North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

· Administrator
Joined
·
20,084 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
When a liberal burns the American flag he defends his actions by saying it's his or her first amendment rights. However, they don't extend that right to anyone who is not liberal. With 90% of the media liberal that isn't enough for them. As soon as they get a majority they will attack the first amendment rights of conservatives by trying to shut down talk radio. They have already tried to shut down Rush Limbaugh on the radio provided to our soldiers. It's the number one program that our soldiers in Iraq listen to because as I have personally been told it was the only one they got that gave good news about Iraq. In that situation they didn't respect the first amendment or our soldiers.

So what can we expect from an Obama president with Nancy at his side?

SHOULD Barack Obama win the presidency and Democrats take full control of Congress, next year will see a real legislative attempt to bring back the Fairness Doctrine - and to diminish conservatives' influence on broadcast radio, the one medium they dominate.

Yes, the Obama campaign said some months back that the candidate doesn't seek to re-impose this regulation, which, until Ronald Reagan's FCC phased it out in the 1980s, required TV and radio broadcasters to give balanced airtime to opposing viewpoints or face steep fines or even loss of license. But most Democrats - including party elders Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and Al Gore - strongly support the idea of mandating "fairness."

Would a President Obama veto a new Fairness Doctrine if Congress enacted one? It's doubtful.

The Fairness Doctrine was an astonishingly bad idea. It's a too-tempting power for government to abuse. When the doctrine was in effect, both Democratic and Republican administrations regularly used it to harass critics on radio and TV.

Second, a new Fairness Doctrine would drive political talk radio off the dial. If a station ran a big-audience conservative program like, say, Laura Ingraham's, it would also have to run a left-leaning alternative. But liberals don't do well on talk radio, as the failure of Air America and indeed all other liberal efforts in the medium to date show. Stations would likely trim back conservative shows so as to avoid airing unsuccessful liberal ones.

Then there's all the lawyers you'd have to hire to respond to the regulators measuring how much time you devoted to this topic or that. Too much risk and hassle, many radio executives would conclude. Why not switch formats to something less charged - like entertainment or sports coverage?

For those who dismiss this threat to freedom of the airwaves as unlikely, consider how the politics of "fairness" might play out with the public. A Rasmussen poll last summer found that fully 47 percent of respondents backed the idea of requiring radio and television stations to offer "equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary," with 39 percent opposed.

Liberals, Rasmussen found, support a Fairness Doctrine by 54 percent to 26 percent, while Republicans and unaffiliated voters were more evenly divided. The language of "fairness" is seductive.

Even with control of Washington and public support, Dems would have a big fight in passing a Fairness Doctrine. Rush Limbaugh & Co. wouldn't sit by idly and let themselves be regulated into silence, making the outcome of any battle uncertain. But Obama and the Democrats also plan other, more subtle regulations that would achieve much the same outcome.

He and most Democrats want to expand broadcasters' public-interest duties. One such measure would be to impose greater "local accountability" on them - requiring stations to carry more local programming whether the public wants it or not. The reform would entail setting up community boards to make their demands known when station licenses come up for renewal. The measure is clearly aimed at national syndicators like Clear Channel that offer conservative shows. It's a Fairness Doctrine by subterfuge.

Obama also wants to relicense stations every two years (not eight, as is the case now), so these monitors would be a constant worry for stations. Finally, the Democrats also want more minority-owned stations and plan to intervene in the radio marketplace to ensure that outcome.

It's worth noting, as Jesse Walker does in the latest Reason magazine, that Trinity Church, the controversial church Obama attended for many years, is heavily involved in the media-reform movement, having sought to restore the Fairness Doctrine, prevent media consolidation and deny licenses to stations that refuse to carry enough children's programming.

Regrettably, media freedom hasn't been made an issue by the McCain campaign, perhaps because the maverick senator is himself no fan of unbridled political speech, as his long support of aggressive campaign-finance regulation underscores. But the threat to free speech is real - and profoundly disturbing.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
398 Posts
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Last week, here in America, they came for Jessica Hughes, and I will not be silent. I will not turn away, hoping, in the end, they will not come for me.

Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas, former Marine, mother of three, answered her cell phone in the car, coming home from the emergency room. Her 9-year-old had suffered a mild concussion, but was OK.

The caller was a female Obama volunteer who asked if Jessica would support Obama for president.

Jessica replied, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the state Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." Then Jessica hung up.

The next day, a man and a woman in suits showed up at the door of her home, identifying themselves as members of the Secret Service.

The Secret Service agents stated that the Obama campaign had complained of a death threat. They had quoted Jessica as saying, "I will never support Obama, and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."

Jessica's husband had heard Jessica's side of the original phone call and verified the actual quote. To which the female agent replied, "Oh? Well why would she (the Obama volunteer) make that up?"

Jessica replied that the Obama volunteer was probably unhappy about what Jessica had said about her candidate. The female agent then said "That's right, you were rude!"

The male agent then displayed a file with Jessica's full name prominently printed on it and asked her how she felt about Obama. At this point, the former Marine told the agent "in no uncertain terms" (as she later recounted) that this was America and that the last time she checked, she was allowed to think whatever she wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. And was being "rude" a federal crime now too?

The agents then admitted they had no tape of the conversation, just the quote from the Obama campaign.

Responding to Jessica's questions, the agents would not identify themselves by name, nor reveal the name of the Obama volunteer who had made the complaint. The agents did indicate that Jessica was not in a court of law yet, and that they were trying to not embarrass her "by going to all her family and neighbors."

To these implied threats, Jessica invited the agents to speak to whomever they wanted, and stated she would happily go to court since she had done nothing wrong.

Jessica asked the agents, "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate, and I can't tell them why I don't?"

The Secret Service left Jessica that day, but she could not get the "visit" out of her mind.
Source:http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77825
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
20,084 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I think right about now is time to get some money our of our semi auto firearms. If you remember under Clinton the FBI illegally retained firearms ownership files. In Obama's world I think that is going to get a BATF (to become Bureau of Accusation Terror and Fraud) agent at our door. Under Clinton and the Waco screw up BATF would be Burn All Toddlers First. :D

Some time between the election and Obama taking office (if he wins) I will find a way to make a couple of bucks off my AR15. It's worth about $1500, but I am sure the government would simply confiscate them or give a paltry $50 no matter the value of the firearm. Isn't that what some cities have done? I mean wasn't it some cities that offered $50 for firearms turned in?

The last time that the Assault Weapons Ban went through an AR15 doubled to tripled it's value over night. However, I think this time you will get your firearm confiscated, or if you have sold it you will need proof. I say sell them and don't ask the buyers name. Cash and no questions asked.

Maybe Obama will let me cling to my bow and arrows.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
156 Posts
As far as Rush Limbaugh and Ed Shultz go - I don't need a pompus self important stuffed shirt to tell me how to think (I'll do it for myself) they are entitled to their shows but I wouldn't miss them one way or the other.

Also are we not smart enough to not to believe all the urban legend and fear mongering stories -

If you can't win the old fashioned way - Go with the fear factor

- They are going to take your guns,
- They are going to take away your religious rights
- They are going to take your money and give it too the undeserving
- Abortions will be happening in the streets
- It's the same old conspiracy theories and rhetoric

Time to move on folks
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,605 Posts
Centerfire, I invite you to study some California law.

It's not a myth...

It's not a wivestale...

It's happening right under your nose, and with all due respect, it's people much like yourself with this "they'll never take our guns" attitude that will allow that very thing to happen.

You are aware of Obama's willingness to allow UN "manipulation" of our Constitution, aren't you? I think we will all agree that would NOT be sympathetic to the 2nd amendment...among others.

I respect your opinion, but it sounds to me like your head may be slightly lower than the stated elevation above sea level of your current location.

But I could be wrong.
 

· Administrator
Joined
·
20,084 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
What other freedomes are you willing to give up centerfire. I don't listen to Rush often, but if I want to do I have that right? Does Rush have less of a right to speak than you or I? Is he a second class citizen? Will liberal talk radio be muzzled?
The liberal talk radio was a joke. No one is going to pay to listen to a liberal. :D

They are going to take your guns,
They have already demonstrated they want to do that. What more than outlawing what they don't like do you need.

They are going to take away your religious rights
I have not seen anyone say that. Do you think exaggeration makes a point. When you exaggerate like the above statement you have already lost the debate.

They are going to take your money and give it too the undeserving
They have already been doing that for years. What makes you fail to see that. Most of the time it's only the undeserving that fail to understand socialism. The only difference is there will be a huge increase under Obama.

Abortions will be happening in the streets
Just another outlandish exaggeration. Seriously, you have taken a fragment of truth and twisted it way beyond truth. People are concerned about partial birth abortion. Tell me the truth Centerfire, how many people have you had tell you they are worried about abortions performed outside in the streets?

It's the same old conspiracy theories and rhetoric
No conspiracy. I know of people on welfare that when arrested had over $100,000 in cash in their house. They made it selling drugs. I know of a lady who was getting welfare checks in ten different cities. She had PO box and flew from city to city to pick up her welfare checks. I heard of a lady in Chicago that was getting welfare checks for 20 children. The people at the welfare office were so stupid they had accepted birth certificates from ( I can't remember, but it was a popular doll at the time and came with a birth certificate).
A lot of undeserving people are getting our tax dollars. Criminals even. Illegal means your doing something criminal. Illegal aliens are costing us billions. Liberals want to call them undocumented workers, and Obama wants to give them drivers licenses. They brake the law, and Obama wants to reward them. How do you justify that? Seriously, I am talking to you Centerfire how do you justify it?
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top