Would you have believed?
Yer Pal Al
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers —
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?
gb
<caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>percent or 90 percent?
I wouldn't have believed that the previous administration would have
left a situation where The Gubmint would be the largest shareholder
for some of those firms.
But since it is, then the circumstances would change.
>Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>talk radio?
No -- but criticizing it is not the same thing.
> That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers �
Sorta like how Dubya's folks paid columnists to foster their line in
the newspapers?
>that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>depend on the government liking what they publish?
>
>http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102709.php3
If you want to step up to that gubmint trough, then you're going to
have to take the deal that's offered.
flybd5
Here, moron, watch it and then call a doctor to extricate your leg out
of your gullet. ROFLMAO!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8jPi-72D_0
Dimwit. :)
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yer Pal Al" <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bc9a8495-7f1d-4629...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>percent or 90 percent?
If'n you're handing out money, you can put whatever conditions you want on
it. The "czar" cannot cut pay of executives in private business by any
amount - arbitrarily or not. They can, however, tell those private
companies that the government will not give them any more money if they
continue to pay their executives high salaries and bonuses.
'Course, there's a 90% chance that you're too stupid to understand that.
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 2, 2:19 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>> percent or 90 percent?
>>
>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>
>> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102709.php3
>
> Here, moron, watch it and then call
Do they know you are a vile Jew-hater here Osito?
http://www.itpreport.com/default.asp?Mode=Page&P=1002
If you have any questions or comments regarding ITP or its use of
information please send email to feed...@itpreport.com
News Desk
For all news submissions email edit...@itpreport.com
LDosser
news:bc9a8495-7f1d-4629...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
percent or 90 percent?
Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers �
that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
depend on the government liking what they publish?
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102709.php3
========================================================
Yeah, I would. It was obvious where Dear Leader would take us.
Al
"LDosser" <L...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Yer Pal Al" <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bc9a8495-7f1d-4629...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> percent or 90 percent?
>
> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
> talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers �
> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>
> http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell102709.php3
>
> ========================================================
>
> Yeah, I would. It was obvious where Dear Leader would take us.
Who would expect anything else from a life-long leftist marinated in
Marxist philosophy?
Thank God he's basically inept.
Curt
> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> percent or 90 percent?
In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>
> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
> talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers —
> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
> depend on the government liking what they publish?
No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
Curt
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>> percent or 90 percent?
>
> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>
>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>
> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>
> Curt
FUCKING LIAR!
http://www.drudge.com/archive/115157/obama-declares-war-conservative-talk-radio
Obama Declares War on Conservative Talk Radio
Barack Obama sought to silence his critics during his 2008 campaign.
Now, with the ink barely dry on this November's ballots, Obama has begun
a war against conservative talk radio.
Obama is on record as saying he does not plan an exhumation of the
now-dead "Fairness Doctrine". Instead, Obama's attack on free speech
will be far less understood by the general public and accordingly, far
more dangerous...
ere's the deal...
Radio stations are privately owned businesses. They have operating
expenses just like any other business and must raise revenue in order to
pay the bills. Revenue in radio comes almost exclusively from selling
air time - advertising. The greater the listenership, the greater the
value of said air time and thus radio stations are able to charge more
for highly rated shows, generating more revenue. It is one of the most
capitalistic industries in existence.
Conservative talk radio generates strong ratings and is thus a lucrative
venue for certain stations to carry. The problem is, the Democrats don't
like conservative talk radio. So, they seek to use their power to
silence this venue.
How do they do that?
With legislation like the "Fairness Doctrine" and/or "localization".
With "localization" a handful of appointed government beaurocrats decide
what's in the best interest of the people in terms of their radio
programming. Got that? A couple of FCC lackeys get to decide what radio
stations are allowed to play on the air. Non-compliance will be met with
fines, forced programming and a revoke of broadcasting liscenses - Obama
wants to have the liscences be good for only 2 years, as opposed to the
8 years that they are currently good for.
Here's the catch though: radio stations STILL have to make ends meet.
They can be "forced" to carry programs that have shitty ratings. They
won't be able to make ends meet. So, they'll give up the venues
targetted by a Democratic-controlled FCC (conservative talk) because the
government will make such a venue an economic liability. Of course, the
government won't subsidize a poorly-rated format - that would be too
obvious. So, they'll just force radio stations out of business that have
a format that is critical of the Democratic party and liberalism.
That is the economic reality of FD and localism. Proponents will never
address this factual reality. Why? Because in doing so it clearly outs
them as the petty tyrants they are.
Yer Pal Al
> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> > government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> > but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> > arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> > percent or 90 percent?
>
> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
> > Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
> > talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers —
> > that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
> > depend on the government liking what they publish?
>
> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
Leonard Abbott
But all the wicked ones he will annihilate".
Obwon
Many of the bailed out companies are planning not to make
the taxpayers whole! They've gotten taxpayer money to save
their arses, now that they're coming back, we're being
told not to expect the gov't to get all of it's (our) money
back. How crude you say? Why is no one in Congress
proposing to ready up a "Bailout Recovery Act", that would
take back the taxpayers money, from these companies once
they're out of trouble, and add a market interest rate to
boot? They shouldn't have been bailed out in the first
place, but now that they have been, there's absolutely no
reason to let them simply walk away with public funds and
party on. I know they made "deals" that they said "might
even produce a profit for the gov't", but, as usual, the
devil was in the details. Well, be that as it may, the
gov't has the power, the right and the duty to protect
public funds from "pernecious ablations", however
contrived.
In the end these companies, once they get back to being
profitable, will have much to enjoy, they don't need to
add any of the bailout money to their horde. They need to
be required to give back every red cent and a market rate
interest besides.
Curt
Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway. That's
just a rightweenie pundit thing -- sort of like the "death panels".
It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
critical thinking skills.
Curt
Yer Pal Al
> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> > > > government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> > > > but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> > > > arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> > > > percent or 90 percent?
>
> > > In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
> > > at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>
> > Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>
> > > > Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
> > > > talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers —
> > > > that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
> > > > depend on the government liking what they publish?
>
> > > No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>
> > You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
> > from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>
> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
protecting their rights?
So what they've done is moved on to "net neutrality". Who should be
concerned about that?
> That's
> just a rightweenie pundit thing -- sort of like the "death panels".
Are you saying there is going to be unlimited free health care under
the Democrat health plan? If not, who's going to limit it? Are dying
old on the "public option" going to get access to free experimental
treatment?
> It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> critical thinking skills.
So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
terrorist monitored by the government.
gb
<caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 5, 7:46�am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 4, 9:41�pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>> > from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>>
>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
>
>So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
>listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
>protecting their rights?
In a word, yes.
>So what they've done is moved on to "net neutrality". Who should be
>concerned about that?
People who want the net to be content-neutral. At the moment, the
folks who do Not want that come from the (hallowed) Private Sector,
not the gubmint.
>Are you saying there is going to be unlimited free health care under
>the Democrat health plan?
Unlimited eventually. Free, never. TANSTAAFL applies and it's quite
OK if it does.
> If not, who's going to limit it?
Nature will, ftmp. Since we spend a Huge amount to no particular
avail during the final stages of terminal illnesses, the hope is that
some sort of fiscal rationality will apply. In essence, if You want
to pay to be kept on a machine for an extra 10 days, you may do so,
but not at public expense.
> Are dying old on the "public option" going to get access to free experimental
>treatment?
Depends entirely on whoever is doing the experiment, and who is
funding it. If the HPS is funding it, then the funders will - as they
do now -- determine who participates and who does not, who will be the
Real Stuff and who will get the placebo.
Which seems quite reasonable to me, certainly.
>So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
>degredation of rights?
What alleged Rights are you concerned with, in the instant discussion?
> You must be right because I'm not concerned
>with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
>terrorist monitored by the government.
That was never the issue, was it, and you are trying to be clever,
aren'tcha?
The right is to have your conversations with those who are Not
Terrists unmonitored. Since it is the case that to uncover a single
conversation of anyone with a Terrist would involved monitoring far
more conversations that have nothing to do with Terrism, there's the
application of the Privacy right that folks are reasonably concerned
about.
OTOH, if the LEAs have any reason to believe that you are involved
with Terrism, then getting a warrant to monitor those conversations is
quite the appropriate way to handle it.
We know, for example, that under the previous administration, Millions
of conversations were being monitored and recorded that had Nothing to
do with Terrism. That's what Wrong with that process.
Alex DeLarge
> What alleged Rights are you concerned with, in the instant discussion?
======================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
===================================================================================
Curt
I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to. We
should all be vigilant about protecting our rights.. but we should
keep an eye on what our rights are, and what's important. Talk
radio .. isn't.
>
> So what they've done is moved on to "net neutrality". Who should be
> concerned about that?
I dunno -- it's an issue I've found so boring that I've never even
bothered to read up on it. I'm sort of under the impression that some
ISPs want to charge more for certain content, or something like that.
But every time I start to look at it, it gets dreary and my attention
wanders, so I remain uninformed. And unconcerned about my uninformed
state, I might add!
>
> > That's
> > just a rightweenie pundit thing -- sort of like the "death panels".
>
> Are you saying there is going to be unlimited free health care under
> the Democrat health plan? If not, who's going to limit it? Are dying
> old on the "public option" going to get access to free experimental
> treatment?
I think the deal is more just to get people on insurance. The amount
of health care available likely won't change. And the amount of people
getting experimental treatment --- free or otherwise -- likely won't
change much either.
>
> > It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> > critical thinking skills.
>
> So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> terrorist monitored by the government.-
You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
that happening. No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
Curt
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
>>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
>> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
>> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
>> protecting their rights?
>
> I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
> Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to.
ULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!
You are a LIAR curt!
s Obama's New FCC Transition Head Talk Radio's 'Executioner'?
By Tim Graham (Bio | Archive)
November 6, 2008 - 23:04 ET
Brian Maloney at Radio Equalizer warns that Barack Obama is signaling
his designs on conservative talk radio with the rumored appointment of
former FCC Commissioner Henry Rivera as the head of his FCC transition team:
Henry Rivera, a longtime radical leftist, lawyer and former FCC
commissioner, is expected to lead the push to dismantle commercial talk
radio that is favored by a number of Democratic Party senators. Rivera
will play a pivotal role in preventing critics from having a public
voice during Obama's tenure in office.
Rivera, who resigned from the FCC nearly a quarter-century ago during
the Reagan years, believes in a doctrine of "communications policy as a
civil rights issue".
His exit during the Reagan Administration paved the way for the Fairness
Doctrine's repeal when the late president appointed Patricia Diaz Dennis
in 1986 to fill out the rest of Rivera's term. Had this not occurred,
talk radio as we know it today would not exist.
That gives Rivera's new task a great deal of personal urgency: it's a
late-career, second chance opportunity to shut down opposition voices
that have been allowed to flourish since his depature from the commission.
In particular, Rivera is known for his push for more minority
broadcasting ownership, but this issue has largely been rendered
obsolete as former commercial broadcasting empires teeter on the brink
of bankruptcy.
Rivera's first opportunity to eliminate commercial talk radio will occur
in June 2009, as the term of Republican Robert McDowell expires and he
can be replaced with a pro-Fairness Doctrine Democrat. That will give
the commission a three-vote Democratic majority, though the final two
seats must remain in Republican hands.
If they can strong-arm one of the three Republicans into leaving early,
this can be implemented even sooner.
Keep reading. Brian also reports that executives at Air America radio
think of the Fairness Doctrine as a boon for them.
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/obama-stop-listening-to-conservative-talk-radio/
Obama: �Stop listening to conservative talk radio.�
Posted by Carlos on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Hat Tip: Say Anything Blog
The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the
country, the American people are a decent people. Now they get confused
sometimes. You know, they listen to the wrong talk radio shows or watch
the wrong TV networks, um, but they�re, they�re basically decent,
they�re basically sound. � Barack Hussein Obama
What talk radio shows and television shows would that be, Obama? The
ones that tell us the truth? The ones that expose your fraudulent, and
almost non-existent, Senate voting record? The ones that expose your
past and current friends? The ones that clearly spell out your
diabolical Marxist plans for America?
Are these the same talk radio shows and television shows you and your
liberal ilk target with the �Fairness Doctrine�? This doctrine is wholly
fascist, yet you agree with it. Why? Are Americans not smart enough to
think for ourselves and decide what we want to see, read, and hear?
What else are Americans confused about? Are we confused about what to
eat? What we want to study? Who we want to love?
Obama, what are you proposing? Do you want to control our lives and
suppress our freedom to choose what is best for ourselves? Why do you
want to create a government that oversees our entire lifetime, from the
cradle to the grave, in the guise of equality?
Curt
> Curt wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> >>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> >>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> >>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> >>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
> >>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
> >>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
> >>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
> >>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
> >>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
> >>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
> >>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
> >>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
> >>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
> >>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
> >>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
> >> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
> >> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
> >> protecting their rights?
>
> > I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
> > Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to.
>
> ULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You are a LIAR curt!
>
>
> s Obama's New FCC Transition Head Talk Radio's 'Executioner'?
Like I said. The Rightweenie Pundits are shrieking like schoolgirls,
but then, that's SOP for them. They're in the outrage industry -- they
need to say outrageous things. You can disregard them. They've been
wrong more times than they've been right. By factors. No one's going
to knock your racist, pill-popping lard mountain off the air.
Curt
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 5, 2:32 pm, Alex DeLarge <kor...@milk.bar> wrote:
>> Curt wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>>>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>>>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>>>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>>>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
>>>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
>>>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>>>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>>>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>>>>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>>>>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>>>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>>>>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>>>>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>>>>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
>>>>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
>>>> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
>>>> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
>>>> protecting their rights?
>>> I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
>>> Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to.
>> ULL FUCKING SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> You are a LIAR curt!
>>
>> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/11/06/obamas-new-fcc-tra...
>>
>> s Obama's New FCC Transition Head Talk Radio's 'Executioner'?
>
> Like I said.
No, you fucking LIAR - DROP DAMNED DEAD!
You are a LIAR curt!
s Obama's New FCC Transition Head Talk Radio's 'Executioner'?
Yer Pal Al
You know what else isn't important? Gay marriage rights.
> > So what they've done is moved on to "net neutrality". Who should be
> > concerned about that?
>
> I dunno -- it's an issue I've found so boring that I've never even
> bothered to read up on it. I'm sort of under the impression that some
> ISPs want to charge more for certain content, or something like that.
> But every time I start to look at it, it gets dreary and my attention
> wanders, so I remain uninformed. And unconcerned about my uninformed
> state, I might add!
It's the FCC telling businesses how they must operate which means they
won't be competing. The end result is that we are going to have 3
ISP's in this country and they are charge whatever they want. Then
after 15 years of taking it in the ass congress will break them up
like Ma Bell - creating a new set of problems that replaces the
problem they created in the first place.
> > > That's
> > > just a rightweenie pundit thing -- sort of like the "death panels".
>
> > Are you saying there is going to be unlimited free health care under
> > the Democrat health plan? If not, who's going to limit it? Are dying
> > old on the "public option" going to get access to free experimental
> > treatment?
>
> I think the deal is more just to get people on insurance. The amount
> of health care available likely won't change. And the amount of people
> getting experimental treatment --- free or otherwise -- likely won't
> change much either.
What is it, $1.3T now?
> > > It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> > > critical thinking skills.
>
> > So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> > degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> > with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> > terrorist monitored by the government.-
>
> You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
if I should be concerned?
> You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> that happening.
So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
ago?
> No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
bogymen.
Barack Hussein Bohica
wrote:
>On Nov 4, 9:41�pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 6:10�pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 2, 11:19�am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>> > > government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>> > > but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>> > > arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>> > > percent or 90 percent?
>>
>> > In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
>> > at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>>
>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>>
>> > > Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>> > > talk radio? That there would be plans afloat to subsidize newspapers �
>> > > that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>> > > depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>
>> > No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>>
>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>
>Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.
...in that it would be immediately followed by a much needed cleansing
of this nation of its infestation of fascists.
Curt
Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
programming isn't.
>
> > > So what they've done is moved on to "net neutrality". Who should be
> > > concerned about that?
>
> > I dunno -- it's an issue I've found so boring that I've never even
> > bothered to read up on it. I'm sort of under the impression that some
> > ISPs want to charge more for certain content, or something like that.
> > But every time I start to look at it, it gets dreary and my attention
> > wanders, so I remain uninformed. And unconcerned about my uninformed
> > state, I might add!
>
> It's the FCC telling businesses how they must operate which means they
> won't be competing. The end result is that we are going to have 3
> ISP's in this country and they are charge whatever they want. Then
> after 15 years of taking it in the ass congress will break them up
> like Ma Bell - creating a new set of problems that replaces the
> problem they created in the first place.
You could be right. I thought it was big ISPs trying to restrict
content.
>
> > > > That's
> > > > just a rightweenie pundit thing -- sort of like the "death panels".
>
> > > Are you saying there is going to be unlimited free health care under
> > > the Democrat health plan? If not, who's going to limit it? Are dying
> > > old on the "public option" going to get access to free experimental
> > > treatment?
>
> > I think the deal is more just to get people on insurance. The amount
> > of health care available likely won't change. And the amount of people
> > getting experimental treatment --- free or otherwise -- likely won't
> > change much either.
>
> What is it, $1.3T now?
Come again?
>
> > > > It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> > > > critical thinking skills.
>
> > > So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> > > degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> > > with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> > > terrorist monitored by the government.-
>
> > You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
>
> So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
> people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
> if I should be concerned?
I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
>
> > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > that happening.
>
> So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> ago?
Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
that freedom enhancement.
>
> > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> bogymen.-
Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
information".
Curt
Curt
<CharlieFoxt...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
> >> > No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>
> >> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
> >> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>
> >Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing.
>
> ...in that it would be immediately followed by a much needed cleansing
> of this nation of its infestation of fascists.
I'm sure you think that makes sense..
Curt
Alex DeLarge
> Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
> programming isn't.
There goes fascist dummy again, the enemy of the 1st amendment.
Alex DeLarge
We know you do not.
Yer Pal Al
You are saying that you see "marriage" in the Constitution but not
"speech"? I must have made a mistake thinking you were in the United
States.
The price tag on the latest healthcare bill.
> > > > > It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> > > > > critical thinking skills.
>
> > > > So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> > > > degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> > > > with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> > > > terrorist monitored by the government.-
>
> > > You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
>
> > So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
> > people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
> > if I should be concerned?
>
> I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
> in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
keep expenses down.
Call it what you want.
> > > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > > that happening.
>
> > So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> > ago?
>
> Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> that freedom enhancement.
Try opening a business.
> > > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> > Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> > bogymen.-
>
> Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> information".
I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC and do fact
checking on the internet. I do hit some conservative authors
regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.
mrmcafee
> On Nov 6, 8:32 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 5, 8:29 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 5, 2:20 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>>>>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>>>>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>>>>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>>>>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
>>>>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
>>>>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>>>>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>>>>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>>>>>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>>>>>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>>>>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>>>>>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>>>>>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>>>>>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
>>>>>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
>>>>> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
>>>>> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
>>>>> protecting their rights?
>>>> I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
>>>> Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to. We
>>>> should all be vigilant about protecting our rights.. but we should
>>>> keep an eye on what our rights are, and what's important. Talk
>>>> radio .. isn't.
>>> You know what else isn't important? Gay marriage rights.
>> Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
>> programming isn't.
>
> You are saying that you see "marriage" in the Constitution but not
> "speech"? I must have made a mistake thinking you were in the United
> States.
You understand that the current model restricts free speech, don't you.
The Fairness Doctrine would broaden free speech enabling a wider variety
of opinions to be aired instead of just the views promoted by the radio
station owners and operates.
So far as a right for homosexuals to marry, you might consider how the
14th Amendment could impact this situation. That amendment guarantees
each American protection from state government interfering in their
liberty and also guarantees that each person will have access to the
protection afforded by law that everybody else has.
Latest estimates are that HR 3962 will SAVE the federal government over
the time frame.
>
>>>>>> It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
>>>>> So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
>>>>> degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
>>>>> with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
>>>>> terrorist monitored by the government.-
>>>> You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
>>> So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
>>> people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
>>> if I should be concerned?
>> I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
>> in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
>
> If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
> get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
> about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
> will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
> government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
> eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
> keep expenses down.
>
> Call it what you want.
Your fears always prove to be unfounded.
>
>>>> You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
>>>> that happening.
>>> So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
>>> ago?
>> Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
>> my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
>> that freedom enhancement.
>
> Try opening a business.
Has it become easier? Somehow I don't think so. Lord knows that I've had
more requirements place on mine. Used to be that I could hire a worker
and be done with it. Now I have to be the immigration cop and the tax
collector too.
>
>>>> No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>>> Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
>>> bogymen.-
>> Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
>> information".
>
> I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC
Maddow is just about the only political commentator that I can stomach,
and that only in limited doses. All of the rest from both sides are too
much to put up with.
> and do fact
> checking on the internet.
WND or Newsmax?
> I do hit some conservative authors
> regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.
He represents the kind of thinking that brought on the Great Depression.
Yer Pal Al
> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 8:32 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 5, 8:29 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 5, 2:20 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> >>>>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> >>>>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> >>>>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> >>>>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
> >>>>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
> >>>>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
> >>>>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
> >>>>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
> >>>>>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
> >>>>>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
> >>>>>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
> >>>>>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
> >>>>>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
> >>>>>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
> >>>>>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
> >>>>> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
> >>>>> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
> >>>>> protecting their rights?
> >>>> I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
> >>>> Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to. We
> >>>> should all be vigilant about protecting our rights.. but we should
> >>>> keep an eye on what our rights are, and what's important. Talk
> >>>> radio .. isn't.
> >>> You know what else isn't important? Gay marriage rights.
> >> Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
> >> programming isn't.
>
> > You are saying that you see "marriage" in the Constitution but not
> > "speech"? I must have made a mistake thinking you were in the United
> > States.
>
> You understand that the current model restricts free speech,
I don't see the government restricting speech and that's what the 1st
amendment is about.
> don't you.
> The Fairness Doctrine would broaden free speech enabling a wider variety
> of opinions to be aired instead of just the views promoted by the radio
> station owners and operates.
It would do that by restricting the free speech of the radio station
owners. This isn't about giving everyone a voice because that is
impossible. It's about silencing right-wing talk radio as radio
station owners are going to switch to non-political money-making,
formats instead of trying to accommodate everyone.
> So far as a right for homosexuals to marry, you might consider how the
> 14th Amendment could impact this situation. That amendment guarantees
> each American protection from state government interfering in their
> liberty and also guarantees that each person will have access to the
> protection afforded by law that everybody else has.
That's why there is noise about federal laws. Marriage is not
specifically addressed in the Constitution; speech is.
Not according tot he CBO.
> >>>>>> It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> >>>>>> critical thinking skills.
> >>>>> So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> >>>>> degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> >>>>> with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> >>>>> terrorist monitored by the government.-
> >>>> You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
> >>> So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
> >>> people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
> >>> if I should be concerned?
> >> I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
> >> in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
>
> > If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
> > get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
> > about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
> > will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
> > government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
> > eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
> > keep expenses down.
>
> > Call it what you want.
>
> Your fears always prove to be unfounded.
Is that what happened last time we passed a health care bill?
> >>>> You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> >>>> that happening.
> >>> So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> >>> ago?
> >> Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> >> my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> >> that freedom enhancement.
>
> > Try opening a business.
>
> Has it become easier? Somehow I don't think so. Lord knows that I've had
> more requirements place on mine. Used to be that I could hire a worker
> and be done with it. Now I have to be the immigration cop and the tax
> collector too.
So you realize your freedoms are being encroached up on slowly but
surely.
> >>>> No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
> >>> Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> >>> bogymen.-
> >> Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> >> information".
>
> > I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC
>
> Maddow is just about the only political commentator that I can stomach,
I don't like her, but I watch her the most.
> and that only in limited doses. All of the rest from both sides are too
> much to put up with.
>
> > and do fact
> > checking on the internet.
>
> WND or Newsmax?
Usually not. When Maddow slimes someone, I go to their website to get
a transcript.
> > I do hit some conservative authors
> > regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.
>
> He represents the kind of thinking that brought on the Great Depression.
So being fiscally responsible is going to lead to a depression? And a
$17,000,000,000,000 debt is going to make things rosey?
mrmcafee
> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 8:32 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 5, 8:29 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 5, 2:20 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>>>>>>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>>>>>>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>>>>>>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
>>>>>>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
>>>>>>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>>>>>>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>>>>>>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>>>>>>>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>>>>>>>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>>>>>>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>>>>>>>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>>>>>>>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>>>>>>>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
>>>>>>>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
>>>>>>> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
>>>>>>> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
>>>>>>> protecting their rights?
>>>>>> I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
>>>>>> Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to. We
>>>>>> should all be vigilant about protecting our rights.. but we should
>>>>>> keep an eye on what our rights are, and what's important. Talk
>>>>>> radio .. isn't.
>>>>> You know what else isn't important? Gay marriage rights.
>>>> Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
>>>> programming isn't.
>>> You are saying that you see "marriage" in the Constitution but not
>>> "speech"? I must have made a mistake thinking you were in the United
>>> States.
>> You understand that the current model restricts free speech,
>
> I don't see the government restricting speech and that's what the 1st
> amendment is about.
Then you don't appreciate that the public owns the airways and if
government allows the broadcasters to broadcast only one point of view
then government is allowing the other point of view to be suppressed.
that suppression violates the 1st Amendment.
>
>> don't you.
>> The Fairness Doctrine would broaden free speech enabling a wider variety
>> of opinions to be aired instead of just the views promoted by the radio
>> station owners and operates.
>
> It would do that by restricting the free speech of the radio station
> owners.
They would be allowed to air their opinions. they would just have to
provide equal time in the expression of opposing views.
> This isn't about giving everyone a voice because that is
> impossible. It's about silencing right-wing talk radio as radio
> station owners are going to switch to non-political money-making,
> formats instead of trying to accommodate everyone.
Maybe an asteroid will fall on Rush's head too. Point is that you don't
know what they will do. If broadcasting "Mike Savage's" brand of
political opinion makes them money, then I would expect that they will
continue to broadcast him.
>
>> So far as a right for homosexuals to marry, you might consider how the
>> 14th Amendment could impact this situation. That amendment guarantees
>> each American protection from state government interfering in their
>> liberty and also guarantees that each person will have access to the
>> protection afforded by law that everybody else has.
>
> That's why there is noise about federal laws.
Makes sense, right?
> Marriage is not
> specifically addressed in the Constitution; speech is.
Yes. We should do all we can to make sure that our government allows
access to the nation's airways for all point of view.
Really? You have been lied to again! You seem to fall for this stuff way
too easily.
"CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending
and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager�s
amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
$129 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1)."
http://tinyurl.com/yayvuml
Let me guess. This news puts a whole new face on Health insurance
reform! You should be a supporter now!
>
>>>>>>>> It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
>>>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
>>>>>>> So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
>>>>>>> degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
>>>>>>> with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
>>>>>>> terrorist monitored by the government.-
>>>>>> You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
>>>>> So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
>>>>> people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
>>>>> if I should be concerned?
>>>> I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
>>>> in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
>>> If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
>>> get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
>>> about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
>>> will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
>>> government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
>>> eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
>>> keep expenses down.
>>> Call it what you want.
>> Your fears always prove to be unfounded.
>
> Is that what happened last time we passed a health care bill?
We you afraid that Medicare would lead to socialized medicine and the
spread of homosexuality?
>
>>>>>> You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
>>>>>> that happening.
>>>>> So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
>>>>> ago?
>>>> Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
>>>> my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
>>>> that freedom enhancement.
>>> Try opening a business.
>> Has it become easier? Somehow I don't think so. Lord knows that I've had
>> more requirements place on mine. Used to be that I could hire a worker
>> and be done with it. Now I have to be the immigration cop and the tax
>> collector too.
>
> So you realize your freedoms are being encroached up on slowly but
> surely.
I wouldn't say my "freedoms", but my duties have been increased by you
right wingers that's for sure.
>
>>>>>> No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>>>>> Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
>>>>> bogymen.-
>>>> Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
>>>> information".
>>> I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC
>> Maddow is just about the only political commentator that I can stomach,
>
> I don't like her, but I watch her the most.
If you don't like her why watch? Life is short. Do what gives you pleasure.
>
>> and that only in limited doses. All of the rest from both sides are too
>> much to put up with.
>>
>>> and do fact
>>> checking on the internet.
>> WND or Newsmax?
>
> Usually not. When Maddow slimes someone, I go to their website to get
> a transcript.
Maddow's or the lying right winger she called out?
>
>>> I do hit some conservative authors
>>> regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.
>> He represents the kind of thinking that brought on the Great Depression.
>
> So being fiscally responsible is going to lead to a depression?
Laissez faire governance does that.
Alex DeLarge
)
( )(
) _)
( \_)
_(_\ \)__
(__cccp___))
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
Yer Pal Al
> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> >> Yer Pal Al wrote:
> >>> On Nov 6, 8:32 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 5, 8:29 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 5, 2:20 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
> >>>>>>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
> >>>>>>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
> >>>>>>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
> >>>>>>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
> >>>>>>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
> >>>>>>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
> >>>>>>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
The government isn't promoting nor are the abridging free speech. They
will have to make a law to do that according to the 1st amendment.
> point of view
> then government is allowing the other point of view to be suppressed.
Which point of view? There are probably 330M points of view in this
country. What you are saying is not practical in anyway.
> that suppression violates the 1st Amendment.
Read the amendment for the first time.
> >> don't you.
> >> The Fairness Doctrine would broaden free speech enabling a wider variety
> >> of opinions to be aired instead of just the views promoted by the radio
> >> station owners and operates.
>
> > It would do that by restricting the free speech of the radio station
> > owners.
>
> They would be allowed to air their opinions. they would just have to
> provide equal time in the expression of opposing views.
That would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment since they would
be making a law abridging free speech.
> > This isn't about giving everyone a voice because that is
> > impossible. It's about silencing right-wing talk radio as radio
> > station owners are going to switch to non-political money-making,
> > formats instead of trying to accommodate everyone.
>
> Maybe an asteroid will fall on Rush's head too. Point is that you don't
> know what they will do. If broadcasting "Mike Savage's" brand of
> political opinion makes them money, then I would expect that they will
> continue to broadcast him.
Do you remember what talk radio was like when did have a "fairness
doctrine"? What you are saying is that conserative talk radio stations
will lose half of their audience when they host liberal talk shows
that Err America proves don't make money.
> >> So far as a right for homosexuals to marry, you might consider how the
> >> 14th Amendment could impact this situation. That amendment guarantees
> >> each American protection from state government interfering in their
> >> liberty and also guarantees that each person will have access to the
> >> protection afforded by law that everybody else has.
>
> > That's why there is noise about federal laws.
>
> Makes sense, right?
It should be a state's rights issue.
> > Marriage is not
> > specifically addressed in the Constitution; speech is.
>
> Yes. We should do all we can to make sure that our government allows
> access to the nation's airways for all point of view.
The shouldn't actively prevent it. Otherwise, I think we should live
in as a free society as possible even when other perspectives dominate
a medium.
It's true:
http://tinyurl.com/yl3lyj2
> "CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending
> and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager’s
> amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
> $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1)."http://tinyurl.com/yayvuml
I didn't say that the bill wasn't funded. We are going to pay an
increase in taxes to pay for the bill with some overage with a lot of
that being penalties assessed to businesses and individuals.
> Let me guess. This news puts a whole new face on Health insurance
> reform! You should be a supporter now!
I have excellent health insurance now. My service will not get better
when this bill is inacted. My service will not be cheaper if this bill
is inacted. I will probably see an increase in taxes. I will certainly
see a large increase in my portion of the federal debt.
> >>>>>>>> It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> >>>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
> >>>>>>> So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> >>>>>>> degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> >>>>>>> with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> >>>>>>> terrorist monitored by the government.-
> >>>>>> You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
> >>>>> So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
> >>>>> people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
> >>>>> if I should be concerned?
> >>>> I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
> >>>> in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
> >>> If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
> >>> get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
> >>> about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
> >>> will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
> >>> government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
> >>> eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
> >>> keep expenses down.
> >>> Call it what you want.
> >> Your fears always prove to be unfounded.
>
> > Is that what happened last time we passed a health care bill?
>
> We you afraid that Medicare would lead to socialized medicine and the
> spread of homosexuality?
My fear is that one day I will have to use medicare.
> >>>>>> You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> >>>>>> that happening.
> >>>>> So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> >>>>> ago?
> >>>> Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> >>>> my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> >>>> that freedom enhancement.
> >>> Try opening a business.
> >> Has it become easier? Somehow I don't think so. Lord knows that I've had
> >> more requirements place on mine. Used to be that I could hire a worker
> >> and be done with it. Now I have to be the immigration cop and the tax
> >> collector too.
>
> > So you realize your freedoms are being encroached up on slowly but
> > surely.
>
> I wouldn't say my "freedoms", but my duties have been increased by you
> right wingers that's for sure.
I live in Washington State and am subject to those laws. This State
has been solidly Democrat since 1985. After we voted down an income
tax Governor Lowery decided in to punish businesses with a 2.5% gross
sales tax (called B&O). Of course all the friends and powerful
(Lawyers, Boeing, etc.) were exempt. Small businesses like mine don't
have an exemption. The nature of my business does not allow me to pass
the 2.5% charge to the customer so it comes out of my profits. I get a
call from the Washington State Department of Revenue. They said the
2.5% wasn't enough. Because I processed checks (some of the customers
would pay with checks) I had to pay the B&O tax on those too in
addition. But wait... There's more. I have to pay the B&O tax on my
profits as well - like an income tax. This is a side business for me
and now it's not worth it.
I *WISH* my biggest problem was that I had to look at a birth
certificate before I hired someone. I lived for AZ for 3 years and ran
a business there too. This Democrat state is much, much worse if all
you want to do is hang a shingle.
> >>>>>> No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
> >>>>> Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> >>>>> bogymen.-
> >>>> Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> >>>> information".
> >>> I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC
> >> Maddow is just about the only political commentator that I can stomach,
>
> > I don't like her, but I watch her the most.
>
> If you don't like her why watch? Life is short. Do what gives you pleasure.
Do you see me debating with conservatives? Rarely. And as long as I'm
not a Nielsen household I'll watch MSNBC.
> >> and that only in limited doses. All of the rest from both sides are too
> >> much to put up with.
>
> >>> and do fact
> >>> checking on the internet.
> >> WND or Newsmax?
>
> > Usually not. When Maddow slimes someone, I go to their website to get
> > a transcript.
>
> Maddow's or the lying right winger she called out?
Whomever she slimes.
> >>> I do hit some conservative authors
> >>> regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.
> >> He represents the kind of thinking that brought on the Great Depression.
>
> > So being fiscally responsible is going to lead to a depression?
>
> Laissez faire governance does that.
Unlike Venezuela, Cuba and the old USSR.
Curt
I see "secure in person and papers" or whatever, but I don't see radio
programming. Bear in mind, no one is talking about restricting speech.
Just exactly no one.
Yup. Saving money costs money. Think of it as return on investment.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > > It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
> > > > > > critical thinking skills.
>
> > > > > So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
> > > > > degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
> > > > > with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
> > > > > terrorist monitored by the government.-
>
> > > > You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
>
> > > So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
> > > people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
> > > if I should be concerned?
>
> > I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
> > in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
>
> If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
> get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
> about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
> will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
> government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
> eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
> keep expenses down.
>
> Call it what you want.
As long as we can agree that anyone who ever used the term "death
panel" A)was horrifically, laughably wrong and B)gave up her chance to
be taken seriously, we can start having a serious conversation about
"rationing". The way I see it, if everyone has a minimal level of
insurance, that's fine. And if anyone wants to buy up to a higher
level, that's great too.
>
> > > > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > > > that happening.
>
> > > So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> > > ago?
>
> > Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> > my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> > that freedom enhancement.
>
> Try opening a business.
I've done that before and I'm about, in a couple months, to do it
again. So far, no one's abridged any of my freedoms. I'll let you
know.
>
> > > > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> > > Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> > > bogymen.-
>
> > Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> > information".
>
> I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC and do fact
> checking on the internet. I do hit some conservative authors
> regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.-
Thomas Sowell said your freedom of speech was going to be abridged?
Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
been drinking or something.
Curt
Yer Pal Al
You don't think what people say on the radio is speech? Or that it's
the press?
So if it's a trillion dollars over 10 years, we'll realize the savings
sometime after that?
"Death Panel" is obviously a euphamism, but if they do make
recomendations that affect lives then it will be an appropriate one.
> > > > > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > > > > that happening.
>
> > > > So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> > > > ago?
>
> > > Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> > > my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> > > that freedom enhancement.
>
> > Try opening a business.
>
> I've done that before and I'm about, in a couple months, to do it
> again. So far, no one's abridged any of my freedoms. I'll let you
> know.
Why are you waiting so long? Why don't you do it right now?
> > > > > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> > > > Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> > > > bogymen.-
>
> > > Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> > > information".
>
> > I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC and do fact
> > checking on the internet. I do hit some conservative authors
> > regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.-
>
> Thomas Sowell said your freedom of speech was going to be abridged?
He said our freedom of speech - as a Czar was talking about limiting
talk radio and subsidizing newspapers.
> Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
> been drinking or something.
When asked what Moslem country they'd prefer one liberal said the
Maldives where you have to submit to the Moslem faith to be a citizen.
Liberals certainly take the rights they enjoy in this country for
granted.
Barack Hussein Bohica
<"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>Yer Pal Al wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 8:32 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Nov 5, 8:29 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You know what else isn't important? Gay marriage rights.
>>> Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
>>> programming isn't.
>>
>> You are saying that you see "marriage" in the Constitution but not
>> "speech"? I must have made a mistake thinking you were in the United
>> States.
>
>
>You understand that the current model restricts free speech, don't you.
>The Fairness Doctrine would broaden free speech enabling a wider variety
>of opinions to be aired instead of just the views promoted by the radio
>station owners and operates.
Under penalty of imprisonment, you will post one conservative message
for every moonbat message you post. You have a boatload of catching
up to do...
Barack Hussein Bohica
<caddys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Do you remember what talk radio was like when did have a "fairness
>doctrine"? What you are saying is that conserative talk radio stations
>will lose half of their audience when they host liberal talk shows
>that Err America proves don't make money.
On the other hand, forcing Err America and NPR to carry Rush would be
kinda fun. And make them some money.
Curt
I don't see a "Fairness Doctrine", even if it were to happen which I
don't believe it will, as an infringement of any constitutional issue.
Remember, it wasn't an infringement before when it was active. And the
Reagan admin, when they dropped it, didn't address it as a
constitutional issue but rather a regulatory issue.
CBO estimates say that it will SAVE money, last I read.
It's not a euphemism -- it's an utter lie.
>
> > > > > > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > > > > > that happening.
>
> > > > > So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> > > > > ago?
>
> > > > Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> > > > my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> > > > that freedom enhancement.
>
> > > Try opening a business.
>
> > I've done that before and I'm about, in a couple months, to do it
> > again. So far, no one's abridged any of my freedoms. I'll let you
> > know.
>
> Why are you waiting so long? Why don't you do it right now?
I'm doing my due diligence, if you're asking why I don't open up right
now. If you're asking why I don't tell you that my freedoms are being
abridged --
>
> > > > > > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> > > > > Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> > > > > bogymen.-
>
> > > > Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> > > > information".
>
> > > I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC and do fact
> > > checking on the internet. I do hit some conservative authors
> > > regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.-
>
> > Thomas Sowell said your freedom of speech was going to be abridged?
>
> He said our freedom of speech - as a Czar was talking about limiting
> talk radio and subsidizing newspapers.
No one's talking about limiting talk radio, though. As far as
subsidizing newspapers, I don't consider myself qualified to enter
into that debate -- people ought to read more than they do, but I hate
the idea of an official government paper, or a paper having to carry
an official government line in order to get a subsidy.
>
> > Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
> > been drinking or something.
>
> When asked what Moslem country they'd prefer one liberal said the
> Maldives where you have to submit to the Moslem faith to be a citizen.
I'm not sure where you're going with that.
>
> Liberals certainly take the rights they enjoy in this country for
> granted.-
Liberals have always energetically defended this country's liberties.
Curt
Sancho Panza
It seems as if the White House has the "with relatively poor critical
thinking skills":
" Classy: White House Thugs Now Threatening Democrat Strategists Who Appear
on Fox
The Obama Thug Machine is officially out of control.
At least one Democratic political strategist has gotten a blunt warning
from the White House to never appear on Fox News Channel, an outlet that
presidential aides have depicted as not so much a news-gathering operation
as a political opponent bent on damaging the Obama administration.
Political consultants are a staple of cable television talk shows,
analyzing current events based on their own experiences working on campaigns
or in government.
One Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox
he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a
guest on the show again. The call had an intimidating tone, he said.
The message was, "We better not see you on again,'' said the strategist,
who spoke on condition of anonymity so as not to run afoul of the White
House. An implicit suggestion, he said, was that "clients might stop using
you if you continue.''
In urging Democratic consultants to spurn Fox, White House officials
might be trying to isolate the network and make it appear more partisan.
Welcome to Obama's America, where freely speaking your mind is now forbidden
and where you're livelihood will be threatened if you don't fall in line.
But Patrick Caddell, a Fox News contributor and a former pollster for
Democratic President Jimmy Carter, said he has spoken to Democratic
consultants who have been told by the White House to avoid appearances on
Fox. He declined to give their names.
Caddell said he had not gotten that message himself from the White
House. "They know better than to tell me anything like that,'' he said.
Caddell added: "I have heard that they've done that to others in not too
subtle ways. I find it appalling. When the White House gets in the business
of suppressing dissent and comment, particularly from its own party, it
hurts itself.'' "
Alex DeLarge
> No one's talking about limiting talk radio, though.
BULLSHIT LIAR!
http://www.scoopthis.org/2008/09/obama-stop-listening-to-conservative-talk-radio/
The one thing that I want to insist on is that, as I travel around the
Yer Pal Al
It was enacted by Democrats (Truman) and the only time it came up it
was defended by Democrats (LBJ) - long before talk radio's domination
by Conservatives.
> And the
> Reagan admin, when they dropped it, didn't address it as a
> constitutional issue but rather a regulatory issue.
Reagan was part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch he
could have dropped the regulation because he had a bad golf game that
day.
If you think taxing people ($460B) and penalizing people and
businesses ($33B and $135B respectively) to pay for the bill plus some
overage is "saving" money - assuming people don't avoid the taxes and
penalties and people don't abuse the system and they can actually keep
illegals out of the system. Pretty much discard that argument when
taxing people more is a saving.
Intrinsically, you cannot offer healthcare to 36,000,000 people and
not incur additional charges. I still don't know how I'm going to get
better service when you add 13% more customers into the system and
don't add 13% more doctors.
What's the lie? That health care will not be limited or when it is it
will not affect life expectancy and how do you know these things?
> > > > > > > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > > > > > > that happening.
>
> > > > > > So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> > > > > > ago?
>
> > > > > Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> > > > > my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> > > > > that freedom enhancement.
>
> > > > Try opening a business.
>
> > > I've done that before and I'm about, in a couple months, to do it
> > > again. So far, no one's abridged any of my freedoms. I'll let you
> > > know.
>
> > Why are you waiting so long? Why don't you do it right now?
>
> I'm doing my due diligence,
Time != Money in your world? Or are you making sure that all your
paperwork is in its proper place before you open shop? Those rules and
regulations that government has imposed upon you?
> if you're asking why I don't open up right
> now. If you're asking why I don't tell you that my freedoms are being
> abridged --
> > > > > > > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> > > > > > Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> > > > > > bogymen.-
>
> > > > > Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> > > > > information".
>
> > > > I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC and do fact
> > > > checking on the internet. I do hit some conservative authors
> > > > regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.-
>
> > > Thomas Sowell said your freedom of speech was going to be abridged?
>
> > He said our freedom of speech - as a Czar was talking about limiting
> > talk radio and subsidizing newspapers.
>
> No one's talking about limiting talk radio, though. As far as
> subsidizing newspapers, I don't consider myself qualified to enter
> into that debate -- people ought to read more than they do, but I hate
> the idea of an official government paper, or a paper having to carry
> an official government line in order to get a subsidy.
I don't know if people are reading less, just not newspapers so much
anymore.
> > > Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
> > > been drinking or something.
>
> > When asked what Moslem country they'd prefer one liberal said the
> > Maldives where you have to submit to the Moslem faith to be a citizen.
>
> I'm not sure where you're going with that.
It goes with the next sentence:
> > Liberals certainly take the rights they enjoy in this country for
> > granted.-
>
> Liberals have always energetically defended this country's liberties.
Except:
The rights fo the pre-born
The rights of gun owners
The rights of radio staton owners
Those who wish to drive big, expensive cars
The right to take your own risks and reap your own rewards /
consequences
The right to vote secretly WRT union certification
The freedom to question global warming theories
The freedom to produce as much CO2 as you wish
The freedom provided by school vouchers
The freedom to eat fast food
The freedom to hunt and fish
The freedom to raise your children the way you see fit
The freedom to use a garbage disposal and toilets that work with
one flush
State's rights
The freedom to have a smoking club
The freedom to own property without having it confiscated because
the local government found someone who will pay higher taxes.
Other than that you guys are doing a great job at protecting the
rights of criminals, pornographers, business killing unions,
homosexuals and the failing public school system.
Curt
Indeed. Radio was a very different environment back then. You got talk
shows -- but they were generally, like, a host that would interview an
expert for an audience of lay-people. Now you've got a host that
interviews his own audience and pretends to be an expert. Some might
even say radio did a better job back in the day. I wouldn't enter into
that argument, myself.
>
> > And the
> > Reagan admin, when they dropped it, didn't address it as a
> > constitutional issue but rather a regulatory issue.
>
> Reagan was part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch he
> could have dropped the regulation because he had a bad golf game that
> day.
Fair enough. And when the regulation was dropped, no one even
questioned its constitutionality. Because it's -- get this -- not a
constitutional issue.
The CBO disagreed with you.
That there will be anything remotely like "death panels". That's the
lie.
Will there be limits on what the basic insurance available will cover?
Gosh, I'd hope so. I've got private insurance, and it's got limits
too. Yours doesn't? But the existence of limits doesn't mean "death
panels". Just not at all.
>
> > > > > > > > You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
> > > > > > > > that happening.
>
> > > > > > > So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
> > > > > > > ago?
>
> > > > > > Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
> > > > > > my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
> > > > > > that freedom enhancement.
>
> > > > > Try opening a business.
>
> > > > I've done that before and I'm about, in a couple months, to do it
> > > > again. So far, no one's abridged any of my freedoms. I'll let you
> > > > know.
>
> > > Why are you waiting so long? Why don't you do it right now?
>
> > I'm doing my due diligence,
>
> Time != Money in your world? Or are you making sure that all your
> paperwork is in its proper place before you open shop? Those rules and
> regulations that government has imposed upon you?
I'm not in a hurry, for one. I don't need the money to live on. I've
got a lot of good reasons to take my time, and not a one of them is in
the slightest related to any gummint regulations at all. I need to
find out how much there is in assets, work out responsibilities and
duties with my potential partner, and so forth.
>
> > if you're asking why I don't open up right
> > now. If you're asking why I don't tell you that my freedoms are being
> > abridged --
> > > > > > > > No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>
> > > > > > > Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
> > > > > > > bogymen.-
>
> > > > > > Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
> > > > > > information".
>
> > > > > I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC and do fact
> > > > > checking on the internet. I do hit some conservative authors
> > > > > regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.-
>
> > > > Thomas Sowell said your freedom of speech was going to be abridged?
>
> > > He said our freedom of speech - as a Czar was talking about limiting
> > > talk radio and subsidizing newspapers.
>
> > No one's talking about limiting talk radio, though. As far as
> > subsidizing newspapers, I don't consider myself qualified to enter
> > into that debate -- people ought to read more than they do, but I hate
> > the idea of an official government paper, or a paper having to carry
> > an official government line in order to get a subsidy.
>
> I don't know if people are reading less, just not newspapers so much
> anymore.
Could be. I remember reading once back in the Hazy Misty Past that the
Founding Fathers had subsidized newspapers for a while. I think they
subsidized newsprint or something. I don't feel like googling around
to find it, though.
>
> > > > Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
> > > > been drinking or something.
>
> > > When asked what Moslem country they'd prefer one liberal said the
> > > Maldives where you have to submit to the Moslem faith to be a citizen.
>
> > I'm not sure where you're going with that.
>
> It goes with the next sentence:
Pretty wacky sentence, dude.. since liberals tend to be the ones most
concerned with preserving rights.
"The freedom to use a garbage disposal" WTF.. Your side tried to keep
BIRTH CONTROL illegal, fergawdsake. For married couples! And you're
worried about flush toilets? (BTW, I just installed a new toilet about
8mo ago in my bathroom. It's one of those Federal toilets -- .6liter,
1.6liter, I forget. But anyway, it's quite competent. I figure I could
probably get a fedora down it.)
It's been liberals in the forefront of every move towards increased
freedom that this country has ever taken.
Liberals freed the slaves. Liberals kicked out the Redcoats. Liberals
did the Freedom Rides. Liberals enacted Social Security. Liberals
enacted the 40 hour workweek. This all over the protests, sometimes
violent, of conservatives.
Curt
Yer Pal Al
Really? What part? I got my info from the CBO report from 11/6/09.
So if a private insurer has a panel that determines which life saving
coverage they will make available that's no different?
They subsidized Bibles.
> > > > > Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
> > > > > been drinking or something.
>
> > > > When asked what Moslem country they'd prefer one liberal said the
> > > > Maldives where you have to submit to the Moslem faith to be a citizen.
>
> > > I'm not sure where you're going with that.
>
> > It goes with the next sentence:
>
> Pretty wacky sentence, dude.. since liberals tend to be the ones most
> concerned with preserving rights.
That's what you've been led to believe.
Can you believe that shit? A move to eliminate garbage disposals.
They've already told our local school district they cannot use them
and had them removed.
> Your side tried to keep
> BIRTH CONTROL illegal, fergawdsake. For married couples!
You mean Catholics?
> And you're
> worried about flush toilets? (BTW, I just installed a new toilet about
> 8mo ago in my bathroom. It's one of those Federal toilets -- .6liter,
> 1.6liter, I forget. But anyway, it's quite competent. I figure I could
> probably get a fedora down it.)
Get a really nice frothy pee in there and you'll have to flush twice
if you don't live alone. The point is the government is telling you
what kind of toilet to use and if you have to flush more often
whatever savings they calculated is negated.
> It's been liberals in the forefront of every move towards increased
> freedom that this country has ever taken.
>
> Liberals freed the slaves.
How are yesterday's "liberal" Republicans that freed the slaves
different from today's Republicans?
> Liberals kicked out the Redcoats. Liberals
> did the Freedom Rides. Liberals enacted Social Security. Liberals
> enacted the 40 hour workweek. This all over the protests, sometimes
> violent, of conservatives.
Let's say all these things are true. Now they aren't.
mrmcafee
You don't comprehend the operating model for NPR do you?
gb
<Charlie...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>On the other hand, forcing Err America and NPR to carry Rush would be
>kinda fun.
Why would you wish to Force NPR to do anything?
>And make them some money.
Since NPR is not a truly Commercial venture, why do You think it would
make any money at all? All it'd accomplish would be to draw listeners
away from the stations that already carry rush, thereby lessening
their ratings and make them Less money!
You are So clueless most of the time.
Alex DeLarge
> You are So clueless most of the time.
======================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
===================================================================================
Alex DeLarge
)
( )(
) _ )
( \_
(__cccp___))
Curt
I got mine from the paper, say a week ago. Supposed to save something
like a hundred billion over ten years.
I'm guessing the policy will be fairly explicit, beforehand, on what
it will and won't cover. And the "rescission" thing won't be happening
anymore.
And newsprint, IIRC.
>
> > > > > > Man, he must be slipping. That's, like, Palin territory. Maybe he's
> > > > > > been drinking or something.
>
> > > > > When asked what Moslem country they'd prefer one liberal said the
> > > > > Maldives where you have to submit to the Moslem faith to be a citizen.
>
> > > > I'm not sure where you're going with that.
>
> > > It goes with the next sentence:
>
> > Pretty wacky sentence, dude.. since liberals tend to be the ones most
> > concerned with preserving rights.
>
> That's what you've been led to believe.
Yup. As the sage said -- Facts have a liberal bias.
Probably saves on the sewer bills. Anyway, I don't see garbage
disposals in the Constitution.
>
> > Your side tried to keep
> > BIRTH CONTROL illegal, fergawdsake. For married couples!
>
> You mean Catholics?
Conservatives.
>
> > And you're
> > worried about flush toilets? (BTW, I just installed a new toilet about
> > 8mo ago in my bathroom. It's one of those Federal toilets -- .6liter,
> > 1.6liter, I forget. But anyway, it's quite competent. I figure I could
> > probably get a fedora down it.)
>
> Get a really nice frothy pee in there and you'll have to flush twice
> if you don't live alone. The point is the government is telling you
> what kind of toilet to use and if you have to flush more often
> whatever savings they calculated is negated.
Dude, it's handled the effluvium of a Kentucky Fried Chicken and cheap
Southern whiskey night. I'm telling you, it's a killer. You don't want
to wear dangly jewelry or loose clothing next to it. I paid extra for
flush points.. and I got 'em.
>
> > It's been liberals in the forefront of every move towards increased
> > freedom that this country has ever taken.
>
> > Liberals freed the slaves.
>
> How are yesterday's "liberal" Republicans that freed the slaves
> different from today's Republicans?
That right there would make a great study question for any college
student self-identifying as a "Young Republican". You'd require them
to explain just exactly whatthehell happened to their once-respectable
party. How did the Rs go from the "Freeing the Slaves" party to the
"Southern Strategy" party?
>
> > Liberals kicked out the Redcoats. Liberals
> > did the Freedom Rides. Liberals enacted Social Security. Liberals
> > enacted the 40 hour workweek. This all over the protests, sometimes
> > violent, of conservatives.
>
> Let's say all these things are true. Now they aren't.
Suit yourself -- the fact remains. Liberals have been behind every
Human Right you've got. They fought conservatives for them, and they
won.
Curt
Yer Pal Al
Then how can this be:
CBO: Health care bill to cost $829 billion
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33214558/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
If you'd fucking read what I wrote it's because we are going to be
over-taxed more to pay for it which will (supposedly) result in:
"reduce federal deficits by $81"
I guess you are anticipating static medical technology so there will
never have to be any more decisions? I mean really? Who's going to put
there own money on the line to develop new medicines if there's a
possibility the government is going to say, "I don't think so..."
Up above you got your facts from a "paper" - a liberal source. Did it
say we're going to be taxed $100B to pay for a $900B bill or did it
say, "Hurray! New health bill will lower the debt by $100B!"
Are there sewer meters? Not at my house. "Mr. Curt... This is the
Portland sewer department. We've had just about enough shit out of
you."
It's an environmental wackjob thing. Dishwashers in the US (currently
AFAIK) still have disposals in them to grind up food so you don't have
to clean all the food off the plates. In Europe they don't.
> > > Your side tried to keep
> > > BIRTH CONTROL illegal, fergawdsake. For married couples!
>
> > You mean Catholics?
>
> Conservatives.
When was birth control illegal and who were the conservatives trying
to keep it that way? Or are you talking about abortion?
> > > And you're
> > > worried about flush toilets? (BTW, I just installed a new toilet about
> > > 8mo ago in my bathroom. It's one of those Federal toilets -- .6liter,
> > > 1.6liter, I forget. But anyway, it's quite competent. I figure I could
> > > probably get a fedora down it.)
>
> > Get a really nice frothy pee in there and you'll have to flush twice
> > if you don't live alone. The point is the government is telling you
> > what kind of toilet to use and if you have to flush more often
> > whatever savings they calculated is negated.
>
> Dude, it's handled the effluvium of a Kentucky Fried Chicken and cheap
> Southern whiskey night. I'm telling you, it's a killer. You don't want
> to wear dangly jewelry or loose clothing next to it. I paid extra for
> flush points.. and I got 'em.
Must be a new market. I saw one for extra large dookie - will never
plug.
> > > It's been liberals in the forefront of every move towards increased
> > > freedom that this country has ever taken.
>
> > > Liberals freed the slaves.
>
> > How are yesterday's "liberal" Republicans that freed the slaves
> > different from today's Republicans?
>
> That right there would make a great study question for any college
> student self-identifying as a "Young Republican". You'd require them
> to explain just exactly whatthehell happened to their once-respectable
> party. How did the Rs go from the "Freeing the Slaves" party to the
> "Southern Strategy" party?
Them's a lot of words to avoid the question. I think you can do it in
50 words or less.
> > > Liberals kicked out the Redcoats. Liberals
> > > did the Freedom Rides. Liberals enacted Social Security. Liberals
> > > enacted the 40 hour workweek. This all over the protests, sometimes
> > > violent, of conservatives.
>
> > Let's say all these things are true. Now they aren't.
>
> Suit yourself -- the fact remains. Liberals have been behind every
> Human Right you've got. They fought conservatives for them, and they
> won.
Liberals self-identifying with the Founding Fathers is laughable. You
can call them liberals at the time, but they are nothing like today's
liberals.
Barack Hussein Bohica
Taxpayer funded leftist propaganda? Pretty straightforward...
Barack Hussein Bohica
>On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:11:03 -0800, Barack Hussein Bohica
><Charlie...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>
>>On the other hand, forcing Err America and NPR to carry Rush would be
>>kinda fun.
>
>Why would you wish to Force NPR to do anything?
Why would you trim out the text that answered your question before you
even asked it?
I would like to force NPR to sink or swim on its own merits, not
clinging to the taxpayers teats.
>>And make them some money.
>
>Since NPR is not a truly Commercial venture, why do You think it would
>make any money at all? All it'd accomplish would be to draw listeners
>away from the stations that already carry rush, thereby lessening
>their ratings and make them Less money!
Dim one, the discussion is about the "fairness doctrine" (or whatever
form the fascists would wish it reincarnated). If you want to force
radio and TV to carry opposing content, why would you exempt NPR or
Air America?
NPR should make enough money to support itself, or die in the effort.
We do not need taxpayer funded government propaganda.
Yer Pal Al
> Usually not. WhenMaddowslimes someone, I go to their website to get
> a transcript.
Yesterday's Maddow fact checking:
"This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm gonna stand here with
our Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, 'We hold these truths
to be self-evident...'" - John Boehner
"Nnn, Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That
would be the Declaration of Independence. Ooh." - Rachel Maddow,
Brainiac
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 7, 2:08 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 8:32 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> and do fact
>>>> checking on the internet.
>>> WND or Newsmax?
>> Usually not. WhenMaddowslimes someone, I go to their website to get
>> a transcript.
>
> Yesterday's Maddow fact checking:
>
> "This is my copy of the Constitution. And I'm gonna stand here with
> our Founding Fathers who wrote in the Preamble, 'We hold these truths
> to be self-evident...'" - John Boehner
>
> "Nnn, Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That
> would be the Declaration of Independence. Ooh." - Rachel Maddow,
> Brainiac
<GUFFAW!>
Clave
news:7c64450e-829d-4185...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> "Nnn, Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That
> would be the Declaration of Independence. Ooh." - Rachel Maddow,
She apologized and corrected herself on the very next show, you know.
Does that happen much on FOX? Excrement in Broadcasting?
I guess with as few mistakes as she makes, the mooing wingnuts pretty much
have to flog the shit out of them when they do happen.
Jim
Alex DeLarge
Alex DeLarge
> "Yer Pal Al" <caddys...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7c64450e-829d-4185...@o9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> <...>
>
>> "Nnn, Constitution doesn't have a Preamble. Not. Nope. Stop it. That
>> would be the Declaration of Independence. Ooh." - Rachel Maddow,
>
> She apologized and corrected herself on the very next show, you know.
>
as well?
Barack Hussein Bohica
"Stupid is as stupid does."
Farking moonbats...
Curt
>
> > > > > > CBO estimates say that it will SAVE money, last I read.
>
> > > > > If you think taxing people ($460B) and penalizing people and
> > > > > businesses ($33B and $135B respectively) to pay for the bill plus some
> > > > > overage is "saving" money - assuming people don't avoid the taxes and
> > > > > penalties and people don't abuse the system and they can actually keep
> > > > > illegals out of the system. Pretty much discard that argument when
> > > > > taxing people more is a saving.
>
> > > > > Intrinsically, you cannot offer healthcare to 36,000,000 people and
> > > > > not incur additional charges. I still don't know how I'm going to get
> > > > > better service when you add 13% more customers into the system and
> > > > > don't add 13% more doctors.
>
> > > > The CBO disagreed with you.
>
> > > Really? What part? I got my info from the CBO report from 11/6/09.
>
> > I got mine from the paper, say a week ago. Supposed to save something
> > like a hundred billion over ten years.
>
> Then how can this be:
>
> CBO: Health care bill to cost $829 billionhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33214558/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>
> If you'd fucking read what I wrote it's because we are going to be
> over-taxed more to pay for it which will (supposedly) result in:
>
> "reduce federal deficits by $81"
The CBO web site says it'll reduce the deficit by, what, $109b and
cost $800b over ten years. We blew far better than $800b on our
botched vanity war in something like two years. Reducing the deficit
is good, yeah?
And, reforming a Truly Broken insurance system for less than a botched
vanity war sounds like not a bad deal to me. If we hadn't botched our
vanity war, we'd have the money to pay for it now, in fact.
Curt
Alex DeLarge
> On Nov 11, 12:06 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> CBO estimates say that it will SAVE money, last I read.
>>>>>> If you think taxing people ($460B) and penalizing people and
>>>>>> businesses ($33B and $135B respectively) to pay for the bill plus some
>>>>>> overage is "saving" money - assuming people don't avoid the taxes and
>>>>>> penalties and people don't abuse the system and they can actually keep
>>>>>> illegals out of the system. Pretty much discard that argument when
>>>>>> taxing people more is a saving.
>>>>>> Intrinsically, you cannot offer healthcare to 36,000,000 people and
>>>>>> not incur additional charges. I still don't know how I'm going to get
>>>>>> better service when you add 13% more customers into the system and
>>>>>> don't add 13% more doctors.
>>>>> The CBO disagreed with you.
>>>> Really? What part? I got my info from the CBO report from 11/6/09.
>>> I got mine from the paper, say a week ago. Supposed to save something
>>> like a hundred billion over ten years.
>> Then how can this be:
>>
>> CBO: Health care bill to cost $829 billionhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33214558/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
>>
>> If you'd fucking read what I wrote it's because we are going to be
>> over-taxed more to pay for it which will (supposedly) result in:
>>
>> "reduce federal deficits by $81"
>
> The CBO web site says it'll reduce the deficit by, what, $109b and
> cost $800b over ten years.
BULLSHIT!
Curt
(This was getting just too huge so I snipped some of the old stuff and
made two new threads out of it. In case anyone but you and me is even
looking at this anymore.)
Like I say, all any of us can do is guess about the future. My medical
policy is pretty explicit in what it will and won't cover. I'd assume
any new policies issued would be, too. You're right about new
technology,new drugs and so forth. But we already have people who make
those decisions -- people who work for private industry, and who have
a personal financial interest in denying claims. (That doesn't seem to
bother the Palin crowd. Wonder why not?) I doubt that "bureaucrats"
would have the same financial interest -- generally lein's "government
clerks" work on salary, or hourly.
HAR! No, really, I pay a sewer bill along with my water bill. They
figure most of what comes in has to go out, y'know.
>
> It's an environmental wackjob thing. Dishwashers in the US (currently
> AFAIK) still have disposals in them to grind up food so you don't have
> to clean all the food off the plates. In Europe they don't.
I did not know that. But still, I don't see it as a constitutional
issue. I mean, environmental regulations in general aren't
constitutional issues. I remember a buddy of mine that ran a used
truck lot, sold old Kenworths and Macks and stuff. He was railing on
one day about how the damn gummint was making him move this huge rack
of old batteries he had, and who the hell gave them the right to do
that, and all.. well, it turned out that the batteries were leaking
into this creek that went through his property and goofing up the
trout run. There's always a bigger picture, y'know?
Same goes with your whole list of liberal-threatened "freedoms" --
they're drastically oversimplified half-truths. I suspect you knew
that, though.
>
> > > > Your side tried to keep
> > > > BIRTH CONTROL illegal, fergawdsake. For married couples!
>
> > > You mean Catholics?
>
> > Conservatives.
>
> When was birth control illegal and who were the conservatives trying
> to keep it that way? Or are you talking about abortion?
Look up Griswold Vs Connecticut. Or Margaret Sanger. Or "Personhood
Florida" -- they're still trying to do it! Or, remember the deal, was
it last year, with the pharmacists that didn't want to give Plan B to
rape victims? Or the Feds trying to force Planned Parenthood to hire
people that opposed birth control? It's all still going on. Abortion's
a completely different issue.
>
> > > > And you're
> > > > worried about flush toilets? (BTW, I just installed a new toilet about
> > > > 8mo ago in my bathroom. It's one of those Federal toilets -- .6liter,
> > > > 1.6liter, I forget. But anyway, it's quite competent. I figure I could
> > > > probably get a fedora down it.)
>
> > > Get a really nice frothy pee in there and you'll have to flush twice
> > > if you don't live alone. The point is the government is telling you
> > > what kind of toilet to use and if you have to flush more often
> > > whatever savings they calculated is negated.
>
> > Dude, it's handled the effluvium of a Kentucky Fried Chicken and cheap
> > Southern whiskey night. I'm telling you, it's a killer. You don't want
> > to wear dangly jewelry or loose clothing next to it. I paid extra for
> > flush points.. and I got 'em.
>
> Must be a new market. I saw one for extra large dookie - will never
> plug.
Look up "Toto" brand toilets -- they're supposed to be pretty good..
>
> > > > It's been liberals in the forefront of every move towards increased
> > > > freedom that this country has ever taken.
>
> > > > Liberals freed the slaves.
>
> > > How are yesterday's "liberal" Republicans that freed the slaves
> > > different from today's Republicans?
>
> > That right there would make a great study question for any college
> > student self-identifying as a "Young Republican". You'd require them
> > to explain just exactly whatthehell happened to their once-respectable
> > party. How did the Rs go from the "Freeing the Slaves" party to the
> > "Southern Strategy" party?
>
> Them's a lot of words to avoid the question. I think you can do it in
> 50 words or less.
Actually, my question beyond trumps your question. Today's Rs are
clearly Nothing Like the liberals that freed the slaves while calling
themselves Republicans.
>
> > > > Liberals kicked out the Redcoats. Liberals
> > > > did the Freedom Rides. Liberals enacted Social Security. Liberals
> > > > enacted the 40 hour workweek. This all over the protests, sometimes
> > > > violent, of conservatives.
>
> > > Let's say all these things are true. Now they aren't.
>
> > Suit yourself -- the fact remains. Liberals have been behind every
> > Human Right you've got. They fought conservatives for them, and they
> > won.
>
> Liberals self-identifying with the Founding Fathers is laughable. You
> can call them liberals at the time, but they are nothing like today's
> liberals.
The FFs were their time's equivalent of liberals -- mistrustful of
powerful organized religions, and inclined towards supporting rather
than restricting speech and personal freedom.
Curt
Yer Pal Al
And here's the rationalization... And it's wrong. We've spent about
$660B in additional expenditures since 2003.
> Reducing the deficit
> is good, yeah?
Reducing the deficit is good but doing it by taking it out of the
economy - especially right now - is very, very bad. We'd be better off
with a $109B tax to reduce the deficit.
Wouldn't it be better to have a balanced budget in the first place
instead of operating from a deficit?
Do you really think a government program is going to cost as little as
they believe and revenue will be as much as they believe?
> And, reforming a Truly Broken insurance system
It's not broken for most people so your hyperbole falls flat on just
about everyone.
> for less than a botched
> vanity war sounds like not a bad deal to me. If we hadn't botched our
> vanity war, we'd have the money to pay for it now, in fact.
We've already seen a terrible Moslem terrorist attack on this country
since Barry was elected. I think you're right that he'll continue to
botch this war.
Yer Pal Al
Because they aren't on a "government system."
> I doubt that "bureaucrats"
> would have the same financial interest -- generally lein's "government
> clerks" work on salary, or hourly.
A good point against actual government cost savings which parallels
another conservative concern about letting the folks who run the DMV
also run health care.
In some cases more.
> > It's an environmental wackjob thing. Dishwashers in the US (currently
> > AFAIK) still have disposals in them to grind up food so you don't have
> > to clean all the food off the plates. In Europe they don't.
>
> I did not know that. But still, I don't see it as a constitutional
> issue. I mean, environmental regulations in general aren't
> constitutional issues. I remember a buddy of mine that ran a used
> truck lot, sold old Kenworths and Macks and stuff. He was railing on
> one day about how the damn gummint was making him move this huge rack
> of old batteries he had, and who the hell gave them the right to do
> that, and all.. well, it turned out that the batteries were leaking
> into this creek that went through his property and goofing up the
> trout run. There's always a bigger picture, y'know?
Farts are polution too. I'd rather err on the side of freedom.
> Same goes with your whole list of liberal-threatened "freedoms" --
> they're drastically oversimplified half-truths. I suspect you knew
> that, though.
Of the sixteen I listed, you talked about one.
> > > > > Your side tried to keep
> > > > > BIRTH CONTROL illegal, fergawdsake. For married couples!
>
> > > > You mean Catholics?
>
> > > Conservatives.
>
> > When was birth control illegal and who were the conservatives trying
> > to keep it that way? Or are you talking about abortion?
>
> Look up Griswold Vs Connecticut.
Who was the conservative in this case? The Democrat governor?
> Or Margaret Sanger.
She is a conservative against birth control?
> Or "Personhood
> Florida" -- they're still trying to do it!
This is an anti-abortion group, right? Do they hate contraceptives or
do they believe abortion is murder?
> Or, remember the deal, was
> it last year, with the pharmacists that didn't want to give Plan B to
> rape victims?
Specifically rape victims?
> Or the Feds trying to force Planned Parenthood to hire
> people that opposed birth control?
Who are these people?
> It's all still going on. Abortion's
> a completely different issue.
Isn't plan B a chemical abortion?
> > > > > And you're
> > > > > worried about flush toilets? (BTW, I just installed a new toilet about
> > > > > 8mo ago in my bathroom. It's one of those Federal toilets -- .6liter,
> > > > > 1.6liter, I forget. But anyway, it's quite competent. I figure I could
> > > > > probably get a fedora down it.)
>
> > > > Get a really nice frothy pee in there and you'll have to flush twice
> > > > if you don't live alone. The point is the government is telling you
> > > > what kind of toilet to use and if you have to flush more often
> > > > whatever savings they calculated is negated.
>
> > > Dude, it's handled the effluvium of a Kentucky Fried Chicken and cheap
> > > Southern whiskey night. I'm telling you, it's a killer. You don't want
> > > to wear dangly jewelry or loose clothing next to it. I paid extra for
> > > flush points.. and I got 'em.
>
> > Must be a new market. I saw one for extra large dookie - will never
> > plug.
>
> Look up "Toto" brand toilets -- they're supposed to be pretty good..
Next house I buy is going to be custom or a pre-sale. I've never had
to pick a toilet.
> > > > > It's been liberals in the forefront of every move towards increased
> > > > > freedom that this country has ever taken.
>
> > > > > Liberals freed the slaves.
>
> > > > How are yesterday's "liberal" Republicans that freed the slaves
> > > > different from today's Republicans?
>
> > > That right there would make a great study question for any college
> > > student self-identifying as a "Young Republican". You'd require them
> > > to explain just exactly whatthehell happened to their once-respectable
> > > party. How did the Rs go from the "Freeing the Slaves" party to the
> > > "Southern Strategy" party?
>
> > Them's a lot of words to avoid the question. I think you can do it in
> > 50 words or less.
>
> Actually, my question beyond trumps your question. Today's Rs are
> clearly Nothing Like the liberals that freed the slaves while calling
> themselves Republicans.
WRT race relations in the 1860's they thought all men were equal.
Today it's the same.
In the 1860's Democrats wanted less rights for blacks than whites
Today they want more rights for blacks than whites. Republicans are
against both of these ideas.
Founding Fathers = Constitutional Constructionist = Representative
Government = State's Rights = Today's Conservatives = Pro Christianity
Modern Liberals = Living Constitution = Pure Democracy = Centralized
Government = Anti-Christianity
> > > > > Liberals kicked out the Redcoats. Liberals
> > > > > did the Freedom Rides. Liberals enacted Social Security. Liberals
> > > > > enacted the 40 hour workweek. This all over the protests, sometimes
> > > > > violent, of conservatives.
>
> > > > Let's say all these things are true. Now they aren't.
>
> > > Suit yourself -- the fact remains. Liberals have been behind every
> > > Human Right you've got. They fought conservatives for them, and they
> > > won.
>
> > Liberals self-identifying with the Founding Fathers is laughable. You
> > can call them liberals at the time, but they are nothing like today's
> > liberals.
>
> The FFs were their time's equivalent of liberals -- mistrustful of
> powerful organized religions
No they weren't since most of them were associated with powerful
organized religions.
> and inclined towards supporting rather
> than restricting speech and personal freedom.
Including:
Curt
No, that's actually what the CBO web site says. Why would I make
something like that up? Google CBO health care costs. Go to the CBO
web site. Pull up the PDF that's on the right side of the page. IIRC
it's on page 3.
Curt
Curt
Seems I read a long time ago the war was over a trillion. My taxes
haven't gone up to pay for it. Have yours?
>
> > Reducing the deficit
> > is good, yeah?
>
> Reducing the deficit is good but doing it by taking it out of the
> economy - especially right now - is very, very bad. We'd be better off
> with a $109B tax to reduce the deficit.
Except that we've got Lots of American citizens that can't get health
insurance. That's a big dang national problem. Bigger than unrest in
Iraq, most certainly.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have a balanced budget in the first place
> instead of operating from a deficit?
Yes, it indeed would.
>
> Do you really think a government program is going to cost as little as
> they believe and revenue will be as much as they believe?
Whatever -- this is the CBO talking. They're non-partisan and fairly
highly regarded.
>
> > And, reforming a Truly Broken insurance system
>
> It's not broken for most people so your hyperbole falls flat on just
> about everyone.
Something like, what is it, thirty million people (?) don't have
health insurance. And want it. That, sir, is "broken".
>
> > for less than a botched
> > vanity war sounds like not a bad deal to me. If we hadn't botched our
> > vanity war, we'd have the money to pay for it now, in fact.
>
> We've already seen a terrible Moslem terrorist attack on this country
> since Barry was elected. I think you're right that he'll continue to
> botch this war.-
Hmm. I dunno that I'd refer to Ft Hood as a "terrible Moslem attack on
this country". I mean, come on. This is the kind of thing that happens
in businesses and shopping centers and high schools almost monthly, it
seems. Crazy people with a lot of bullets. The perpetrator's religion
doesn't make it something more than it is -- a law enforcement issue.
And unrelated to the WoT.
And, as it turns out, Barry's sort of.. "unbotching" the war. Good on
him, says I.
Curt
Alex DeLarge
Yes.
mrmcafee
> On Nov 7, 3:14 pm, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 1:00 pm, mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Yer Pal Al wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 5, 8:29 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 2:20 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:16 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 7:46 am, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 4, 9:41 pm, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 3, 6:10 pm, Curt <obadiahly...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 2, 11:19 am, Yer Pal Al <caddyshack...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just one year ago, would you have believed that an unelected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> government official, not even a Cabinet member confirmed by the Senate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> but simply one of the many "czars" appointed by the President, could
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrarily cut the pay of executives in private businesses by 50
>>>>>>>>>>>>> percent or 90 percent?
>>>>>>>>>>>> In a private business that failed and was bailed out by the gummint,
>>>>>>>>>>>> at least. So, not really a "private" business, exactly. Yeah?
>>>>>>>>>>> Did George Bush tell you how to spend your tax rebate?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Did you think that another "czar" would be talking about restricting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is, to create a situation where some newspapers' survival would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> depend on the government liking what they publish?
>>>>>>>>>>>> No one's talking about restricting talk radio.
>>>>>>>>>>> You're saying the "fairness" doctrine will not restrict talk radio
>>>>>>>>>>> from airing conservative or liberal viewpoints alone 24/7?
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, it would. And that wouldn't be a bad thing. But, realistically,
>>>>>>>>>> no one's going to implement the "fairness doctrine" anyway.
>>>>>>>>> So you are saying it's really a dead issue and people who use and
>>>>>>>>> listen to broadcast shouldn't worry and shouldn't be vigilent about
>>>>>>>>> protecting their rights?
>>>>>>>> I might not put it that way -- but relax, no one's going to knock Rush
>>>>>>>> Limbaugh off the air. No one that matters even really wants to. We
>>>>>>>> should all be vigilant about protecting our rights.. but we should
>>>>>>>> keep an eye on what our rights are, and what's important. Talk
>>>>>>>> radio .. isn't.
>>>>>>> You know what else isn't important? Gay marriage rights.
>>>>>> Marriage is, indeed, a right. Arguably, a constitutional one. Radio
>>>>>> programming isn't.
>>>>> You are saying that you see "marriage" in the Constitution but not
>>>>> "speech"? I must have made a mistake thinking you were in the United
>>>>> States.
>>> I don't see the government restricting speech and that's what the 1st
>>> amendment is about.
>> Then you don't appreciate that the public owns the airways and if
>> government allows the broadcasters to broadcast only one
>
> The government isn't promoting nor are the abridging free speech. They
> will have to make a law to do that according to the 1st amendment.
You don't believe that any more than you believe that the government can
stand by and allow special interests to cut every tree in our national
forests and not have their inaction result in a rape of public resource
and a give a way to private interests. When the government fails to
properly regulate our commonly owned resources in favor of one industry
or the next, it is an active participant in the exploitation of that
resource. Allowing only one point of view to dominate the airways means
that the government is an active participant in denying free speech to
the minority interests.
But you know that already and don't really care about free speech.
>
>> point of view
>> then government is allowing the other point of view to be suppressed.
>
> Which point of view? There are probably 330M points of view in this
> country. What you are saying is not practical in anyway.
But of course it is. There are only 3 major broad political points of
view in this country at any given time: progressive, conservative and
anarchistic. Pretty easy to divide up the air time between just 3 major
factions. First we let the producers of the radio programs self declare
which of the 3 points of view their program will portray, and then if a
"death" panel of critics declare that they were dishonest in their
declaration, the program (host, producers, sponsors, etc.) are bared for
life from the airways.
>
>> that suppression violates the 1st Amendment.
>
> Read the amendment for the first time.
Good. Now try for comprehension next time.
>
>>>> don't you.
>>>> The Fairness Doctrine would broaden free speech enabling a wider variety
>>>> of opinions to be aired instead of just the views promoted by the radio
>>>> station owners and operates.
>>> It would do that by restricting the free speech of the radio station
>>> owners.
>> They would be allowed to air their opinions. they would just have to
>> provide equal time in the expression of opposing views.
>
> That would be a clear violation of the 1st amendment since they would
> be making a law abridging free speech.
What speech is abridged? They are allowed to voice their opinions. They
just have to make room for other opinions.
BTW, the basic law already exists. The airways are regulated now.
>
>>> This isn't about giving everyone a voice because that is
>>> impossible. It's about silencing right-wing talk radio as radio
>>> station owners are going to switch to non-political money-making,
>>> formats instead of trying to accommodate everyone.
>> Maybe an asteroid will fall on Rush's head too. Point is that you don't
>> know what they will do. If broadcasting "Mike Savage's" brand of
>> political opinion makes them money, then I would expect that they will
>> continue to broadcast him.
>
> Do you remember what talk radio was like when did have a "fairness
> doctrine"?
I recall responsible journalism, and clearly labeled political opinion
with ample opportunity for opposing viewpoints.
If irrational right wing talk radio is profitable now, what makes you
think that it won't be under the fairness doctrine? Broadcasters could
made just as much profit then as they do now. They will just charge more
for the right wing air time.
> What you are saying is that conserative talk radio stations
> will lose half of their audience when they host liberal talk shows
> that Err America proves don't make money.
They'll charge more for the right wing air time, and get it if the
market demands it.
They might pick up new listeners too. There is a reason that new
programing follows popular shows on TV. Most likely many radio listeners
will linger on after Limbaugh to hear the bright new lefty.
Like loggers harvesting a national forest, the recourse doesn't belong
to just them alone.
>
>>>> So far as a right for homosexuals to marry, you might consider how the
>>>> 14th Amendment could impact this situation. That amendment guarantees
>>>> each American protection from state government interfering in their
>>>> liberty and also guarantees that each person will have access to the
>>>> protection afforded by law that everybody else has.
>>> That's why there is noise about federal laws.
>> Makes sense, right?
>
> It should be a state's rights issue.
14th Amendment makes it a federal issue (most likely sometime in the
future).
>
>>> Marriage is not
>>> specifically addressed in the Constitution; speech is.
>> Yes. We should do all we can to make sure that our government allows
>> access to the nation's airways for all point of view.
>
> The shouldn't actively prevent it.
I agree, and the way the Feds manage our airways now does just that.
Only the right wing gets its voice broadcast. Time for the Feds to step
up and do what is right by the 1st Amendment and make some room on the
broadcast airways for the left.
> Otherwise, I think we should live
> in as a free society as possible even when other perspectives dominate
> a medium.
The way things are now, the folks who have the money to control the
radio broadcast stations have MORE speech than the rest of us. That
isn't freedom for the rest us, just the wealthy few. It is the situation
that the 1st Amendment was meant to rectify.
>>>> Latest estimates are that HR 3962 will SAVE the federal government over
>>>> the time frame.
>>> Not according tot he CBO.
>> Really? You have been lied to again! You seem to fall for this stuff way
>> too easily.
>
> It's true:
> http://tinyurl.com/yl3lyj2
From your article:
"CBO also said the House bill would not add to the deficit in the first
decade
beyond 2019--a key condition for support from fiscally conservative
House Democrats"
We are talking net here. Please try to be honest.
>
>> "CBO and the staff of JCT estimate that, on balance, the direct spending
>> and revenue effects of enacting H.R. 3962, incorporating the manager�s
>> amendment, would yield a net reduction in federal budget deficits of
>> $129 billion over the 2010-2019 period (see Table 1)."http://tinyurl.com/yayvuml
>
> I didn't say that the bill wasn't funded. We are going to pay an
> increase in taxes to pay for the bill with some overage with a lot of
> that being penalties assessed to businesses and individuals.
You tried to have us think that the bill would add to the federal
deficit. It was dishonest of you.
>
>> Let me guess. This news puts a whole new face on Health insurance
>> reform! You should be a supporter now!
>
> I have excellent health insurance now.
Good. You will be able to keep it.
> My service will not get better
> when this bill is inacted. My service will not be cheaper if this bill
> is inacted.
It could be, unless it is socialized insurance already. But if YOU were
to make use of Medicare, that would make you a hypocrite. That just
wouldn't do.
>I will probably see an increase in taxes. I will certainly
> see a large increase in my portion of the federal debt.
Being dishonest again I see. I've already explained to you, as has every
news article using CBO as a source YOU have posted since 10-29-09 on the
topic, that the plan as it currently stands reduces the deficit.
>
>>>>>>>>>> It's just pandering to easily frightened people with relatively poor
>>>>>>>>>> critical thinking skills.
>>>>>>>>> So to be a critical thinker you should not be concerned with
>>>>>>>>> degredation of rights? You must be right because I'm not concerned
>>>>>>>>> with your right not to have your telephone conversation with a known
>>>>>>>>> terrorist monitored by the government.-
>>>>>>>> You should, indeed, be concerned with degradation of your rights.
>>>>>>> So how do I know I'm not being pandered to? I'm supposed to ask those
>>>>>>> people who don't like talk radio, flag burning, guns, property, etc.
>>>>>>> if I should be concerned?
>>>>>> I think if you listen to a radio jock who uses the term "death panels"
>>>>>> in seriousness, there's a fair chance you're being pandered to.
>>>>> If you believe that if the healthcare bill is passed US residents will
>>>>> get an unlimited access to healthcare then you have nothing to worry
>>>>> about. I think there will be limitations. I believe these limitations
>>>>> will affect the life expectancy of US residents. I think the
>>>>> government will try to cover all medical treatments but will
>>>>> eventually be overloaded and will need to create an oversight panel to
>>>>> keep expenses down.
>>>>> Call it what you want.
>>>> Your fears always prove to be unfounded.
>>> Is that what happened last time we passed a health care bill?
>> We you afraid that Medicare would lead to socialized medicine and the
>> spread of homosexuality?
>
> My fear is that one day I will have to use medicare.
Your friend Ruger has a solution for you.
Or you can just pay cash for your medical services and not use Medicare.
It is your choice. It would be most hypocritical of you to do so.
Let me suggest that when that day comes and your Medicare card arrives
in the US Mail (I presume that you allow the socialist message service
to deliver to your house even though that too is hypocritical of you),
that you take that new card down to the Social Security Office nearest
you, call a press conference, and burn your card in defiance. That will
show 'em!
>
>>>>>>>> You're in the enviable position, however, of not being in danger of
>>>>>>>> that happening.
>>>>>>> So you think we are just as free or more free than we were 30 years
>>>>>>> ago?
>>>>>> Huh. Good question. I had to bring my SS card and a passport to renew
>>>>>> my driver's license last year. I'm not a hundred percent sure I'd call
>>>>>> that freedom enhancement.
>>>>> Try opening a business.
>>>> Has it become easier? Somehow I don't think so. Lord knows that I've had
>>>> more requirements place on mine. Used to be that I could hire a worker
>>>> and be done with it. Now I have to be the immigration cop and the tax
>>>> collector too.
>>> So you realize your freedoms are being encroached up on slowly but
>>> surely.
>> I wouldn't say my "freedoms", but my duties have been increased by you
>> right wingers that's for sure.
>
> I live in Washington State and am subject to those laws. This State
> has been solidly Democrat since 1985. After we voted down an income
> tax Governor Lowery decided in to punish businesses with a 2.5% gross
> sales tax (called B&O).
Sales taxes do not impact business since they pass those taxes along to
their customers. The B&O tax is not a sales tax, it is an income tax on
gross income of businesses.
> Of course all the friends and powerful
> (Lawyers, Boeing, etc.) were exempt. Small businesses like mine don't
> have an exemption. The nature of my business does not allow me to pass
> the 2.5% charge to the customer so it comes out of my profits.
It is an income tax, not a sales tax.
> I get a
> call from the Washington State Department of Revenue. They said the
> 2.5% wasn't enough. Because I processed checks (some of the customers
> would pay with checks) I had to pay the B&O tax on those too in
> addition.
Why aren't you in jail?
The B&O tax is an income tax. One presumes that those payment checks
were part of your income. I'm beginning to think that you do not
understand the nature of the B&O tax. You should have a CPA go over your
books and maybe you can escape the mess you have created for yourself.
One of the DeLay's arguments in his defense of money laundering charges
is that he used checks instead to cash to launder the funds. I had
though when I heard that, that that was a ludicrous defense. Money is
money no matter what the form it takes, but apparently in the right wing
crowd, there is some kind of difference that rational people would not make.
> But wait... There's more. I have to pay the B&O tax on my
> profits as well - like an income tax. This is a side business for me
> and now it's not worth it.
It IS an income tax.
>
> I *WISH* my biggest problem was that I had to look at a birth
> certificate before I hired someone. I lived for AZ for 3 years and ran
> a business there too. This Democrat state is much, much worse if all
> you want to do is hang a shingle.
Somebody has to pay for the prisons.
Most all of your competitors have raised their rates to compensate for
the lost revenue. That's what business does. Here in AZ the increased
costs to employers who have had to forgo hiring their traditional
(illegal and thus cheap) employees is being paid for by consumers via
higher prices. That is just how the economy works. Of course, most our
illegals have gone home. Depression means no work. Of course the
anti-immigrant crowd is taking credit for the shrinking of the illegal
population. Idiots that they are.
Oh, BTW, Arizona's budget crisis is the 2nd worst in the nation. Our
legislature is intent on breaking our state government on the rocks of
this current depression. They refuse, despite their Governor's urging
and insistence, to even allow the PEOPLE vote on a sales tax increase
and thus avoid shutting down our state government. Stay tuned. the
anarchist are in control here.
>
>>>>>>>> No matter what Glen Beck tells you.
>>>>>>> Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin have replace Rush and W as the liberal's
>>>>>>> bogymen.-
>>>>>> Not at all. The name's just shorthand for "your sources of bad
>>>>>> information".
>>>>> I don't listen to either Beck or Rush and I watch MSNBC
>>>> Maddow is just about the only political commentator that I can stomach,
>>> I don't like her, but I watch her the most.
>> If you don't like her why watch? Life is short. Do what gives you pleasure.
>
> Do you see me debating with conservatives? Rarely. And as long as I'm
> not a Nielsen household I'll watch MSNBC.
I listen to Rush ... in 10 sec bits. It is all I can tolerate.
>
>>>> and that only in limited doses. All of the rest from both sides are too
>>>> much to put up with.
>>>>> and do fact
>>>>> checking on the internet.
>>>> WND or Newsmax?
>>> Usually not. When Maddow slimes someone, I go to their website to get
>>> a transcript.
>> Maddow's or the lying right winger she called out?
>
> Whomever she slimes.
So, how does she score? Usually right or does she make it all up?
>
>>>>> I do hit some conservative authors
>>>>> regularly. In the case of this thread it was Thomas Sowell.
>>>> He represents the kind of thinking that brought on the Great Depression.
>>> So being fiscally responsible is going to lead to a depression?
>> Laissez faire governance does that.
>
> Unlike Venezuela, Cuba and the old USSR.
Whose is talking about corruption?
>
Alex DeLarge
)
(
( ) (
) _ )
( \_
_(_\ \)__
cccp