• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Banning Anti-War Protests

Read the intro and vote accordingly

  • Total voters
    9
A

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If Bush would have tried to pass a law forcing private citizens protesting the war to hold up an equal number of pro-war signs as anti-war signs, thus negating their impact, on the logic that they are protesting on public property and are one-sided, would this make Bush a speech-trampling tyrant?

Liberals are gearing up to do exactly that to conservative talk radio pundits, and only conservative talk radio pundits, while the actual news media, which is demonstrably overwhelmingly biased for Democrats, is left completely alone. It's called the "Fairness" Doctrine.

This scam, perpetrated by the same people who misapply the 1st Amendment to defend flag-burning, porn, and NAMBLA's Rape and Escape manual, will be an even greater assault on the Constitution than the pork-payoffs and socialist power grabs railroaded through Congress by Obama under the incredibly sleazy guise of "stimulus."

So, as stated above, the question is, would it have been an illegal assault on the Constitution for Bush to have imposed a "Fairness" Doctrine on private citizens protesting the war?
 
Last edited:
"gearing up" ... where? who?

see the other insipid thread. this goofiness was thoroughly refuted.

"what if" false-analogy-hypotheticals hardly constitute an argument. but you didn't know that.
 
niftydrifty said:
"gearing up" ... where? who?

see the other insipid thread. this goofiness was thoroughly refuted.

"what if" false-analogy-hypotheticals hardly constitute an argument. but you didn't know that.
Click to expand...

I realize you're a liberal, but you have to actually read the link posted to see what "gearing up" means. :roll:
 
aquapub said:
I realize you're a liberal, but you have to actually read the link posted to see what "gearing up" means. :roll:
Click to expand...

I repeat. "where?" ... "who?"
 
aquapub said:
Again, top to bottom, left to right. It's called reading. Click the link provided and read what it contains or go lay down and let the adults finish this conversation. :2wave:
Click to expand...

okay, so you have no argument. we already knew that. all that you have left are insults and another of your trademark ridiculous pictures.

according to your link, 2/16/09:

"An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life"

according to the link in post #3, 2/18/09

"President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday."

again, "who?"
 
Congress. Have you never seen the "good cop, bad cop" routine before? It's played out in Washington each and every day. If you think that Congress won't try to pass it, you're head is still buried in the sand. If it does pass, do you really think Obama won't sign it?
 

in the future, if you don't remember that you typed this today, I'll remind you.
 

Pretty much yes. The fairness doctrine is really quite stupid.
 
aquapub said:
I realize you're a liberal, but you have to actually read the link posted to see what "gearing up" means. :roll:
Click to expand...

aquapub said:
Again, top to bottom, left to right. It's called reading. Click the link provided and read what it contains or go lay down and let the adults finish this conversation. :2wave:
Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:
Knock off the attacks, aqua, or there will be more consequences.
 
I believe in freedom of speech for everyone, even ***king idiots like Rush.

I never listen to idiots like him and Savage. I have choice.

Why does the right wing hate the American people and our constitution?

We should always encourage decent and Protest for or against a subject.

Don't forget that it was Reagan that did away with the fairness doctrine.

The Current war is one of the more stupid things we have done since WW2.
It is even worse than Viet Nam.

This war is being fought purely in the name of Greed and Averice. Let's make the rich richer. Look at the results. Look at our country and economy and thank Bush and Reagan. The two worst presidents in modern history. Sometime I even wonder about clinton. Yet Clinton was 100% better than either Bush or Reagan. The older Bush was a much better president than his son.

Have you ever wondered why we have seldom ever seen George H.W. Bush publically supporting George W Bush's economic and foreign policies?
 
Last edited:
Radical Ron said:
Why do the liberals want to directly attack the constitution with the "fairness" doctrine? That seems like more constitution hating coming from the left to me.
Click to expand...

Isn't the President against the Fairness Doctrine?
 
Radical Ron said:
Why do the liberals want to directly attack the constitution with the "fairness" doctrine? That seems like more constitution hating coming from the left to me.
Click to expand...

Most don't hence why the FD has not made it's return. Yet another liberal generalization made by a conservative that has been proven false.
 
Radical Ron said:
That's kind of a shock considering they are the ones who started the whole thing. But I guess you could expect as much from spineless Democrats.
Click to expand...

It's clear you have no education as to why it was started in the first place. Limitation of broadcasting resources back then.

The simple fact is that today with the internet and numerous other broadcasting resources, there is no need for it anymore and most liberals and democrats agree with that.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your insignificant partisan tantrum.
 
TheNextEra said:
It's clear you have no education as to why it was started in the first place. Limitation of broadcasting resources back then.
Click to expand...

:lol:

TheNextEra said:
The simple fact is that today with the internet and numerous other broadcasting resources, there is no need for it anymore and most liberals and democrats agree with that.
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with that. My point was that it came from the dems not anything else.

TheNextEra said:
But don't let the facts get in the way of your insignificant partisan tantrum.
Click to expand...

Oh I won't. Because I am not a partisan.
 
Last edited:
niftydrifty said:
okay, so you have no argument...
Click to expand...

Your refusal to read the information already laid in your lap is the problem here. :notlook:

Posture, taunt, and play this juvenile game all you like. I'll be right here whenever you decide to join the debate.

:2wave:
 
Last edited:
aquapub said:
Your refusal to read the information already laid in your lap is the problem here. :notlook:

Posture, taunt, and play this juvenile game all you like. I'll be right here whenever you decide to join the debate.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Your link does not mention that the MAJORITY of liberals are gearing up for anything dealing with the FD. In fact your link shows that Obama DOES NOT SUPPORT it.

Anymore "the sky is falling because of liberals" partisan tantrums you would like to throw?
 
aquapub said:
Your refusal to read the information already laid in your lap is the problem here. :notlook:

Posture, taunt, and play this juvenile game all you like. I'll be right here whenever you decide to join the debate.

:2wave:
Click to expand...

there's no debate to be joined. aquapub, you tend to state your overly generalized (or just plain wrong) conclusions, which border on the ridiculous, as facts.

"liberals operate on emotional hysteria"

"liberals are so much more prone to parroting propaganda"

"Democrats can't get people to buy their books, listen to their radio, watch their TV, and they have to act like conservatives to scrape out razor thin majorities even during an unpopular war, with scandals"

"Liberals avoid having to intellectually contend with the assertions of conservatives by parading around people we are not allowed to question"

"Liberal books (partisan and non-partisan) almost always bomb."

"Liberals are gearing up"

you go about thinking things through, precisely backwards. typically, facts are used to support conclusions. I ask you for facts, in support of your conclusions, and you have none. so in response, you insult me instead. it would be easy to shut me down by supporting your conclusion with evidence. if you had any.

good luck with all that. I'm telling you this as a friend.

What is Evidence?

Deductive reasoning - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Last edited:
Damn I misunderstood the question. I would have voted yes, it would have made him a fascist who tramples on free speech.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…