North Dakota Fishing and Hunting Forum banner
1 - 3 of 8 Posts

· Administrator
20,101 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.

· Administrator
20,101 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.

· Administrator
20,101 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 - 3 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.