Democrats Declare War on the 1st Amendment

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Thank you, pubby, for admitting this is an un-popular war. So when are you going to get with the majority sentiment in this country and help stop the insanity that put us in this un-popular war (as you so stated above)?

The civil war was unpopular too.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
The civil war was unpopular too.

Ya got me there!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Ya got me there!

Should we have quit then too? After all it was unpopular, infact I don't believe there has ever been an actual "popular" war.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
Should we have quit then too?

I don't know. I'm from California. I can't remember which side we were aligned with. I know we didn't do a whole lot of fighting. East of the Colorado river, that is. We fought a lot with the mexicans. Does that count?

Originally posted by TOT:
After all it was unpopular, infact I don't believe there has ever been an actual "popular" war.

Right again!

 

[aquapub]

1) Thank you, pubby, for admitting this is an un-popular war. So when are you going to get with the majority sentiment in this country and help stop the insanity that put us in this un-popular war (as you so stated above)?

2) Acting like conservatives means slinging mud at your opponant.

3) Howard Stern went to satallite radio because his 1st Amendment rights were being infringed upon.

1) This war was not unpopular when we went in, and even if it was, popularity doesn't determine whether or not something makes sense to do. By your logic, it was the right thing to do for Democrats to refuse to get involved in the global struggle against Japan and Germany until they were nearly unstoppable.

2) Correctly stating things requires portraying liberals in an unflattering light. Stand for less reprehensible things and conservatives won't have to identify you as such.

3) This is what I mean when I say that liberals are constitutionally illiterate. The 1st Amendment gives Howard Stern a right to dissent. The objections to his shock fests being on public airwaves in no way infringed on his right to dissent. And having him take it to a private setting was exactly the right thing to do.

 

[jallman]

1) This war was not unpopular when we went in, and even if it was, popularity doesn't determine whether or not something makes sense to do. By your logic, it was the right thing to do for Democrats to refuse to get involved in the global struggle against Japan and Germany until they were nearly unstoppable.

2) Correctly stating things requires portraying liberals in an unflattering light. Stand for less reprehensible things and conservatives won't have to identify you as such.

3) This is what I mean when I say that liberals are constitutionally illiterate. The 1st Amendment gives Howard Stern a right to dissent. The objections to his shock fests being on public airwaves in no way infringed on his right to dissent. And having him take it to a private setting was exactly the right thing to do.

Does anybody else get as big a kick out of this bullshit as I do? I mean, I used to get fired up about it but now I just sit back and chuckle at how some people's heads would explode if they had a real, original thought...just once. :mrgreen:

 

[dragonslayer]

Which of these indicate that Neo conservatives care about the 1st Amendment?
1.Their attempts to ban books they don't like(this is constant within the desire of a small right wing minority to control thinking in American. they use terms like ethical Americans, moral americans, real americans.)

2.Their routine shouting down/assaulting of Liberal speakers, (conservatives of the old school, are put down as well as liberals. Yet the right wing controlled press constantly talks of Liberals disruptions, while they make sure that liberals are kept in the back of Neo conservative rallies, so they don't bother neocon speakers. Neo cons hire rabble rousers to disrupt rallies by the democrats sometimes.

3.Their current attempt to suppress speech that supports democracy and democratic speakers.

"Fairness" Doctrine)The fairness doctrine is non existant. It was officially put down under the Reagon government by Ronald himself. He officially opposed it and even though it was actually a law at one time, after Reagan there was no more Fairness doctrine. Blame your hero Ronnie Reagan.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Which of these indicate that Neo conservatives care about the 1st Amendment?
1.Their attempts to ban books they don't like(this is constant within the desire of a small right wing minority to control thinking in American. they use terms like ethical Americans, moral americans, real americans.)


2.Their routine shouting down/assaulting of Liberal speakers, (conservatives of the old school, are put down as well as liberals. Yet the right wing controlled press constantly talks of Liberals disruptions, while they make sure that liberals are kept in the back of Neo conservative rallies, so they don't bother neocon speakers. Neo cons hire rabble rousers to disrupt rallies by the democrats sometimes.

3.Their current attempt to suppress speech that supports democracy and democratic speakers.

"Fairness" Doctrine)The fairness doctrine is non existant. It was officially put down under the Reagon government by Ronald himself. He officially opposed it and even though it was actually a law at one time, after Reagan there was no more Fairness doctrine. Blame your hero Ronnie Reagan.

LMFAO you support the Fairness Doctrine? And you are accusing the right of trying to violate the first amendment? What ****ing part about "Congress shall pass no law," do you not get? The Democrats successfully used the 'Fascist' Doctrine, for the better part of half a century to silence the voice of the right, you're not exactly making your case here.

 

[The Mark]

Some links I found while looking into this further.

Some general information: Wikipedia - Fairness Doctrine

The apparent Liberal side of things: 2005 CommonDreams.org - The Fairness Doctrine - How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

The apparent Conservative side of things: 1993 The Heritage Foundation - Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair

An article advocating reinstatement of the "Fairness Doctrine": 1997 The Wisdom Fund - Broadcasting Fairness Doctrine Promised Balanced Coverage

Some interesting excerpts.

The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). The Court ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights. Five years later, however, in Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (418 U.S. 241), without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364).

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

Interesting.

My personal opinion - the "Fairness Doctrine" is not a good idea.

 

[dragonslayer]

Liberals only cite the first amendment if it agrees with their position....

Just a more BushPoop.

 

[dragonslayer]

Just a more BushPoop.

The Bush administration tries to pick and choose the 1st Amendment, while Democrats scramble to preserve the Constitution. The fact show just exactly the opposite of your original opinion. I cannot understand what you base your opinion on. Do you work for some Neo Conservative think tank, like the swift boat people who made up all those lies about Kerry?

It seems to me that all you do is try to disrupt and throw out inuendo.

I think you are a smart person, I just cannot fathom your thinking.

I am 68 years old now and I have worked with people all my life, since I got my Masters Degree. I just cannot understand when people of obvious intelligence look at a Green brick and insist that it is purple. America is land full of people not just a empty land waiting to be colonized, like the Far Right Seems to think.

 

[aquapub]

Liberals only cite the first amendment if it agrees with their position....

You mean when liberals shout down conservative speakers, assault them, try to ban their books, pass laws controlling what opinions they can express and how, vandalize property and kick people out of their party for only being 95% liberal, something about that tells you LIBERALS are the ones who can't handle dissent and free speech?

Well then, you would be right.

Liberals only pretend to care about free speech when it has nothing to do with your constitutional right to dissent and can can be used to trash America or promote sleaze (flag-burning, porn, etc.)

 

[ptsdkid]

Interesting question, and more intetresting to see the usual Democrat/liberal response in avoiding the facts. Sorry Aqua, I couldn't answer the poll question because you didn't put in an all of the above and more option.

 

[aquapub]

The Bush administration tries to pick and choose the 1st Amendment, while Democrats scramble to preserve the Constitution.

:2funny:

Democrats illiterately defend things like pornography, flag burning, and juvenile perverts flooding public (as opposed to private) airwaves with their shockfests as protected speech because they can't grasp that the 1st Amendment specifically, expressly protects your right to dissent from the federal government without reprocussions.

Violating the right to dissent is a cause championed only by liberals.

Hence this "Fairness" Doctrine they are trying to use to control what opinions conservatives can express and how they can express them.

Liberals are the only actual threat here to the Constitution, as is standard.