- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
The civil war was unpopular too.
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)?
Ya got me there!Originally posted by TOT:
The civil war was unpopular too.
Ya got me there!
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:
Should we have quit then too?
Right again!Originally posted by TOT:
After all it was unpopular, infact I don't believe there has ever been an actual "popular" war.
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.
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.
The Wisdom Fund - Broadcasting Fairness Doctrine Promised Balanced Coverage said: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).
The Wisdom Fund - Broadcasting Fairness Doctrine Promised Balanced Coverage said: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.
Just a more BushPoop.Liberals only cite the first amendment if it agrees with their position....
Just a more BushPoop.
Liberals only cite the first amendment if it agrees with their position....
The Bush administration tries to pick and choose the 1st Amendment, while Democrats scramble to preserve the Constitution.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?