due to lack of character in taking bribes. Don't discount individual integrity.

 

"So what's the big deal, enact it already."

OH you mean like the patriot act you accused every conservative of being totally for? --Without review and revision to ensure it actually is fair, with some guarantee it won't be ****ed up by some weasel for personal gain? No thanks. LEAVE the first amendment alone.

[GarfieldJL]

Now it is Senator Harkin from Iowa also a Democrat, that is pushing for the "Fairness Doctrine" as well.

[Kurgan]

Sorry everyone... I don't support my Senator there!

 

*Wishes someone like Ron Paul was President instead*

 

 

On the subject of the Iraq war, the point is that the Left as well as the Right supported the war at the start, which is why it happened, NOT because of some "right wing bias" in the media or because somehow the GOP tricked everyone because they were really in charge.

 

I find it funny that some people think everything will be peachy keen if their party of choice (of the big two) gets in power. I anticipate (bad) business as usual, but that's the cynic in me. I'm sick and tired of the two party system we have that gives people the illusion of choice, and the fanatical blind loyalty it so often inspires.

 

Frankly, a lot of people feel comfortable censoring speech they don't agree with, but we need to resist that temptation and realize that free speech benefits all. The trouble is that the mass media on television is controlled by basically a handful of wealthy men. I get most of my news from the internet, because at least there I can see a range of reporting, not just what a handful of corporations want to spin.

[Tommycat]

I'm opposed to it on principle alone.

 

Talk radio if it were forced to be 50/50 split, would in fact just cause stations to lose money during the "Liberal" side. I mean technically, you could have two stations. Air 3 hours of Rush on one station, and on the other, Liberal Nation. Swap in Liberal Talk on the first station, and bring in Ann Coulter on the second. The bad thing is that there isn't a lot of call for liberal talk radio. It goes against free speech to force radio stations to air what their listeners do not want to hear. It would be like forcing a country station to air rap for the same amount of time as they do country. The listeners decide what gets air time(by voting with their feet and/or wallets).

[GarfieldJL]

On the subject of the Iraq war, the point is that the Left as well as the Right supported the war at the start, which is why it happened, NOT because of some "right wing bias" in the media or because somehow the GOP tricked everyone because they were really in charge.

 

That's what the left would like everyone to Believe, just like they'd like everyone to believe that the GOP was supposedly behind 9/11. It was faulty intelligence, that's why we went into Iraq.

 

I find it funny that some people think everything will be peachy keen if their party of choice (of the big two) gets in power. I anticipate (bad) business as usual, but that's the cynic in me. I'm sick and tired of the two party system we have that gives people the illusion of choice, and the fanatical blind loyalty it so often inspires.

 

No, there is are actual differences between the parties. One of the parties is all for free speech only if that speech but only if that speech agrees with them (the Democrats). The other is actually for free speech (Republicans).

 

And don't try to contradict me there because all of the people supporting the return of the Censorship Doctrine are Democrats, and the people that threw it out were Republicans.

 

Frankly, a lot of people feel comfortable censoring speech they don't agree with, but we need to resist that temptation and realize that free speech benefits all. The trouble is that the mass media on television is controlled by basically a handful of wealthy men. I get most of my news from the internet, because at least there I can see a range of reporting, not just what a handful of corporations want to spin.

 

Well, the only news factions that Conservatives have is talk radio, and that is what this legislation is geared to target.

 

When Republicans controlled the legislature and executive branch they didn't try to censor the network media, the network media and newspapers shot themselves in the foot. The situation here is the Dems are trying to shut down free speech and allow illegal immigrants to vote as well as dead people, to fundamentally take over the country. (Not saying all Dems want that, but the ones in congress seem to)

 

 

Fact is the Democrats control the bulk of the media, the house of reps, the senate, and the Presidency, we also have some Supreme Court Justices that aren't in good health of late.

 

When the Republicans were in charge, the media wasn't in control of the Republicans. That's the difference.

[jrrtoken]

That's what the left would like everyone to Believe, just like they'd like everyone to believe that the GOP was supposedly behind 9/11. It was faulty intelligence, that's why we went into Iraq.

Faulty intelligence or not, the Bush administration still had no reason to go into Iraq, especially when their exit strategy was poorly planned.

No, there is are actual differences between the parties. One of the parties is all for free speech only if that speech but only if that speech agrees with them (the Democrats). The other is actually for free speech (Republicans).

So really, Republicans are good, and Democrats are bad, right?

(Not saying all Dems want that, but the ones in congress seem to)

For some reason, I doubt that you really mean that, especially with the tone of your previous paragraph.

When Republicans controlled the legislature and executive branch they didn't try to censor the network media, the network media and newspapers shot themselves in the foot. The situation here is the Dems are trying to shut down free speech and allow illegal immigrants to vote as well as dead people, to fundamentally take over the country.

So, Democrats are out to kill infants, control the media, and allow the country to be taken over by foreign powers. That's a very overblown perception. Actually, it sounds a lot like blaming society's ills on the Jews and the commies. Hm.

Fact is the Democrats control the bulk of the media, the house of reps, the senate, and the Presidency, we also have some Supreme Court Justices that aren't in good health of late.

And? That's happened many other times in the US's history, and the country didn't collapse into anarchy. The Republicans also had a great amount of control before, and nothing horrible happened as well. Just because someone who disagrees with you is in power doesn't mean you have to cry "totalitarianism!".

When the Republicans were in charge, the media wasn't in control of the Republicans. That's the difference.

Ever seen what happened after 9/11 and the Iraq War? The entire media was licking Bush's boots.

[GarfieldJL]

Faulty intelligence or not, the Bush administration still had no reason to go into Iraq, especially when their exit strategy was poorly planned.

 

Remember the President that gutted the CIA was Clinton not Bush.

 

So really, Republicans are good, and Democrats are bad, right?

 

No, just the ones being supported by MoveOn.org

 

For some reason, I doubt that you really mean that, especially with the tone of your previous paragraph.

 

Explains why I actually voted for a few Democrats at the local level...

 

So, Democrats are out to kill infants, control the media, and allow the country to be taken over by foreign powers. That's a very overblown perception. Actually, it sounds a lot like blaming society's ills on the Jews and the commies. Hm.

 

See Nancy Pelosi's defense of money for contraception and abortion in the stimulus bill, that it would help stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

 

And? That's happened many other times in the US's history, and the country didn't collapse into anarchy. The Republicans also had a great amount of control before, and nothing horrible happened as well. Just because someone who disagrees with you is in power doesn't mean you have to cry "totalitarianism!".

 

The Republicans don't have control of the media.

 

Ever seen what happened after 9/11 and the Iraq War? The entire media was licking Bush's boots.

 

You know this must be the millionth time you or another of your cohorts have brought that up, and I keep having to point out the same thing that the media shot themselves in the foot thanks to the New York Times article. They were skittish after that article and the public calling for their heads. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it.

[jrrtoken]

Remember the President that gutted the CIA was Clinton not Bush.

Then why did Bush get it wrong with Afghanistan? Additionally, why did the Clinton administration have credible proof on bin Laden's current whereabouts, but when the Bush administration went into office, did absolutely nothing about it?

No, just the ones being supported by MoveOn.org

So it's only the liberal Democrats who are vile. Gotcha.

See Nancy Pelosi's defense of money for contraception and abortion in the stimulus bill, that it would help stimulate the economy by cutting costs.

It's an earmark; every politician puts them in legislature. It's happened for hundreds of years,a nd it will continue to happen. And contraception isn't infanticide.

The Republicans don't have control of the media.

No one in government has direct control of the media. Their parent corporations influence their news outlets, buy catering to the current government in power, so that their lobbyists can receive government kickbacks to reign free.

You know this must be the millionth time you or another of your cohorts have brought that up, and I keep having to point out the same thing that the media shot themselves in the foot thanks to the New York Times article. They were skittish after that article and the public calling for their heads. Bush had absolutely nothing to do with it.

I don't give a damn about the New York Times; the media was absolutely worshiping bush after 9/11, regardless of any sort of article. Anyone watching the coverage could have easily deduced it.

 

And thank you for tying me to some massive liberal conspiracy to control LF.

[Astor]

That's what the left would like everyone to Believe, just like they'd like everyone to believe that the GOP was supposedly behind 9/11.

 

That's utter rubbish (about the GOP being behind 9/11). I'd suggest that, as with all conspiracy theories, you discard it.

[GarfieldJL]

Then why did Bush get it wrong with Afghanistan? Additionally, why did the Clinton administration have credible proof on bin Laden's current whereabouts, but when the Bush administration went into office, did absolutely nothing about it?

 

You're only giving part of the story, Clinton scrubbed a mission where Bin Laden could have had his head blown off, but they had to abort because Clinton didn't authorize it. Bush had just arrived in office when 9/11 happened and the CIA was in pieces. Remember 8 years of Clinton, and Bush had less then one year, he took office in January of 2001 with the CIA in pieces.

 

Also care to explain one of Clinton's aides running off with classified documents in their pants.

 

So it's only the liberal Democrats who are vile. Gotcha.

 

The Democrats in Washington primarily are vile.

 

It's an earmark; every politician puts them in legislature. It's happened for hundreds of years,a nd it will continue to happen. And contraception isn't infanticide.

 

Did you even watch the interview Pelosi had with ABC News? If not, I'd suggest you go find it because I saw it.

 

No one in government has direct control of the media. Their parent corporations influence their news outlets, buy catering to the current government in power, so that their lobbyists can receive government kickbacks to reign free.

 

I never said they had direct control, I said one political party has control of most of the media, because the overwhelming Majority of News Media people are registered Democrats.

 

I don't give a damn about the New York Times; the media was absolutely worshiping bush after 9/11, regardless of any sort of article. Anyone watching the coverage could have easily deduced it.

 

No they weren't, they were just afraid of the public calling for their heads after the New York Times fiasco. There is quite a bit of documentation to back me up on that point.

 

That's utter rubbish (about the GOP being behind 9/11). I'd suggest that, as with all conspiracy theories, you discard it.

 

See Code Pink, MoveOn.org, Rosie O'Donnel, Michael Moore, and some Democrat Members of Congress

[True_Avery]

Its hilarious how the patriot act, etc all pass under you radar, but now that the democrats are in charge you are all up in arms about every tiny detail.

 

Admit it, you're just sore because you are on the other side of the board after 8 years. Take this time to learn some empathy, as you are now in the same position that democrats were with Bush. Better yet, try being more bipartisan and you wont feel like you are being overwhelmed so much (And no, you are not bipartisan by any single definition of the word).

 

But if you are going to keep this up, you may as well go all the way and admit that you think half of the country is literally out to get you. The left is turning you communist, the ACLU is trying to turn you godless, and feminists are going to cage you up for being male.

 

You may hate the left, but you are far right. Extremists are the reason extremists exist on the other side. If you want to get rid of the far left, then stop being far right. You do yourself, your party, and your opinions no good by being so far on one side of the spectrum that you downright refuse to acknowledge them as fellow human beings.

 

Or you can ignore me again and prove me right.

[jrrtoken]

and feminists are going to cage you up for being male.

I don't know about anyone else, but that doesn't sound too bad at all.

[Q]

Why not? They only need us for our sperm.

[jrrtoken]

Why not? They only need us for our sperm.

Naw, they'll eventually find a way to synthesize it. Then we're screwed.

 

You might find some solace, however, to know that since there will be no more men, sexual attraction will be only between females. Imagination runs wild with the mention of any erotic scenarios.

[Darth Avlectus]

Its hilarious how the patriot act, etc all pass under you radar, but now that the democrats are in charge you are all up in arms about every tiny detail.

Really? Well, then I beg to differ. Since its inception I was saying it needed thorough inspection to be sure it didn't tramp individual rights permanently. Funny how I got ignored by *both* sides.

 

Admit it, you're just sore because you are on the other side of the board after 8 years.

The way I see it I am always on the outside, and happy for it. Frankly I wasn't excited about bush, and I doubt I will be excited about any president from here on. So if I rag on any one, be mindful that president is not the only one--every president gets the same treatment. I grind them all to dust regardless.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Really? Well, then I beg to differ. Since its inception I was saying it needed thorough inspection to be sure it didn't tramp individual rights permanently. Funny how I got ignored by *both* sides.

 

The way I see it I am always on the outside, and happy for it. Frankly I wasn't excited about bush, and I doubt I will be excited about any president from here on. So if I rag on any one, be mindful that president is not the only one--every president gets the same treatment. I grind them all to dust regardless.

You... you aren't Garfield.

[Darth Avlectus]

You... you aren't Garfield.

 

Not for me? Oh. nevermind I guess

[GarfieldJL]

Its hilarious how the patriot act, etc all pass under you radar, but now that the democrats are in charge you are all up in arms about every tiny detail.

 

The Patriot Act didn't stifle free speech like the "Fairness" Doctrine would, and I imagine you already knew that.

 

Admit it, you're just sore because you are on the other side of the board after 8 years. Take this time to learn some empathy, as you are now in the same position that democrats were with Bush. Better yet, try being more bipartisan and you wont feel like you are being overwhelmed so much (And no, you are not bipartisan by any single definition of the word).

 

Any other berating comments? Seriously, Obama's been proven to lie about everything else thus far, including his promise of transparency, promise of no lobbyists, promise of ethical people in cabinet positions (most of them have tax problems).

 

But if you are going to keep this up, you may as well go all the way and admit that you think half of the country is literally out to get you. The left is turning you communist, the ACLU is trying to turn you godless, and feminists are going to cage you up for being male.

 

That would actually be more believable than your conspiracy theory that Bush was out to take over the world.

 

You may hate the left, but you are far right. Extremists are the reason extremists exist on the other side. If you want to get rid of the far left, then stop being far right. You do yourself, your party, and your opinions no good by being so far on one side of the spectrum that you downright refuse to acknowledge them as fellow human beings.

 

I don't hate the left, the far left is downright scary though, and that is what most Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are. I honestly would rather have Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, because I feel she is more to the political center than Obama.

 

Or you can ignore me again and prove me right.

 

How about you stop trying to insult me repeatedly, and maybe I'd respond to your posts more often.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

That would actually be more believable than your conspiracy theory that Bush was out to take over the world.

yes avery what's with your conspiracy theory about bush taking over the world dont be crazy you sillybuns

 

 

 

 

garfield i admire you for giving such a well cited and reasoned response

[True_Avery]

The Patriot Act didn't stifle free speech like the "Fairness" Doctrine would, and I imagine you already knew that.

Nice try:

Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

 

Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

 

Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

 

Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

 

Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

 

Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

So, how are you going to skew that to be a liberal lie bent on helping terrorists?

 

Any other berating comments? Seriously, Obama's been proven to lie about everything else thus far, including his promise of transparency, promise of no lobbyists, promise of ethical people in cabinet positions (most of them have tax problems).

Nice try, but I don't recall that politicians are great people in the first place. I did not say Obama was amazing. I said that a lot of this liberal and left smearing you've been doing for awhile now is because you are ticked off now that you are on the other side of the score board, as you have thus far left the right alone in your many smear threads.

 

McCain was hardly much better as far as his affiliations and lies went, but I believe I already presented those facts to you and you brushed them off.

 

That would actually be more believable than your conspiracy theory that Bush was out to take over the world.

When did I say he wanted to take over the world?

 

Good job pulling something out of thin air.

 

I don't hate the left, the far left is downright scary though, and that is what most Democrats in the House, Senate, and Presidency are. I honestly would rather have Hillary Clinton as President of the United States, because I feel she is more to the political center than Obama.

So, you hate the far left as a far right? You didn't answer my point that extremes are dangerous for both sides.

 

Were the far right in charge any better? "Of course they were."

 

Your intentions to rule out extremes and deceit is admirable, but you've decided to only focus on one side of this many sided system.

[GarfieldJL]

Nice try:

Freedom from unreasonable searches: The government may search and seize Americans' papers and effects without probable cause to assist terror investigation.

 

Show me where in the article that is, and when that was actually used? Seriously, though the Patriot Act was just after we were attacked...

 

Right to a speedy and public trial: The government may jail Americans indefinitely without a trial.

 

Key Word: Americans, I don't think a terrorist born in Saudi Arabia or Yemen, caught in Afghanistan is a citizen of the United States of America.

 

Again where are US Citizens being held? Provide a legitimate source.

 

Freedom of association: To assist terror investigation, the government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity.

 

You left part out, because we did catch a few charities and religious groups funnelling money to Al Qaeda deliberately. However it wasn't without probable cause.

 

Right to legal representation: The government may monitor conversations between attorneys and clients in federal prisons and deny lawyers to Americans accused of crimes.

 

Again, you're saying that the people at Gitmo are US citizens when they aren't, they were captured in other parts of the world in many cases on the battlefield.

 

Freedom of speech: The government may prosecute librarians or keepers of any other records if they tell anyone the government subpoenaed information related to a terror investigation.

 

You can get in trouble anyways for blabbing about an investigation during a criminal case if the Judge doesn't want stuff released to the press. Furthermore, some of the stuff was classified information. You are only taking part of the story and distorting it.

 

Right to liberty: Americans may be jailed without being charged or being able to confront witnesses against them. US citizens (labeled "unlawful combatants") have been held incommunicado and refused attorneys.

 

Technically they could have been shot as spies, but seriously why haven't I seen this blabbed all over the media if true. If someone got caught in Afghanistan, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that they weren't there to work on their tan.

 

So, how are you going to skew that to be a liberal lie bent on helping terrorists?

 

At least when I talk about a conspiracy I provide evidence to back myself up, you have yet to provide one valid source.

 

Nice try, but I don't recall that politicians are great people in the first place. I did not say Obama was amazing. I said that a lot of this liberal and left smearing you've been doing for awhile now is because you are ticked off now that you are on the other side of the score board, as you have thus far left the right alone in your many smear threads.

 

For the record, I had my disagreements with President Bush. You however, apparently don't know what the word 'smear' means, because I actually posted stuff to back up what I was saying and provided evidence. I have not falsified information, therefore I haven't smeared anyone.

 

McCain was hardly much better as far as his affiliations and lies went, but I believe I already presented those facts to you and you brushed them off.

 

And you used sources that got caught at deliberately lieing and distorting the facts concerning Senator McCain, even after I pointed that fact out, you continued to do so, I could argue you were deliberately smearing him.

 

When did I say he wanted to take over the world?

 

I believe it was either you, Achilles, or jmac, or PastramiX. I'm going off of memory and as I remember it was you that came up with that nutty conspiracy, but if I'm wrong please point out who did so I can redirect my statement.

 

Good job pulling something out of thin air.

 

 

So, you hate the far left as a far right? You didn't answer my point that extremes are dangerous for both sides.

 

That may be, but I'm not on the far right unless you think Pelosi is on the political center and if you believe that I've got some land on Jupiter to sell you.

 

Were the far right in charge any better? "Of course they were."

 

Bush wasn't on the far right, Ann Coulter is on the far right and she is typically not taken seriously.

 

Your intentions to rule out extremes and deceit is admirable, but you've decided to only focus on one side of this many sided system.

 

Actually, one side is already not being represented much, as Mr. Limbaugh has pointed out himself, he is an entertainer not a news anchor. That is a big difference to news anchors swooning over Barack Obama and in some cases wanting to go to bed with him.

[jrrtoken]

Show me where in the article that is, and when that was actually used? Seriously, though the Patriot Act was just after we were attacked...

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.

At least when I talk about a conspiracy I provide evidence to back myself up, you have yet to provide one valid source.

Do conservative blogs count?

For the record, I had my disagreements with President Bush. You however, apparently don't know what the word 'smear' means, because I actually posted stuff to back up what I was saying and provided evidence. I have not falsified information, therefore I haven't smeared anyone.

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 believe it was either you, Achilles, or jmac, or PastramiX. I'm going off of memory and as I remember it was you that came up with that nutty conspiracy, but if I'm wrong please point out who did so I can redirect my statement.

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

 

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

That may be, but I'm not on the far right unless you think Pelosi is on the political center and if you believe that I've got some land on Jupiter to sell you.

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

Actually, one side is already not being represented much, as Mr. Limbaugh has pointed out himself, he is an entertainer not a news anchor. That is a big difference to news anchors swooning over Barack Obama and in some cases wanting to go to bed with him.

...and yet others wish to lynch him.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Show me where in the article that is, and when that was actually used? Seriously, though the Patriot Act was just after we were attacked...

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