I Thought Libs Supported Free Speech

[DeadCanDance]

A lie. The ONLY problems in New Orleans wer caused by a Liberal Mayor and Liberal Governor to busy covering their own ass and getting out of the way of the Hurricane.

FEMA was NOT responsible for the screw up in New Orleans, that was the Mayor's fault and compounded by the Governor tieing up National Guard troops to protect her ass and refusing to ask for official help from the Federal Government ( for 3 days I might add)

Want me to go find some of the pictures of the HUNDREDS if not thousands of School busses that were flooded out in their parking lots? While AFTER the storm, when all the road, bridges and comm were out the Mayor, OUT of the City demanded the Federal Government illegally seize all the greyhound busses.

Shall I find the pictures of new Orleans police officers ransacking stores along with citizens? Of local County Police blocking bridges and ordering at gun point the survivors to go somewhere else besides their safe LIBERAL neighborhoods? Shall I get pictures of the ARMY and FEMA in action within hours of the storm hitting risking life and limb to rescue people that were left behind by the LIBERALS that ran their City and State? Shall I remind you of who it was that confiscated the guns of legal residents and refused to provide security?

"The ONLY problems in New Orleans wer caused by a Liberal Mayor and Liberal Governor to busy covering their own ass and getting out of the way of the Hurricane."

The post-Katrina Report, from a republican congressional commitee disagrees with you. The committee was made up entirely of republicans, and blames all levels of government for incompetence and failure.

In particular, they pointed out that a natural catastophe of this scale, simply overwhelms the capacity of state and local officials to respond - and that the federal government not only had a res[pnsibility to address the disaster, but was derelict in it's performance of that function.


Republican House Committe on Katrina Disaster:

http://katrina.house.gov/full_katrina_report.htm

 

[Toro]

All levels of government screwed up during Katrina. Saying one level of government had nothing to do with the problems - which just happens to be the one you support - is ridiculous and should be dismissed out of hand, no matter what party you support.

 

[red states rule]

Some on the left...don't paint ME with that brush. I will admit that my side has some not-so-smart folks.... but they do not represent my political ideology or my party, for the most part.

But they come damn close

 

[red states rule]

your an idiot. The Mayor screwed up. But the president did nothing to help them after days upon days of no aid. It was the fuckign republicans and FEMA who didnt do jack squat for almost a freaking week there. The president came and promised aid none of which never came to some untill weeks later. LOOK IT UP Imbecile.

The dumb people in NO should have got the hell out of town. They had a three day warning a Cat 5 storm was going to hit. Instead the Dems did nothing to get them out, and waited for the Feds do to their job

 

[Linche]

I can't tell you the number of Liberals I've heard say that Rush Limbaugh is a hate-monger, blah, blah, on and on and then I'll ask, "Have you listened to his program?" and they look horrified and respond, "OMG, NO! I would NEVER listen to that creep!"

As to Katrina, I'm in no mood this week to defend any members of my own party but I've always seen Nagin as having the most responsibility. He and the governor - as with this Dem congress - are all talk but never take any action.

If they "intended" to take care of everyone and they had "wanted" to take care of everyone, to liberals, that's just as good as taking care of everyone!

Bush and Chertoff were just as bad though. I can't think of one competent person associated with Katrina/New Orleans.

And, yet - don't the people re-elect Nagin and re-elect Jefferson after seeing $90 grand found in his freezer.

Guess they didn't mind going through category five hurricanes with an incompetent at the wheel.

Oh, well. Their choice.

 

[Edward]

The state of Louisiana is run by Democrats...we are talking local issues here, simpleton.

The fact is that the Left is indeed saying that we don't want to warn you of a disaster because Rush Limbaugh is carried on this station.

As maineman said, warnings should be universal. End of story.

And the right is saying, "that they don't want to warn people of a disaster unless they are willing to listen to and support a station that carries Rush Limbaugh."

 

[Edward]

A violation of what right specifically?

The right not to be forced to support something you don't want to support if you want to live. The right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of association but I am sure your retarded ass has an opinion about what those mean and therefore don't think this is a violation of any of them.

First, it is a violation of the right to freedom of speech because the freedom of speech of people who do not wish to support this radio station is being violated because they cannot choose not to support the radio station through democratic methods and therefore their political speech is required to be supportive of this radio station and that is a limitation on their speech. When it comes to the purse and to airing emergency broadcasts you are saying that the County has no right to choose which radio station they will use to exercise that "speech right." Unless you don't think emergency broadcasts is a form of speech? But since it is a form of speech it only makes sense that this right is exercised in a way that grants to the greatest number of people the right to hear that speech. The County shouldn't limit it to those who listen to this radio station or who are willing to listen to it while denying access to everyone else who does not wish to do so.

Second, it is a violation of freedom of the press because it requires the county to use one media outlet at the expense of others and ultimately grants support to this radio station while not doing so in the instance of others. The issue isn't whether the County can do this because they must be able to choose an official emergency broadcast provider instead the issue is whether all the other radio stations should not have this opportunity when it is quite clear that there are many in the county who do not want the radio station in question to be the emergency broadcast provider. These other providers have a legitimate argument that their rights are being violated and that this radio station is being treated differently from them based solely upon their political content.

Third, it is a violation of the freedom of association because it requires people to associate with this radio station even though they disagree with it and do not wish to do so in order to obtain access to emergency broadcasts. This equally applies to any radio station. If any of them has a specific population which refuses to listen to them for one reason or another it is inappropriate to require them to do so in order to receive emergency broadcasts. Takes for example, a radio station decides to allow the KKK a forum to speak and it is the official radio station for emergency broadcasts but there are a lot of black people and Jews who do not wish to listen to this radio station because of that but they have to if they want to receive emergency broadcast notices. Now, of course black people could still listen to the radio station but they should be forced to associate with that radio station in order to receive these broadcasts. It is an issue of whether a specific population is affected. Here they are affected as they are in the example I have given. That affect is one that violates their freedom of speech, press, and association simply because you want the convenience of having this station be the official emergency broadcast provider. That is ultimately unfair to a specific population who does not want to listen to the radio station or support it. If it was just a matter of individuals not liking the music or the programming than the county has no position to change the provider but since it is a matter of a specific population not wanting to listen to it than they cannot continue to use the provider even when it has a major negative impact on a specific population.

The fact is the reason for the suggesting of a chance is completely politcal while the original reason for using that station in the first place is not.

Agreed. I have no objection to the fact that the original decision wasn't political but its outcome was in that it has denied a specific population access to emergency broadcasts based on their political opinions which makes the outcome or the continued use of this radio station a political decision with political repurcusssions.

That station was chosen simply because that freqeuncy is available to the greatest number of people. This was a proposal that makes zero logical sense. Not only does the station itself cover a wider area than any station there, most likely, it would also be most listened to because, fan or not, Rush is the most listened to radio talk show in the country.

The original reason why it was chosen isn't really relevent to what the current reason is for continuing using it. Here you have a decision that ultimately places a specific population (i.e., Jews, blacks, Christians, Democrats, Republicans, atheists, etc) in a position of having to listen to and support a radio station that they do not want to in order to receive emergency broadcasts. It would be a violation of the rights of atheists to choose a Christian, Muslim or Jewish radio station as the provider, and it would be a violation of the rights of Christians to require them to listen to an anti-Christian and generally explicit radio station in order to receive emergency broadcasts. It would also be a violation of the rights of blacks to require them to tune into a radio station that airs racist or otherwise objectionable content just like it would be a violation for the County to require Republicans or Democrats to listen to or support a radio station that is offensive. When you tie access to emergency broadcast to a station that supports one group over another and which offends a specific population than you violate that populations rights regardless of who they are. I can't imagine a Muslim having to listen to or support a radio station that is anti-Muslim in order to protect their family. The same goes for every other population.

Boycott all you like.

Spoken like the true tyrant you are, and the dictator who gets off on the power you have to vote and to deny others representation. Don't expect me to be nice when this is your attitude but it is the attitude held by the majority of the people who post here.

You're honestly going to tell me that if your in the path of the hurricane you're not going to tune to the station that contains life saveing information out of some stupid principle? There is no right that says I have to find some alternative means of communication simply because you have the right to not have your ears assailed with something you don't like

Or so you say it isn't a right and it is spoken like a true tyrant. You can call my principles stupid but it is yours and that of your representatives that are stupid but don't expect me to stand by as you and the bitches you vote for violate my rights because you have a different opinion of what those rights are. Like the Constitution says, all of our rights aren't enumerated.

Here the issue comes down to who is burdened more and who is required to bear the greater burden and the answer is quite obvious. The person who does not want to support this radio station is required to bear the greater burden and one that ultimately comes down to them choosing to support this station or choosing to die while all you have to choose is between finding another form of communication or continuing to violate the rights of others. You have no support for your position since it is a violation of the rights of others. So what if you have to find another form of communication. That burden isn't that great. You can still listen to this radio station all you want but when it comes down to how people are going to be informed it is an issue of people not being required to choose between "boycotting this station (dying)" or "supporting this station (living)" while your choice is simply to turn to a different channel and find a more suitable form of communication. Why do you object to another station? Is it because you don't want to listen to that station or support it? What legitimate objection could you possibly have if you believe it isn't a burden or a violation of your rights to require you to listen to a radio station that you do not support to receive emergency broadcasts? I doubt you are being completely honest because you choose to ignore the one question of: WHAT PROBLEM WOULD YOU HAVE WITH TURNING THE STATION TO A DIFFERENT ONE SINCE YOU DON'T THINK IT IS A PROBLEM FOR THOSE WHO OBJECT TO THIS STATION BEING USED. SINCE YOU HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THEM DOING SO THEN YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOU DOING SO.

Now the problem is solved. Since you don't think it is a violation of your rights to be forced to listen to and support a radio station you won't mind humoring those of us who do and listening to the same radio station that we do to receive emergency warnings? Or are you nothing more than a hypocrite who applies a double standard?

So what is fundamentally at issue here is the right of people to have access to emergency broadcast without conditions being placed upon them. If I am forced to support a radio station of my enemies and their families so that my enemies will inform me that there is an emergency than that puts me in direct danger and that is an issue that must be confronted if we are going to live in a free society and not a society of "Bern80's and his representatives opinion."

Do you have the right to require me to listen to this radio station before I can be informed of an emergency? It is obvious that you do not have this right but that you feel you do have the right to deny others access to emergency information unless they meet the conditions you place upon them such as listening to a specific station of your choice. You imply that you shouldn't be required to find another form of communication because others do not want to be assailed but this ultimately comes down to the fact that you do if you live in a free country. No one is required to listen to anything but in this instance they are required if they want to receive emergency announcements and the question becomes one of: YOUR HAVING TO CHOOSE ANOTHER FORM OF COMMUNICATION ISN'T LIFE THREATENING BUT THEM NOT LISTENING TO THE RADIO STATION IS LIFE THREATENING AND THAT BURDEN IS GREATER THAN YOURS WHICH MEANS THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED WHILE YOURS IS NOT WHEN YOU ARE FORCED TO FIND ALTERNATE FORM OF COMMUNICATION THAT IS SUITABLE TO EVERYONE. SO THE POOR BABY BERN80 HAS TO FIND ANOTHER FORM OF COMMUNICATION. POOR YOU! IT MUST UPSET YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY BUT FORGET THOSE WHOSE VERY LIFE IS THREATENED IF THEY DON'T DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WHICH IS LISTEN TO THIS RADIO STATION.

Last i checked there was no 'right' as you put it, to make anyone bend over backlwards to appease anothers obstinance.

No, there is no right for you not to be a fucking tryant or dictator but there is a right for me to resist you and the bastards that you vote for and I will do so at every election. Now debate my middle finger you fucking tryant. This isn't simply a matter of obstinence instead it is a matter of you SETTING DOWN YOUR DICTATES AND ISSUING FORTH YOUR DECREES FROM YOUR MANSION AND FROM THE MANSION OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVES and expecting people to go along with it so that they and their families can be safe.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All those words claiming YOU are denied your rights, all while insisting you PLAN to deny anyone that doesn't agree with you their rights.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

They have medication for your affliction. You also could try wearing a tin foil body suit to protect you from evil Bush mind Control rays and it even works on cooties as well, or so I am told.

No one in this country is denied representation. Not even foreign Terrorists. You need never utter the word Constitution again either, since you haven't a clue how it works. You better get some better foul words to keep people from actually reading what you write. Your absolute IGNORANCE is unbelievable. If your in my area I can suggest a cuple good doctors for you to talk to.

 

[Edward]

They have medication for your affliction. You also could try wearing a tin foil body suit to protect you from evil Bush mind Control rays and it even works on cooties as well, or so I am told.

This has little to do with Bush but if you are sick enough to think everything revolves around him than go right ahead and believe that since this issue has nothing to do with Bush. I know you have a one track mind and every thing becomes about Bush but some of us actually have opinions that are not in any way related to Bush. This is one of those which drives me to speak out against tryanny and to openly denounce something that many people in this country hold to be sacred and above reproach but like those who have come before me I too must speak out against something that undermines the ideals of freedom, and liberty. Those who opposed the Constitution recognizing that it was likely to be adopted by those who supported it in special ratifying conventions did everything possible to ensure that a Bill of Rights would be added but those of you who supported it then opposed this and it wasn't until after the Constitution was ratified and the first Congress met that they approved a Bill of Rights. I am personally grateful for these being in writing but they amount to nothing when I am not represented. You can tell me that I can say whatever I want and it doesn't mean anything if I have no representative to speak in my behalf while others in my legislative district have their representative to speak for them.

No one in this country is denied representation. Not even foreign Terrorists. You need never utter the word Constitution again either, since you haven't a clue how it works.

You have no idea how our system of government actually works or enjoy the form of tyranny that is so subtly practiced by our government. Our system is predicated upon the basis that if two or more people run for an office and one of them wins and if those who disagree with that person object they and the person they voted for can just go to hell. If you are moronic enough to think that the person who won represents the person who they defeated and those who voted for them than you are sadly deluded.

The idea of self-government requires that either we or a person of OUR choice has a say in the government of our country but in America this isn't the case since we as individuals do not have a direct say in our government (direct democracy) and we don't have a person of our choice representing us or in other words we aren't a representative republic. We like to claim that this is what we are because it makes us feel good but we are far from it. I am not alone in my assessment of the Constitution and there were a lot of people who were bold enough to say as much during the period surrounding the ratification of the Constitution but once this oppressive document had been ratified and adopted it became a bad move to do so because you would likely be attacked even more viciously by the supporters of this undemocratic and non-republican document.

I agree with Patrick Henry who said, "I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic, and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England — a compact between prince and people, with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland — an association of a number of independent states, each of which retains its individual sovereignty? It is not a democracy, wherein the people retain all their rights securely. Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of these great consideration, which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?"

Henry speaking of this also said, "But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together. Such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism. There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? But, sir, we are not feared by foreigners; we do not make nations tremble. Would this constitute happiness, or secure liberty? I trust, sir, our political hemisphere will ever direct their operations to the security of those objects."

He goes on to say, "Consider our situation, sir: go to the poor man, and ask him what he does. He will inform you that he enjoys the fruits of his labor, under his own fig-tree, with his wife and children around him, in peace and security. Go to every other member of society, — you will find the same tranquil ease and content; you will find no alarms or disturbances. Why, then, tell us of danger, to terrify us into an adoption of this new form of government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce?" This form of government does not exist, where heads of families preside over their lands and gather together with one another in common council to determine the things that affect them and their families instead we take from the people the very right they should possess which is the right to self-government and instead trick them into accepting the diluted vote of someone on election day. This vote means nothing if you do not vote for the person who wins because you and they still do not have a seat in your government where everyone can debate and discuss the issues but instead you find those who do not agree with you sitting there making decisions that affect you and your family while claiming to represent you when in fact they do not.

But the most insightful statement by others in Pennsylvania was expressed in these words, "The convention sat upwards of four months. The doors were kept shut, and the members brought under the most solemn engagements of secrecy. Some of those who opposed their going so far beyond their powers, retired, hopeless, from the convention others had the firmness to refuse signing the plan altogether, and many who did sign it, did it not as a system they wholly approved, but as the best that could be then obtained, and notwithstanding the time spent on this subject, it is agreed on all hands to be a work of haste and accommodation. Whilst the gilded chains were forging in the secret conclave, the meaner instruments of despotism without, were busily employed in alarming the fears of the people with dangers which did not exist, and exciting their hopes of greater advantages from the expected plan than even the best government on earth could produce."

These words should tell us something about the climate of the time and the fear people lived under at the hands of the tryants who supported the new Constitution and still do. Most of those who came out in opposition to the Constitution did so anonymously for fear of being harmed physically (there were rumors that people who opposed the constitution had been killed) but there were men such as Patrick Henry who during the Revolution had said, "give me liberty or give me death" who still had the courage to step forward and to oppose the Constitution and the tyranny it represented with all the strength he possessed. Unforunately for us, he and others who did the right thing in opposing the Constitution lost to the despots who support it and to this day you tyrants continue to support it and when people speak out against it you practice a subtle form of tyranny over their souls and expect them to back down.

In even more shocking words those in Pennsylvania who oppose the Constitution said, "During the discussion we met with many insults, and some personal abuse; we were not even treated with decency, during the sitting of the convention, by the persons in the gallery of the house, however, we flatter ourselves that in contending for the preservation of those invaluable rights you have thought proper to commit to our charge, we acted with a spirit becoming freemen, and being desirous that you might know - the principles which actuated our conduct, and being prohibited from inserting our reasons of dissent on the minutes of the convention, we have subjoined them for your consideration, as to you alone we are accountable. It remains with you whether you will think those inestimable privileges, which you have so ably contended for, should be sacrificed at the shrine of despotism, or whether you mean to contend for them with the same spirit that has so often baffled the attempts of an aristocratic faction, to rivet the shackles of slavery on you and your unborn posterity."

Of course, it offends your sensibilities to learn that the Constitution is the "shrine of despotism" and is the embodiment of what every freedom loving individual opposes. We wonder why we are hated by many people around the world. We would love to believe that it is because we are a free country and that we possess some sort of liberty that they do not but the truth is that they recognize tyranny better than we do because they live under a more overt form of it than we do in the form of their governments.

In predicting the future they said, "Thus it appears that the liberties, happiness, interests, and great concerns of the whole United States, may be dependent upon the integrity, virtue, wisdom, and knowledge of 25 or 26 men. How unadequate and unsafe a representation! Inadequate because the sense and views of 3 or 4 millions of people diffused over so extensive a territory comprising such various climates products, habits, interests, and opinions, cannot be collected in so small a body; and besides, it is not a fair and equal representation of the people even in proportion to its number, for the smallest state has as much weight in the senate as the largest and from the smallness of the number to be chosen for both branches of the legislature; and from the mode of election and appointment, which is under the control of Congress, and from the nature of the thing, men of the most elevated rank in life will alone be chosen. The other orders in the society, such as farmers, traders, and mechanics, who all ought to have a competent number of their best informed men in the legislature, will be totally unrepresented."

Even if you were to increase the numbers to those who now serve in the Legislature you realize that what was said then is true today especially when it comes to the fact that "most elevated rank in life alone will be chosen" while those who work at McDonalds, Wal-Mart, Burger King, or any job making less than $40,000 a year will not be represented in Congress because it simply is impossible. These voices among others are not to be heard and it is doubtful that someone whose interests are different from theirs would be an adequate representatives of those interests. This is hard for us to accept but it is a truth that resonates and that has resonated in every period of our history but unforunately for those of us who have the sanity to recognize the problem it would take more than a majority to change it. It would take the very people whose interests it is to preserve it to change it. That is members of Congress and the State Legislatures. Americans will not choose another Revolution simply because we are tired of that kind of sick, disgusting approach to solving our problems.

You better get some better foul words to keep people from actually reading what you write. Your absolute IGNORANCE is unbelievable. If your in my area I can suggest a cuple good doctors for you to talk to.

Why thank you for telling me about my ignorance as if the opinion of my enemy means anything to me. I am also going to continue using profanity as often as I want because I do not agree with your retarded opinion that thse words are foul instead I think the words spewing forth from your mouth in support of the oppressive constitution are foul. The only good thing about the Constitution is that which was added as a direct result of people who were willing to oppose it and who even threatened to revolt if a Bill of Rights was not included. So do I support the Constitution? I support those parts which are good and hope those which are bad are removed or better yet a new Constitution drafted which deals with the inequalities and lack of representation in our government.

 

[red states rule]

"Brownie...you're doing a hell of a job"

If the Dems in NO and La would ahve done their jobs, alot of people would have lived thriugh the storm

Only liberals would sit on their asses and wait for the Feds to get them out of the way of a Cat 5 storm

 

[red states rule]

I suspect this issue will be decided in court if the County chooses to keep this station as the official emergency broadcast provder as the rights of people who refuse to listen to or support this station would be violated and their families placed in danger because the County chooses to support a radio station that they refuse to listen to. The burden on them is one of "listen to this partisan station or die" while the burden on the station is "don't be partisan or don't gain viewers from the fact that you are the official emergency broadcast provider for the county." I wonder whose rights are really being violated?

Wrong, it looks like the idiot Dems have realized they stepped in it and will back down later this week

The arrogrance of the left is something to behold. Because they do not like to hear Rush and Sean on the radio - they want them silenced and off the air

 

[Bern80]

The right not to be forced to support something you don't want to support if you want to live.

That isn't an actual right for one thing. For another it's an extremely poor argument. When would the above not be true? If it's not the station Rush is on then it's some other that someone doesn't like so i guess we can't put it on that one, then we pick another which offends another group. I'm sure even you can see the dilemma.

The right to freedom of speech, of the press, and of association but I am sure your retarded ass has an opinion about what those mean and therefore don't think this is a violation of any of them.

The educate me oh wise one. What exacltey does the 1st ammendment cover as far as this situation is concerned? No matter what station this emergecncy broadcast is on, no one can force anybody to listen to it. No matter what station it's on it's still your choice to listen to it or not. There is no 1st ammendment issue here.

First, it is a violation of the right to freedom of speech because the freedom of speech of people who do not wish to support this radio station is being violated because they cannot choose not to support the radio station through democratic methods and therefore their political speech is required to be supportive of this radio station and that is a limitation on their speech.

Again by that argument it would be doomed to violate freedom of speech no matter what station it was on. I may not wish to support whatever other radio station they decide to put it on. The same many other groups of people. Try again genius.

When it comes to the purse and to airing emergency broadcasts you are saying that the County has no right to choose which radio station they will use to exercise that "speech right." Unless you don't think emergency broadcasts is a form of speech? But since it is a form of speech it only makes sense that this right is exercised in a way that grants to the greatest number of people the right to hear that speech. The County shouldn't limit it to those who listen to this radio station or who are willing to listen to it while denying access to everyone else who does not wish to do so.

Again by that argument they can't choose. Freedom of speech applies to all, not the majority of people who aggree. Even if 1 out of 1000 disagree with the station used it would still constitute a violation of the 1st ammendment.

Second, it is a violation of freedom of the press because it requires the county to use one media outlet at the expense of others and ultimately grants support to this radio station while not doing so in the instance of others. The issue isn't whether the County can do this because they must be able to choose an official emergency broadcast provider instead the issue is whether all the other radio stations should not have this opportunity when it is quite clear that there are many in the county who do not want the radio station in question to be the emergency broadcast provider. These other providers have a legitimate argument that their rights are being violated and that this radio station is being treated differently from them based solely upon their political content.

As we both pointed out the reason this particular radio station was chosen was not because of it's politcal content. Other providers do not have a legitimate argument that their rights are being violated becuase the radio station is no being treated differently solely because of it's politcal content. We both agreed that the politcal content of the station had nothing to do with the original use of this station as the emergency broadcast station.

Third, it is a violation of the freedom of association because it requires people to associate with this radio station even though they disagree with it and do not wish to do so in order to obtain access to emergency broadcasts. This equally applies to any radio station. If any of them has a specific population which refuses to listen to them for one reason or another it is inappropriate to require them to do so in order to receive emergency broadcasts. Takes for example, a radio station decides to allow the KKK a forum to speak and it is the official radio station for emergency broadcasts but there are a lot of black people and Jews who do not wish to listen to this radio station because of that but they have to if they want to receive emergency broadcast notices. Now, of course black people could still listen to the radio station but they should be forced to associate with that radio station in order to receive these broadcasts. It is an issue of whether a specific population is affected. Here they are affected as they are in the example I have given. That affect is one that violates their freedom of speech, press, and association simply because you want the convenience of having this station be the official emergency broadcast provider. That is ultimately unfair to a specific population who does not want to listen to the radio station or support it. If it was just a matter of individuals not liking the music or the programming than the county has no position to change the provider but since it is a matter of a specific population not wanting to listen to it than they cannot continue to use the provider even when it has a major negative impact on a specific population.

Your understanding of the the consititution is atrocious. Even a moron like you should be able to see then that by your very own argument the only solution possible is to not have the EB on any station.

Spoken like the true tyrant you are, and the dictator who gets off on the power you have to vote and to deny others representation. Don't expect me to be nice when this is your attitude but it is the attitude held by the majority of the people who post here.

I would be offended if it were true. But as with all of your asanine assumptions it isn't.

Or so you say it isn't a right and it is spoken like a true tyrant. You can call my principles stupid but it is yours and that of your representatives that are stupid but don't expect me to stand by as you and the bitches you vote for violate my rights because you have a different opinion of what those rights are. Like the Constitution says, all of our rights aren't enumerated.

Being a typical lib i see you have assumed many 'rights' that you really don't have. You do not have the right to a risk/burden/offensive free life.

YOUR HAVING TO CHOOSE ANOTHER FORM OF COMMUNICATION ISN'T LIFE THREATENING BUT THEM NOT LISTENING TO THE RADIO STATION IS LIFE THREATENING AND THAT BURDEN IS GREATER THAN YOURS WHICH MEANS THAT THEIR RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED WHILE YOURS IS NOT WHEN YOU ARE FORCED TO FIND ALTERNATE FORM OF COMMUNICATION THAT IS SUITABLE TO EVERYONE. SO THE POOR BABY BERN80 HAS TO FIND ANOTHER FORM OF COMMUNICATION. POOR YOU! IT MUST UPSET YOU SO MUCH THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT OF YOUR WAY BUT FORGET THOSE WHOSE VERY LIFE IS THREATENED IF THEY DON'T DO WHAT YOU WANT THEM TO DO WHICH IS LISTEN TO THIS RADIO STATION.

Or maybe teh poor baby Edward needs to suck it up. Risk assailing his delicate little ears for a couple minutes to find some life saving information. I can't believe you even see a choice here.

No, there is no right for you not to be a fucking tryant or dictator but there is a right for me to resist you and the bastards that you vote for and I will do so at every election. Now debate my middle finger you fucking tryant. This isn't simply a matter of obstinence instead it is a matter of you SETTING DOWN YOUR DICTATES AND ISSUING FORTH YOUR DECREES FROM YOUR MANSION AND FROM THE MANSION OF YOUR REPRESENTATIVES and expecting people to go along with it so that they and their families can be safe.

Again simply by haveing the broadcast on this station I am not making you do anything. I could put the boradcast on every radio station and I still can't make you listen to it. It is still your chouce. At the end of the day it is your asanine 'principles' that will determine whether you get the needed info or not. Stop playing the victim Edward, it's not you.

 

[JeffWartman]

And I think you are nothing but a bitch who is nothing more than a tryant who gets off on the power you have to vote and to spew shit out of your mind. You want to debate me being dropped on my head as a child bitch? Do you want to vote on it next? If you hate freedom of speech, and association so much than come out and say it you fucking retard. By the way, your opinion of me doesn't matter anymore than does maineman's, RSR, Gunny, Kathianne or any of the others here and you want to know why: BECAUSE YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE ON IT BITCH, IT ISN'T UP FOR DEBATE YOU COCKSUCKER AND YOU THINK IT IS BECAUSE YOU GET OFF ON THE THOUGHT OF BEING ABLE TO DEBATE AND VOTE LIKE THE FUCKING TYRANT YOU ARE. Now debate this: You are nothing more than a fucking retard and you and your family as well as those you vote for do not represent me and I did not vote for you, or them and if a person of my choice is not in the government representing me that means I am without representation and I say to you and to the jackass you vote for: NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.

It's funny how you list all those names; perhaps the fact that most people on this board believe you are incredibly unintelligent, sound uneducated, and constantly say stupid, idiotic things...should tell you something

 

[red states rule]

Will Eddid go to Flordia and protest the Dems surrendering to Rush?

It would seem he has won another one over the kook left

 

[Bern80]

Why thank you for telling me about my ignorance as if the opinion of my enemy means anything to me. I am also going to continue using profanity as often as I want because I do not agree with your retarded opinion that thse words are foul instead I think the words spewing forth from your mouth in support of the oppressive constitution are foul. The only good thing about the Constitution is that which was added as a direct result of people who were willing to oppose it and who even threatened to revolt if a Bill of Rights was not included. So do I support the Constitution? I support those parts which are good and hope those which are bad are removed or better yet a new Constitution drafted which deals with the inequalities and lack of representation in our government.

spoken like a true libtard. Legilsate equal outcomes and to hell with equal opportuntities right? Congratulations, you just created a society only as good as it's lowest common denominator.

 

[red states rule]

spoken like a true libtard. Legilsate equal outcomes and to hell with equal opportuntities right? Congratulations, you just created a society only as good as it's lowest common denominator.

Libs are as low as you can get. They want to keep people down so they will be dependent on government, and thus dependent on Dems

 

[Bern80]

But so long as only one of us can be represented I intend for it to be me. Sorry about that bitch! But my interests and the interests of my loved ones come before your stupid ass and the whore you call your wife or the bastards you call your children. I am not saying that I intend to deny others who do not agree with me their rights but that I am going to fight for my rights and if that means that your rights are denied than so be it because my rights come before yours in my mind and if you don't like it than fight for your rights and vote for the jackasses you want to represent you but do not think for a minute that on election day that the war will be an easy one you stupid bitch because I INTEND TO DEFEAT YOU AND YOURS AND TO WIN THIS WAR AGAINST YOU, YOUR SLUT OF A WIFE AND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ESPECIALLY IF IT IS YOUR BITCH OF A WIFE WHO DECIDES TO REPRESENT YOU AND THE MORONS WHO AGREE WITH YOU.

But who is going to defend your 'whore' wife and 'bastard' children from you? You sure think you know an awful lot about people haveing never meat them. Go see a doc, it's PMS you have, not ESP.

Also if you're going to insist on your juvenile name calling tirades have at the least a modicum of evidence to support your labels. For example no one will laugh and think it's silly for me to call you a juvenile jackass. Because by all reasonable observation you are a juvenile jackass. You however, don't know RGS's wife or children from the hole in your head thus you have zero grounds or basis for slandinering them.

 

[red states rule]

But who is going to defend your 'whore' wife and 'bastard' children from you? You sure think you know an awful lot about people haveing never meat them. Go see a doc, it's PMS you have, not ESP.

I think Eddie suffers from PEST

Post

Election

Selection

Syndrome

Many libs had to go to a shrink after the 04 election. It would seem Eddie has not kept his appointments for awhile

 

[maineman]

I think Eddie suffers from PEST

Post

Election

Selection

Syndrome

acronyms seem to be as difficult for you to fathom as analogies.