Facebook deletes new Lara Trump Interview of President Trump. Is it really 1984?

[colfax_m]

MANY Bills have been passed without bipartisan support

Name one.

 

[Godboy]

Wait, you dont believe it will be a century before republicans have a majority and a president in office, do you? That would be fucking crazy and dumb.

Look at the demographics.

The republican base is shrinking. They are holding onto power by gerrymandering, and restrictive voter laws. We're at a tipping point where those methods will no longer work.

Ohhh, i see. You want your weird left wing fantasies to be a legitimate counter argument. Sorry, but they are not.

 

[meaner gene]

You know those rules didn't muzzle any voices, or prevent any speech. Those are expansive regulations, not restrictive.

LOL - sure man.

wondering if Libertarians will get "equal time". Pretty sure they won't. They didn't when you all imposed this crap last time.

While it was in effect all kinds of political philosophies were given access to the airwaves.

Equal airtime law
The equal-time rule specifies that U.S. radio and television broadcast stations must provide an equivalent opportunity to any opposing political candidates who request it.

 

[dblack]

You know those rules didn't muzzle any voices, or prevent any speech. Those are expansive regulations, not restrictive.

LOL - sure man.

wondering if Libertarians will get "equal time". Pretty sure they won't. They didn't when you all imposed this crap last time.

While it was in effect all kinds of political philosophies were given access to the airwaves.

Sorry I was there. Some political philosophies, it seems, are more equal than others.

 

[dblack]

Someone needs to built out a blockchain based social media network, one that can't be controlled by politicians.

 

[meaner gene]

It isnt necessary. MANY Bills have been passed without bipartisan support.

And most of those involve renaming post offices.
Any bill of consequence involves the senate filibuster.

 

[meaner gene]

Ohhh, i see. You want your weird left wing fantasies to be a legitimate counter argument. Sorry, but they are not.

The problem is that republicans aren't reproducing at a rate to sustain their numbers. Minorities are popping out the next generation of voters like rabbits.

 

[meaner gene]

While it was in effect all kinds of political philosophies were given access to the airwaves.

Sorry I was there. Some political philosophies, it seems, are more equal than others.

Equal access doesn't mean equal voice. Warren Buffet has the same access to buy Apple as you do. But his voice is bigger because his pockets are deeper.

 

[dblack]

Equal access doesn't mean equal voice.

Of course not. And it doesn't mean equal access either. It means government controls access, which is what both sides are after.

 

[Godboy]

It isnt necessary. MANY Bills have been passed without bipartisan support.

And most of those involve renaming post offices.
Any bill of consequence involves the senate filibuster.

Whats the longest filibuster? Do they filibuster for years?

 

[meaner gene]

Equal access doesn't mean equal voice.

Of course not. And it doesn't mean equal access either. It means government controls access, which is what both sides are after.

As I said and posted, it guaranteed equal access. Apparently you have no clue what that actually means. As I also posted, it doesn't mean equal voice.

Everybody has equal access to the stock market, but Warren Buffet has a much louder voice, because he has deeper pockets.

 

[dblack]

Of course not. And it doesn't mean equal access either. It means government controls access, which is what both sides are after.

As I said and posted, it guaranteed equal access.

No. It didn't. It "guaranteed" access to those the government deemed worthy of access.

 

[meaner gene]

Any bill of consequence involves the senate filibuster.

Whats the longest filibuster? Do they filibuster for years?

Republicans changed the filibuster.

Senate filibuster no longer requires long floor speech

The filibuster is more popular than ever, but the current version is a far cry from what it was.

www.post-gazette.com

 

[meaner gene]

No. It didn't. It "guaranteed" access to those the government deemed worthy of access.

The government didn't not control equal access, the media station controlled it.

 

[dblack]

No. It didn't. It "guaranteed" access to those the government deemed worthy of access.

The government didn't not control equal access, the media station controlled it.

Uh. No. It was a law. Laws are controlled by government.

 

[meaner gene]

No. It didn't. It "guaranteed" access to those the government deemed worthy of access.

The government didn't not control equal access, the media station controlled it.

Uh. No. It was a law. Laws are controlled by government.

The government enforces laws, which means they don't control the actions, but only punish violations, government controls means that parties ask the government for access, instead of the media.

The media company actually controlled equal access. And only if there was a complaint is the government even involved.

 

[dblack]

No. It didn't. It "guaranteed" access to those the government deemed worthy of access.

The government didn't not control equal access, the media station controlled it.

Uh. No. It was a law. Laws are controlled by government.

The government enforces laws, which means they don't control the actions, but only punish violations, government controls means that parties ask the government for access, instead of the media.

The media company actually controlled equal access. And only if there was a complaint is the government even involved.

Word mincing aside, the law stipulates the rules that must be followed: how the not-so-equal time is to be divided, and who qualifies for time in the first place. All these rules are controlling the process. The rules can, and will, be changed by successive administrations. That's power. That's control. It's also a clear violation of the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment.

 

[meaner gene]

Word mincing aside, the law stipulates the rules that must be followed: how the not-so-equal time is to be divided, and who qualifies for time in the first place. All these rules are controlling the process.

And those regulations said that the media company was to afford equal access, and left it to the media company, not the government, to control that access.

That's how it was then, and how it would be if equal access was brought back.

 

[dblack]

Word mincing aside, the law stipulates the rules that must be followed: how the not-so-equal time is to be divided, and who qualifies for time in the first place. All these rules are controlling the process.

And those regulations said that the media company was to afford equal access, and left it to the media company, not the government, to control that access.

The command to "afford equal access", and the regulations regarding what constitutes "equal" IS government control. If you can't at least acknowledge that there's little point in continuing the discussion.

 

[meaner gene]

The command to "afford equal access", and the regulations regarding what constitutes "equal" IS government control. If you can't at least acknowledge that there's little point in continuing the discussion.

The government makes regulation, and their regulation left it to the media company to determine equal access.

So the government neither encouraged or prejudiced any particular political voice. If that happened, it was an act of the media company.

A party with an adverse action by the media company could file a complaint with the government.