the Fairness Doctrine
-
Trafik Jamz;260847 wrote:
Limbaugh's is a BITCH to get through...I've tried on multiple occasions, with zero luck, I've been told "not enough time"; "Mr. Limbaugh doesn't want to discuss that matter"; and other "blow-off" lines that I think are in part because he doesn't want someone to have an intelligent counterpoint to him. I still don't want the Fairness Doctrine though.Thats because the Limbaugh show isn't about the callers views, it's about his.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph -
Oh, and if you want to talk about upholding the constitution, I'd say the republicans have done a good job of dismantling it as well (Patriot Act).
/off topic we go...
I think it's funny that people think that one of the bills in the bill of rights is greater than another. 2nd Amendment people FREAK over anything that even slightly challenges this right (justifiably so), yet are perfectly ok with the fact that the gov't is basically recording every phone conversation that takes place in this country (patriot act); are illegally detaining citizens without a trial in places like Guantanamo Bay; routinely break international treaties on the treatment of military detainees (waterboarding); and a whole host of other ideas that have come to light under the Bush years that are either unconstitutional or illegal according to US or international law.
Here are just a few great examples of that:
1st Amendment: > * First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly; right to petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Restoration_Act
http://www.sptimes.com/2006/10/05/Opinion/Speak_out__but_at_you.shtml
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/385jqmfk.asp
http://www.amconmag.com/12_15_03/feature.html4th Amendment: > * Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060929-7867.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm5th Amendment:> * due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.http://www.cdi.org/news/law/gtmo-sct-decision.cfm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/03/terror/main1462748.shtml6th Amendment: > * Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2003/13951prs20040629.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/14/congress.tribunals/index.html9th Amendment:> * Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/24/elec04.prez.bush.marriage/
(now I'm not for gay marriage necessarily, but if they want to be miserable like the rest of us, I say let them....)
10th Amendment: > * Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. -
This post is deleted!
-
DaveH;260856 wrote:
Thats because the Limbaugh show isn't about the callers views, it's about his.Yup....cheerleading, IMO he is the most entertaining, but least informational (aside from Hannity) of the right wing talkers.
-
oh...forgot the
/stir /stir /stir
-
This post is deleted!
-
Trafik Jamz;260797 wrote:
What I think is funny is that this subject never even comes up unless it is brought up by the right wing talk radio hosts. T
MMMK, that is why Schultz and Colmes where bitching about it today too:rolleyes:Fuck Rush, I enjoy Andrew Wilkow more than anyone these days
-
Of course they are going to talk about it now...it's their job to respond to these things. I know that Schultz is a fan of it, and it stems from when he was selected to have his show broadcast to the troops in Iraq on the military radio channel (I forget the actual name of it) but somehow, the day it was supposed to be a go, they canceled his contract for undisclosed reasons. If ever there was a case that there should be both sides, I'd say it should be in a limited market such as that. Schultz feels that he was removed because he was critical of Bush. Whether that is true or not...who knows?
-
really? that surprises me...
-
Trafik Jamz;260871 wrote:
really? that surprises me...ya him and colmes both
If this ever happened, it would have the opposite effect desired anyway (cough stimulus plan cough)
It would lead to less air time for both as it would be easier for the stations to just change format than put up with the bullshit
-
Is this going back to him walking off set? I still think he did the right thing.
-
Chuck you are a good debater, too bad you are not smart enough to choose the right side in any debate. And by right i mean correct, and republican.
-
Schultz is a joke, he was there to debate and put forward his point. Instead, he acted like a 5 yr old girl (ask me how I know) and ran away. On the original thread about this I posted the video where Schultz was talking over other people in a similar type of debate, so the argument that he was being talked over is a joke. There are only two options:
- he's a crybaby
- he intentionally did it because he was on Fox.
DaveH
'94 Supra- 7.77 @ 176mph
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login