Radical New Congress Constitution rule irks House Democrats

[JakeStarkey]

We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.

 

[Charles_Main]

We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.

Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.

You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.

How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment? "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media? The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute? How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services? The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?

Love the Constitution? laughable. Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't. Simple, really.

 

[Big Fitz]

Wake the fuck up, you neocon/oather/birther/teabagging clowns!


Constitutional Whitewash
What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document.

What House Republicans left out when they read (parts of) America's founding document. - By Dahlia Lithwick - Slate Magazine

How many bills were passed under the Shrub WITHOUT any input by the Dems?
The rules set by the Courts, Congress and the Constitution weren't followed when Iraq was invaded and occupied, where was all the protests by you neocon parrots then?

Bottom line: the GOP plays you for suckers, and you just throw yourselves over the back of the chair with a smile and ask for another.

Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.

The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub. The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.

My previous points stand. Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.

Wrong. I suggest you breeze by Wikipedia and look at the history of the senate from 2000 forward.

You may have forgotten about the "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords incident, but we haven't. How about Tom Daschle's control for I believe it was 2 years, plus the years it was a 50/50 split.

Nice try, lousy lie.

 

[Big Fitz]

Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.

You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.

How about the little bits of 'fat' like the Second Amendment? "Hateful speech" and fairness doctrines designed to shut down discenting opinion on the internet and media? The Fourth Amendment after being buggered by the RICO statute? How about the 10th Amendment that forbids so much of what the federales do for social services? The efforts to enshrine racism, sexism and anti-judeochristianity in the law by trying to drive through the ERA, and ban all expressions of Judeo-Christian faith in public?

Love the Constitution? laughable. Only as a tool to provide cover for tyranny maybe.

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

You do realize they exempted network TV from this, and Newspapers, right?

How about we turn half the ABC news hours over to the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge, Coulter and the like? At least then the news on all networks but Fox will become more balanced. Fox at least would remain pretty much the same. How about some real conservatives on MSNBS doing editorial work?

Fire Krugman off the NYTimes editorial page and put in David Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher or G. Gordon Liddy instead with out editorial softening.

You claim the fairness doctrine is for broadening access, when really it's targetted to only shut down your philosophical contrarians.

In the marketplace of ideas, socialism loses every time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.

Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.

Insisting that both sides giving the other's POV is not unAmerican at all. There is no freedom of press issue at all here.

 

[taichiliberal]

Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.

You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness". Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.

When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now. What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda. Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing. Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.

Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.

 

[taichiliberal]

We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.

Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.

Puh-leeze! Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness. How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft? They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.

 

[taichiliberal]

Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.

You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't. Simple, really.

Only a really simple minded person would call an attempt to give air time to alternative political and social views a "crutch".

 

[taichiliberal]

Since the GOP controlled all of congress for 2 of the 8 years of W's term, lots.

The GOP had control of the House and the Senate for 6 years under the Shrub. The last two years they lost the House, but STILL had the deciding vote in the Senate.

My previous points stand. Next time Fitz, do your homework so you'll know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys....makes you look less silly.

Wrong. I suggest you breeze by Wikipedia and look at the history of the senate from 2000 forward.

You may have forgotten about the "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords incident, but we haven't. How about Tom Daschle's control for I believe it was 2 years, plus the years it was a 50/50 split.

Nice try, lousy lie.

Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source, as it's prone to any jackass editing it. You should improve your research skills, Fritz. Here, for your education on the Senate at the time in question:
Majority Party (Jan 3-20, 2001): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

________

Majority Party (Jan 20-June 6, 2001): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (50 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 100

______

Majority Party (June 6, 2001-November 12, 2002 --): Democrat (50 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1

Total Seats: 100

_____

Majority Party (November 12, 2002 - January 3, 2003): Republican (50 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: 2

Total Seats: 100

Note: From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. Jeffords announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the Democrats a one-seat advantage, changing control of the Senate from the Republicans back to the Democrats. Senator Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001. Senator Paul D. Wellstone (D-MN) died on October 25, 2002, and Independent Dean Barkley was appointed to fill the vacancy. The November 5, 2002 election brought to office elected Senator James Talent (R-MO), replacing appointed Senator Jean Carnahan (D-MO), shifting balance once again to the Republicans -- but no reorganization was completed at that time since the Senate was out of session.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

108th Congress (2003-2005)

Majority Party: Republican (51 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (48 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

109th Congress (2005-2007)

Majority Party: Republican (55 seats)

Minority Party: Democrat (44 seats)

Other Parties: Independent (1 seat)

Total Seats: 100

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

110th Congress (2007-2009)

Majority Party: Democrat (49 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (49 seats)

Other Parties: 1Independent; 1 Independent Democrat

Total Seats: 100

Note:Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected as an Independent.


U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Party Division

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fitz, when he is being a homer, doesn't worry about sources or bias. His bias is just fine.

 

[taichiliberal]

Shut up, Big Fitz, you one-sided homer. The 2nd Amendment does not mean you get an anti-aircraft artillery system. The Fairness Doctrine is about presenting ALL the facts; what is wrong with that? Is that not what you want: a fair and honest discussion? Is that not the American way? Racisim and sexism are both on a two-way street. And who is enshrining anti-judeochristianity in the law. Judeo-Christianity does not support the ERA and no has banned all Judeo-Christian expressions in public.

You are a pathetic lying home for the far far right that consists of 9% of the voters. Who do you think you are? Just pathetic.

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

You do realize they exempted network TV from this, and Newspapers, right?

My error.....I should have put "broadcast" before MEDIA. As this explains:

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications

How about we turn half the ABC news hours over to the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, Drudge, Coulter and the like? At least then the news on all networks but Fox will become more balanced. Fox at least would remain pretty much the same. How about some real conservatives on MSNBS doing editorial work?

How about you stop acting silly.....the Fairness Doctrine allowed for some portion of broadcasting to reflect contrary views. The neocon clowns you mention all congregate on 77WABC Talk Radio.....why don't you have at least one hour of Amy Goodman or Tom Hartmann there?

To say Fox is balanced is a joke Media Matters and Fair.org consistently use their own broadcast transcripts and compares them to documented facts to show their bias.....YOU need to understand how bias in broadcasting is achieved. Case in point: I can get information on subjects from WBAI Pacifica Broadcasting that ABC NEWS WON'T cover. Case in point: journalist Lora Flanders, Mark Levine, and Amy Goodman were WAY ahead of ABC, NBC and CBS regarding reporting on 9/11 and the subsequent Iraq invasion...but RARELY given credit.


Fire Krugman off the NYTimes editorial page and put in David Limbaugh, Mike Gallagher or G. Gordon Liddy instead with out editorial softening.

You make the error of confusing the editorial page with the hard news content. Big difference. The NY Times was the darling of the neocon parrots and pundits when they were carrying Judith Miller's Shrub friendly WMD lies and the vendetta on Valerie Plame. THAT was biased and bad news....but guys like YOU Fitz had NO PROBLEM...until the truth comes out and then the NY Times becomes liberal evil. Give me a fucking break, will ya Fitz?
You claim the fairness doctrine is for broadening access, when really it's targetted to only shut down your philosophical contrarians.

Who's reality are you referring to? Certainly not mine, nor the world when the Fairness Doctrine was active. I strongly suggest YOU read the link I provided.In the marketplace of ideas, socialism loses every time.

Fitz, WTF are you babbling about? This stupid ass mantra by willfully ignorant neocon parrots that ANY gov't regulation is akin to socialism followed by communism is so absurd.....WITHOUT gov't regulations YOUR life becomes devoid of all the things you EXPECT to make you safe (food and product quality, interstate roads and rails, airlines (gov't subsidies, etc.). The airwaves belong to the PEOPLE, and subsequently must be made to deliver quality information.....which means that you DON'T have a monopoly with one viewpoint being broadcast.

So again, if jokers like you Fitz feel that TV News is SO liberally biased, why fight a regulation that would give YOUR viewpoints a better shot at equalizing the odds?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who believes that socialism invariably follows progressivism is, simply put, a fucking idiot.

Progressivism is a political process that introduces reform to society, culture, economics, and politics. The process can be conservative (anti prostitution, temperance, anti pornography, pro life) and can be liberal (liberalized drug laws, pro life, stricter gun laws).

Fitz is a homer, no more, a simple revisionist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness". Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.

When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now. What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda. Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing. Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.

Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.

No, back then, all we had were insane blatherings from the OTHER side.

Good of you to show us what great defenders of the First Amendment liberals REALLY are by yearning for the days when the whole annoying freedom of speech thing was suppressed, and you and your kind could bask in the luxury of never having to hear anyone you disagree with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

We are all aware of CeCelie 1200s ability to cogitate. The Fairness Doctrine worked well in the past and then extreme reactionary wing media nazis hated having to give the other side. That's enough to question their dedication to American values of openness and fair play.

Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.

Puh-leeze! Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness. How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft? They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.

So what you're telling us is that the "journalistic greats" weren't great enough to be able to "hone their craft" in a world where they didn't have government censoring viewpoints?

Sorry, but anyone who can't exist in a media that's open to all viewpoints is neither great nor deserving of said existence, and should go whine and pule to someone who gives a damn.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Going off topic for a second: For YEARS I've heard neocon parrots and pundits whine about the "liberally biased media".....and YET they wail like banshees against the Fairness Doctrine.....WHICH WOULD GUARANTEE THAT ALL MEDIA MUST SET ASIDE A PORTION (to be determined) of their programming for alternative viewpoints.

The left needs this crutch, the right doesn't. Simple, really.

Only a really simple minded person would call an attempt to give air time to alternative political and social views a "crutch".

Only a really simpleminded person would call the NEED to be given air time, instead of being able to earn it like one's competitors, anything BUT a crutch.

 

[JakeStarkey]

CeCelie1200 is a broken-record homer, no sense, no reason, no real Americanism.

We are all served best by fair play, not one-sided revisionism unfounded in our history despite her blathering.

No wonder we got beat in 2008 with morons like her on our side.

 

[taichiliberal]

Anyone who believes that socialism invariably follows progressivism is, simply put, a fucking idiot.

Progressivism is a political process that introduces reform to society, culture, economics, and politics. The process can be conservative (anti prostitution, temperance, anti pornography, pro life) and can be liberal (liberalized drug laws, pro life, stricter gun laws).

Fitz is a homer, no more, a simple revisionist.

I agree with your points here.....except I don't know what a "homer" is.

 

[taichiliberal]

There's a big difference between expecting the media, which prates to the rest of us about how unbiased and objective they are, to actually hold themselves to that standard, and expecting the government to step in and control things and mandate "fairness". Think hard and see if you can figure out what the difference is.

When the Fairness Doctrine existed, you didn't have the insane one-sided blatherings on the airwaves that you do now. What conservatives realized after Watergate and Nixon was that a fair and balanced media can be detrimental to the then ultra right wing (to later morph into new conservatism) agenda. Good old Ronnie Raygun was the perfect stooge to eliminate that obstacle.....which lead to the nonsense we are now experiencing. Journalistic greats like Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkely would not be allowed to exist in todays media environment.

Sometimes it pays to have a little historical perspective to get the story straight.

No, back then, all we had were insane blatherings from the OTHER side.


Good of you to show us what great defenders of the First Amendment liberals REALLY are by yearning for the days when the whole annoying freedom of speech thing was suppressed, and you and your kind could bask in the luxury of never having to hear anyone you disagree with.

All you're doing now is just the a-typical neocon psycho babble that clowns like Levin, Limbaugh, Beck and Savage court on their shows.

Clearly, you don't have a clue as to what went on or is going on.....which is why you avoided my points. Here genius, a primer for you to do some honest research....if you have the guts:

FAIRNESS DOCTRINE - The Museum of Broadcast Communications

 

[taichiliberal]

Please. Government regulating "fairness" on the air is hardly an American Value my Friend.

Puh-leeze! Gov't by and of and for the people can indeed regulate fairness. How in the hell do you think such journalistic greats like Murrow or Conkrite or Brinkely honed their craft? They wouldn't be able to exist in todays media.

So what you're telling us is that the "journalistic greats" weren't great enough to be able to "hone their craft" in a world where they didn't have government censoring viewpoints?

Sorry, but anyone who can't exist in a media that's open to all viewpoints is neither great nor deserving of said existence, and should go whine and pule to someone who gives a damn.

Pay attention and stop blowing smoke, Cecelie......when you have Clear Channel buy up local radio stations and enforce a right wing format to be carried, the locals are deprived of "all viewpoints" from those stations. Again, YOU need to do some honest research....like what Murrow went through to do honest research, interview and commentary regard McCarthy.

FYI, journalist like Maddow, Flanders, Amy Goodman...investigative journalist like Mark Levine, etc., etc. are WAY ahead of the curve when it came to 9/11 and Iraq....but folk like YOU would NEVER hear of them due to bias via the Main Stream Media (except for Maddow, who's made it to MSNBC).

Again....neocon parrots AVOID THE QUESTION. How can you bitch and moan about a liberal bias in the media but then REFUSE to back a Fairness Doctrine that would curtail that bias by it's very definition?