• 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!

The Beginning of the End

Before you go freaking out, you should think for a minute. A law like this will probably be considered unconstitutional.

Yeah, I thought that way about Obamacare too, heh, silly me...
 
So, I'm trying to understand why this is necessary - before this, was there an issue?
 
So, I'm trying to understand why this is necessary - before this, was there an issue?

Yes...there was an issue for the Senate Democrats. They want to be able to control the media.
 
Yes...there was an issue for the Senate Democrats. They want to be able to control the media.

Yeah... IMO, **** the Dems backing this, but as to your moonbat conspiracy garbage, from the story:

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., complained that the definition of a journalist was too broad.​

So... IMO, **** the Repubs backing this.
 
If there is freedom of speech in America why does one need to define journalist at all?
 
So, I'm trying to understand why this is necessary - before this, was there an issue?

Yes. I would bet that this is being proposed because of wikileaks. Many are saying that they are not really news journalists in order to find a way to prosecute them for reporting on the happenings of our government without letting the 1st Amendment getting in the way.
 
Yes. I would bet that this is being proposed because of wikileaks. Many are saying that they are not really news journalists in order to find a way to prosecute them for reporting on the happenings of our government without letting the 1st Amendment getting in the way.

Like I told Guy, I thought Obamacare was too, but, you see where we're at with that...
 
Yeah, I thought that way about Obamacare too, heh, silly me...

Yes, silly you. If you thought the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional then you didn't understand how the constitution works.
 
Yes, silly you. If you thought the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional then you didn't understand how the constitution works.

:lamo

you're a Constitution scholar I suppose?

the issue at bar wasn't what the decision was based upon. The SCOTUS made the god damn law up as it went along. It should have been deemed unconstitutional and sent back and refiled as a tax not reinterpreted as one.
 
the issue at bar wasn't what the decision was based upon. The SCOTUS made the god damn law up as it went along. It should have been deemed unconstitutional and sent back and refiled as a tax not reinterpreted as one.
Wrong. The fact that it was a tax was well known and the expected result by people who understand the relevant issues.
 
Wrong. The fact that it was a tax was well known and the expected result by people who understand the relevant issues.


Sure it was buddy...:thumbs:

You and Judge Wapner had it all figured out...
 
As with most things, it depends how far Congress goes to narrow the definition. I don't think bloggers on the internet are or should necessarily be considered a journalist, with all the privileges in the law and the Constitution. Now, if the definition of a journalist is really that broad, the law will naturally take it's course by either pushing the boundary either broad or narrow until (hopefully) a moderate view of what a journalist is can be defined. My view is probably akin to the view of the 1970's when I grew up. I mean, have you folks read many blogs? Finding a decent one is incredibly rare. I don't want to provide the moniker of "journalist" to some guy named "Peaches" who's an internet pastor and writes about NAMBLA (I'm making this up by the way) as a religious experience when the guy is a pedophile scumbag who should be in jail.
 
Sure it was buddy...:thumbs:

You and Judge Wapner had it all figured out...
It was well known to people in the know. I can tell you that i myself saw the outcome years in advance. Not because I have any prophetic abilities, just because I applied some basic understanding of constitutional law. The role of the supreme court is uphold the will of the legislature if at all possible. The fact that it functions as a tax means it is constitutional, even if it is not called a tax. There was no basis to strike down the law.

You just don't understand the pertinent concepts.
 
Jesus H. Christ! It has to be a liberal conspiracy or a conservative conspiracy, yeah? Can't some of you morons get beyond that? Obviously you cannot. I can't think of anything more ironic than partisans worried about the loss of free speech. It's incredible when you think about it.

The 4th Estate is damn near dead in America. And it didn't just recently occur. There have been volumes written on the subject. There are college classes on the subject. This isn't anything new. It damn sure isn't a single party conspiracy. It transcends both parties and even the White House in some cases. The information is there if you actually want to be informed. In the past "What if" and I have started 3 or 4 threads about it and only a few here have participated. Point is, the public has been manipulated by the government through the Press and with the 4th Estate's cooperation for a very long time.

As an example here's an extremely interesting article no one will read.

The CIA and the Media.



If you want information closer to the truth than what you are getting now:

1. Stop watching US network news! Any of it. Stop it. It isn't news. It is propagandized entertainment that has been tarted up as news. Stop it. Don't do it anymore, at all.
2. Stop listening to radio talk shows. See above. Stop it forever.
3. Read the Christian Science Monitor. You can read it online. It continues to be recognized as the least politicized, most balanced newspaper in the U.S.
4. Read papers like The Guardian UK. There is an online version for the US. You'll find much in there everyday about the U.S. that you won't find in U.S. news sources.
5. Read varied internet sources OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL PERSUASIONS. Compare the information you find with sources of an opposing lean. Truthdig vs. Breitbart.
6. Practice deductive reasoning. It is the greatest protection any individual can have in Age of Information. Be diligent and think critically.
7. Stop believing things because you want them to be true.
8. Stop depending on others to do the work for you. Washington can't and won't protect the truth in your behalf. They simply want you to think they are. Ignore the bastards.
9. If you are a partisan at least stop depending on your party to get you all the unfettered truth, all the time. They won't. You should know better than to trust them.
10. Even practicing all of the above, and more, you will still be duped from time to time, but much less often.
 
Last edited:
Like these guys?

It's kind of funny the way people can be so certain and self righteous while simultaneously being absolutely wrong. This might come as a surprise to you, but there is often a difference between what politicians say and reality.

It was impolitic to call it a tax because enacting it would then be characterized as "raising taxes." But that's merely wordplay. The substance of it is a tax, it really doesn't matter what Obama called it. Legally, what matters to the Supreme Court is the function as a tax which determines constitutionality.
 
This might come as a surprise to you, but there is often a difference between what politicians say and reality.

It was impolitic to call it a tax because enacting it would then be characterized as "raising taxes." But that's merely wordplay. The substance of it is a tax, it really doesn't matter what Obama called it.

So, your sense is that the President lied?
 
Back
Top Bottom