And they say W can't speak properly

[The_Noble_Cause]

Are you saying that Reagans veto and Bushs 1st threatend vetos were not good for free speech? Get real.

Presidential vetoes is so far removed from the topic of the Fairness Doctrine that I can't help but stare at the screen in slack-jawed amazement.
Just what the fuck are you talking about?

[Rip Rokken]

This is TYPICAL... Take my comments out of context to bolster your unstable arguments, and also filter out anything that you can't defend against.

No, I am just getting tired of responding to these long winded treatises...

Convenient... Your arguments don't hold together, so now you are too tired to discuss them.

I clearly stated that both political parties used the Horton/DuMond ads as election year political "ploys", but at the same time, that the points raised were valid and fair. Did either party have pure motives in delivering those ads?

There was no exploited racial element to the DuMond ads.
The political operatives behind the Willie Horton ads openly said "the only question is whether we depict Willie Horton with a knife in his hand or without it" and how the ads would be "every suburban mother’s greatest fear."
There's no comparison.

I'll say it for the third time, political ads are designed to help win elections first and foremost. They are generally manipulative, and I can't stand them myself. Doesn't negate the facts, though -- Dukkakis supported the furlough program that freed Horton, and he committed brutal acts while he was out. Huckabee freed DuMond, and he raped and killed a girl. They both deserved what they got, and people should know about those things.

For some reason, politicians and their supporters are trying to throw discussion of their voting records and histories into the "dirty tricks" category, when those are the most important indicators we have of who these people really are. Just a smoke screen. We certainly have to take their campaign promises and rhetoric with a grain of salt.

There is no way in hell I am going to disabuse you of your misbegotten ideas on “self responsibility” and blind free-market deification, it’s just not worth it.

Well, I haven't been getting the idea so far that you can, but that's ok... look, I'm not just trying to fight with you. What can you offer as solutions for some of the problems we face? Give us some ideas? I know you have some...

[The_Noble_Cause]

In 1987 a bill to place the Fairness Doctrine into federal law passed the House by 3 to 1, and the Senate by nearly 2 to 1, but it was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan. Among those voting for the bill were Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.). In 1989 the Fairness Doctrine easily passed the House again, but didn't proceed further as President George Bush threatened to veto it. In 1991, hearings were again held on the doctrine, but President Bush's ongoing veto threat stymied passage.

In regards to those specific vetoes, the answer is an unequivocal NO.
It was not good for free speech.
There is less diversity on the airwaves, not more.
Coupled with the disastrous Telecomm Act of 1996, thanks to fake Democrat Bill Clinton, and now only a handful of conglomerates control whats on the air. Local newsrooms are shuttered, and nearly everything is syndicated.
Reagan's appointed FCC chair once said TV was just a "toaster with pictures," so that should give a pretty good indicator of how he viewed any notion of public responsibility.

[Eric]

[
This is just another example of the libs inteolerance of people with opposing viewpoints. They can't stand us. We get in the way of their supposed right to power in this country. If you don't think like a liberal then you must be a racist, bigot and homophobe. God forbid that someone would dare expose Barry for the idiot that he is and the first thing that comes to their minds is racism. It's typical of the left.

You sound like Adolf Hitler. Time to turn off the Rush Limbaugh, dude. Seriously.

You're gonna vote for Obama and you're saying FactFinder sounds like Hitler???????

[The_Noble_Cause]

So you don't have cable?

That's not public airwaves.

Go capitalist and you'll be able to by access.

pssst, it's a secret club

So under the guise of being a “Conservative” you are willingly abnegating your civic ownership of the public airwaves, and instead standing up for the rights of multi-billion telecommunication behemoths and media monopolies?
And Rip Rokken expects educated liberals like myself to find common cause with such a plebian halfwit?

[donnaplease]

Now I feel like W... I need a dictionary to understand these posts!

[The_Noble_Cause]

TNC..do you understand that the only reason you are here is because of a multi-billion telecommunication behemoths and media monopolies named Columbia who gave you Journey records? Let's invistigate them.

Ok.
Again, nothing to do with public airwaves whatsoever.
Like ConversationPC, you heard Limpdick, or some other garden variety AM radio facist, bashing the Fairness Doctrine and took it for gospel.

[conversationpc]

TNC..do you understand that the only reason you are here is because of a multi-billion telecommunication behemoths and media monopolies named Columbia who gave you Journey records? Let's invistigate them.

Ok.
Again, nothing to do with public airwaves whatsoever.
Like ConversationPC, you heard Limpdick, or some other garden variety AM radio facist, bashing the Fairness Doctrine and took it for gospel.

What's a "facist"? Someone who discriminates against those who make faces?

[The_Noble_Cause]

What's a "facist"? Someone who discriminates against those who make faces?

Sure, go ahead. Crack wise at the expense of my spelling.
As a follow-up, you might wish to take me to task for leaving my house without the obligatory red, white, and blue armband, as well as not wearing my own body weight in flag lapel pins.

To our foreign friends reading this forum, no, it’s not really that bad here, but it’s rapidly getting there.

[conversationpc]

What's a "facist"? Someone who discriminates against those who make faces?

Sure, go ahead. Crack wise at the expense of my spelling.

Well, you know what they say about the goose and the gander.

As a follow-up, you might wish to take me to task for leaving my house without the obligatory red, white, and blue armband, as well as not wearing my own body weight in flag lapel pins.

To our foreign friends reading this forum, no, it’s not really that bad here, but it’s rapidly getting there.

I thought it was conservatives or Republicans who were supposed to be the ones generalizing, categorizing, and generally just judging people indiscriminately?

...and thanks for your generous contribution to the "rapidly getting there" part.

[Rip Rokken]

In regards to those specific vetoes, the answer is an unequivocal NO.
It was not good for free speech. There is less diversity on the airwaves, not more.

Umm... Guess who really decides what goes on the airwaves -- US! The little people who listen to the shows and the advertising that goes along with them. Corporate radio is in the business to make MONEY, front and center. They are going to air what sells, and have no obligation to do any less. When there is a greater demand for left-leaning radio programs, then that's what they will adopt. They just don't sell! Remember Air America? What happened there? Not enough interested listeners, perhaps? Yes, there do seem to be a much greater number of conservative talk shows on the airwaves than liberal shows, and it's only the market that drives that -- not some corporate or government conspiracy.

So under the guise of being a “Conservative” you are willingly abnegating your civic ownership of the public airwaves, and instead standing up for the rights of multi-billion telecommunication behemoths and media monopolies?
And Rip Rokken expects educated liberals like myself to find common cause with such a plebian halfwit?

Plebian? Wouldn't us rich greedy conservatives qualify as Patricians? Please don't sell us short... we are the "haves", not the "have-nots"... LOL! I'm so greedy I had to buy 2 copies of Revelation, without a really good reason for doing so other than I could. It was only later that I decided to give a copy to my wife, so she wouldn't scratch mine up. That's trickle-down economics in action.

Look, this is silly... You have no valid points, and can't defend the ones you try to make. I gave you a few chances to try to come up with ideas, solutions... positive things... still, nothing from you. You claimed to be too tired to debate, but you still continue to avoid the wheat and spit out your chaff. Now, like most people who can't defend their points of view intelligently, you are resorting to name calling, which is pretty weak. No winning cards in your hand, amigo...

[Rip Rokken]

As a follow-up, you might wish to take me to task for leaving my house without the obligatory red, white, and blue armband, as well as not wearing my own body weight in flag lapel pins.

Along with name-calling, another common tool used as a substitution for the lack of factual knowledge or debating skills -- sarcastic embellishment. Come up with some reasoned and intelligent thoughts and talk to us then. We'll be here.

[conversationpc]

As a follow-up, you might wish to take me to task for leaving my house without the obligatory red, white, and blue armband, as well as not wearing my own body weight in flag lapel pins.

Along with name-calling, another common tool used as a substitution for the lack of factual knowledge or debating skills -- sarcastic embellishment. Come up with some reasoned and intelligent thoughts and talk to us then. We'll be here.

TNC is top-notch at name-calling. He's the best at the homophobic/homoerotic put-down. It makes one wonder, doesn't it?

[The_Noble_Cause]

Umm... Guess who really decides what goes on the airwaves -- US! The little people who listen to the shows and the advertising that goes along with them.

Pattently false. The Telecomm Act of 1996 sucked all the competition out of the marketplace.

Corporate radio is in the business to make MONEY, front and center. They are going to air what sells, and have no obligation to do any less.

Not true at all. Where do you think the idea of stations having to get their licenses periodically renewed originated?

When there is a greater demand for left-leaning radio programs, then that's what they will adopt. They just don't sell! Remember Air America? What happened there? Not enough interested listeners, perhaps? Yes, there do seem to be a much greater number of conservative talk shows on the airwaves than liberal shows, and it's only the market that drives that -- not some corporate or government conspiracy.

Most of the big markets were already sewn up lock stock and barrel.
Were they could compete, many liberal programs do very competeively.

Look, this is silly... You have no valid points, and can't defend the ones you try to make. I gave you a few chances to try to come up with ideas, solutions... positive things... still, nothing from you. You claimed to be too tired to debate, but you still continue to avoid the wheat and spit out your chaff.

Your posts looked like blocks of text from the Gutenberg bible. I'm sorry but its true. I am not willing to spend all day being your guide to civic enlightenment. I correct what I can, where I can, in the limited time I have.

Now, like most people who can't defend their points of view intelligently, you are resorting to name calling, which is pretty weak. No winning cards in your hand, amigo...

Kinda like how you told me to have a heaping cup of shut the hell up over in the Walmart/Union thread?
My, what a transformational post-partisan uniter you are.

[The_Noble_Cause]

As a follow-up, you might wish to take me to task for leaving my house without the obligatory red, white, and blue armband, as well as not wearing my own body weight in flag lapel pins.

Along with name-calling, another common tool used as a substitution for the lack of factual knowledge or debating skills -- sarcastic embellishment. Come up with some reasoned and intelligent thoughts and talk to us then. We'll be here.

The saracstic remark in question was made in response to Dave hectoring me on my spelling.
Not exactly what I'd call a high-minded "reasoned and intelligent" conversation.

[stevew2]

We've all heard the tired mantra about Bush not being able to speak. He trips over his words, he's dumb etc....

Well, behold our possible new orator-in-chief, the messiah, smartest man in the land, Barry Huessien Obama. Without a teleprompter, live without a net, and looking way in over his head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxBX8sz3tO8

You have me worried i thought you were talkiing about stevew. GW is a retard

[Rick]

TNC..do you understand that the only reason you are here is because of a multi-billion telecommunication behemoths and media monopolies named Columbia who gave you Journey records? Let's invistigate them.

Ok.
Again, nothing to do with public airwaves whatsoever.
Like ConversationPC, you heard Limpdick, or some other garden variety AM radio facist, bashing the Fairness Doctrine and took it for gospel.

What's a "facist"? Someone who discriminates against those who make faces?

[Rip Rokken]

Pattently false. The Telecomm Act of 1996 sucked all the competition out of the marketplace.

What?

Your posts looked like blocks of text from the Gutenberg bible.

So, you think my posts are divinely inspired? Thanks! Oh, I don't usually gig for spelling and grammar, but "Bible" is capitalized.

I'm sorry but its true. I am not willing to spend all day being your guide to civic enlightenment. I correct what I can, where I can, in the limited time I have.

Baloney... You seem to have plenty of time, but you have yet to come up with a single idea of any kind -- just rhetoric. Again, offer us some honest suggestions on how to improve our society. I'm serious -- I'm open for suggestions.

Kinda like how you told me to have a heaping cup of shut the hell up over in the Walmart/Union thread?
My, what a transformational post-partisan uniter you are.

LOL... Get your drinks straight, amigo! That was a nice cup of shut the f*** up. It's not easy to pour a "heaping" cup of any liquid. And I didn't tell you that, btw -- Steve Perry did. Steve, and now Clint Eastwood, I guess.

[The_Noble_Cause]

Baloney... You seem to have plenty of time, but you have yet to come up with a single idea of any kind -- just rhetoric. Again, offer us some honest suggestions on how to improve our society. I'm serious -- I'm open for suggestions.

Well, if it isn't obvious already, repealing the Telecomm Act of 1996 would be a great start.
This thread didn't really lend itself to bold visionary ideas.
It was more of a poo slinging free-for-all from the start
What more would you like to know?

[Rip Rokken]

Well, if it isn't obvious already, repealing the Telecomm Act of 1996 would be a great start.
This thread didn't really lend itself to bold visionary ideas.
It was more of a poo slinging free-for-all from the start
What more would you like to know?

Whether or not you prefer cream or sugar...

[Eric]

To our foreign friends reading this forum, no, it’s not really that bad here, but it’s rapidly getting there.

America hater

[conversationpc]

To our foreign friends reading this forum, no, it’s not really that bad here, but it’s rapidly getting there.

America hater

That's a little unfair.

[Rip Rokken]

TLC just has widely different positions on how this country should be run. Most conservatives believe in a "by the people" approach. Libs prefer a "by the government" approach. People are free to make up their own minds either way and should be encouraged to fight for their right to free speech. What most libs do not understand is that free speech means just that, your right to speak freely without persecution, it does not mean You have a right to be heard. In other words, shout your shit from the rooftops, but you can't make me listen or agree with you.

I get the impression that TNC thinks "by the people" is synonymous with corporate corruption and the evils of the free marketplace. Well, some of it is, but that's far from the whole picture so you can't center all your solutions based on what bad can happen at the top of the private sector chain. There has to be some regulation for sure. I'd rather see government target those places where businesses are being hurt to help them grow, rather than hurt and stiffle the businesses by trying to overregulate, though. And loosening up the death-grip on our wallets would be a great place to start.

[MJM1959]

Just one example of our well spoken and well informed president.

Just a little over three months ago, President Bush declared he “hadn’t heard” that gasoline would soon reach $4 a gallon. Today, the milestone anticipated by all save the President of the United States came to pass:

“Drivers are paying an average of $4 for a gallon of gasoline for the first time. AAA and the Oil Price Information Service say the national average price for a gallon of regular gas rose to $4.005 overnight from $3.988. But consumers in many parts of the country have already been paying well above that price for some time.”

Given the stratospheric - and uninterrupted - rise in oil and gas prices, Bush’s February 28 display of ignorance is all the more jaw-dropping. Asked by a reporter about the looming arrival of $4 gas, Bush the former oil man did what comes naturally and played dumb:

Q What’s your advice to the average American who is hurting now, facing the prospect of $4 a gallon gasoline, a lot of people facing —

THE PRESIDENT: Wait, what did you just say? You’re predicting $4 a gallon gasoline?

Q A number of analysts are predicting —

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yeah?

Q — $4 a gallon gasoline this spring when they reformulate.

THE PRESIDENT: That’s interesting. I hadn’t heard that.

[MJM1959]

This is how our president supports the troops:

The Senate has already passed a defense spending bill with billions of additional dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the House poised to take up the measure, the president devoted his weekly radio address to the subject. Bush seemed quite anxious to present himself as the troops’ best friend in Washington, insisting that if the House follows the Senate’s lead and passes a spending bill that the White House doesn’t like, those in uniform lose.

“The Pentagon will run out of money it needs to support critical day-to-day operations that help keep our Nation safe. And after July, the department will no longer be able to pay our troops — including those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

“Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve better than this. Around the world, our troops are taking on dangerous missions with skill and determination…. Each day, the men and women of our Armed Forces risk their lives to make sure their fellow citizens are safer. They serve with courage and honor. They’ve earned the respect of all Americans. And they deserve the full support of Congress. I often hear members of Congress say they oppose the war, but still support the troops. Now they have a chance to prove it. Congress should pass a responsible funding bill that gives our men and women in uniform the resources they need — and the support they have earned.”

We’re obviously well past the point at which anyone can expect honesty and integrity from Still-President Bush, but these comments were especially annoying.

First, the main sticking point in the disagreement between Congress and the administration is the Webb/Hagel measure to expand and revise the GI Bill. In other words, Bush is prepared to reject funding for the wars because Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) want to give the troops more generous educational benefits. Somehow, the president’s radio address omitted this detail.

And second, for all of Bush’s talk about paying the troops and what they and their families “deserve,” what the radio address neglected to mention is that the Democratic Congress is trying to give the troops a raise — and the Bush administration thinks it costs too much.

Faiz explained this very well just a couple of weeks ago.

The bill includes a section to raise the pay for the soldiers by 3.9 percent – an increase of 0.5 percent over the Bush administration’s request. In a “Statement of Administration Policy” released [on May 22], the White House asserts that it “strongly opposes” the pay increase authorized by Congress…. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the 0.5 percent increase in troop pay would mean spending just an extra $324 million in 2009. […]

At the same time it is strongly opposing a slight increase in pay for the troops, the Bush administration is asking for hundreds of billions more for war. To put it in all in context, the White House wants $165 billion to continue fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan wars this year, but refuses to spend 0.2 percent of that amount ($324 million) to provide the troops a slight pay raise.

Despite his opposition to a pay increase, President Bush continues to demagogue the issue of support for the troops, telling soldiers at Ft. Drum yesterday that Congress is to blame for not having passed “a responsible war funding bill.” Of course, he didn’t tell that troops that by “responsible,” he means he wants a bill that gives them less pay.

Now go back and take a look at the language in the president’s radio address yesterday: “Our men and women in uniform and their families deserve better than this. Around the world, our troops are taking on dangerous missions with skill and determination…. Congress should pass a responsible funding bill that gives our men and women in uniform the resources they need — and the support they have earned.”

It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Post Script: Oh, and before I forget, it’s worth noting that John McCain, Bush’s would-be successor, agrees with the president’s position on the spending bill. Just FYI.

[classicstyxfan]

I am very late in joining this discussion, but here are a few observations....

I thought the you tube video was interesting as much for what it omitted ( the topic Obama was trying to speak about ) as for the trouble he was having articulation his answer. If flawless public speaking is a requirement of the job, we will be very hard-pressed to fill it, this year, or at any time in the future. And if this little video is near the top of the list of reasons not to elect Obama, the republicans are in big trouble !

By the way, I'm looking forward to the DVD's and books forthcoming filled with Obama's Gaffes...I wonder if there will be as many as are out there for GWB ?

I find it interesting that so many of the posters here are so satisfied with the current state of affairs that they are unwilling to even consider alternate ideas......I dont see much veering off course from the status quo from McCain, I see him laboring to differentiate what he will do vs what the current administration is already doing.
I'm not satisfied with the status quo, and I'll be watching carefully these next several months for SPECIFICS regarding what both candidates will bring to the table. I do want change, but I want it to be much more than just a slogan.

The " I'm absolutely right, and you're absolutely wrong" mentality of this thread is kind of humouous... There's also a very venomous tone here too.

[JrnySuxBalls]

“The Pentagon will run out of money it needs to support critical day-to-day operations that help keep our Nation safe. And after July, the department will no longer be able to pay our troops — including those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What about the contractors making 10 times more than our troops, for doing the same jobs? Are they in danger of not getting paid?

Just askin'

[MJM1959]

“The Pentagon will run out of money it needs to support critical day-to-day operations that help keep our Nation safe. And after July, the department will no longer be able to pay our troops — including those serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What about the contractors making 10 times more than our troops, for doing the same jobs? Are they in danger of not getting paid?

Just askin'

That is probably why he is so upset. Gotta keep paying those KBR and Blackwater contracts. Otherwise his corporate puppetmasters will be angry.

[Deb]

Awe, SP looks cute in a helmut. Sorry, carry on...................

[Eric]

To our foreign friends reading this forum, no, it’s not really that bad here, but it’s rapidly getting there.

America hater

A bit much Eric. TLC just has widely different positions on how this country should be run. Most conservatives believe in a "by the people" approach. Libs prefer a "by the government" approach. People are free to make up their own minds either way and should be encouraged to fight for their right to free speech. What most libs do not understand is that free speech means just that, your right to speak freely without persecution, it does not mean You have a right to be heard. In other words, shout your shit from the rooftops, but you can't make me listen or agree with you.

His type is always looking for whats wrong and are more than willing to agressively promote their agenda by highlighting it. Its annoying and makes me wonder if they truly love their country....