Democratic Party Dominance (The Official 2009-10 Obama, Pelosi, Reid Thread) [Archive]

AKA

10-26-2008, 07:38 PM

Over Kerry or Gore, yes. Over another Republican, no.

Yeah, I can see that retarded logic:

Kerry - done more for U.S. Veterans in the last 2 years than John McCain has done in the last 20...

Gore - a true moderate, and the most qualified person to run for the office since Nixon, quite honestly wouldn't have gotten us into Iraq

Why not give it back to the man who has shepherded this country and the world into its darkest days? A man who holds no interest in science or nature, whose idea of "compassion" and true character was shown when Katrina wiped New Orleans away. Yup...that makes a shit load of sense.

Everyone who voted to re-elect George W. Bush in 2004 need to man up and take responsibility for this shit stain we are in.

The truth is, however, if either Gore in 2000 or Kerry in 2004 had been sworn in as President, I feel they would have faced John McCain for re-election, who might have really beaten either of them because he wouldn't have had to necessarily sell his soul like he's done in this reality.

JerseySean

10-26-2008, 07:39 PM

Wouldnt have to sue in the Supreme Court, a Big A

booster11373

10-26-2008, 07:39 PM

A uniter not a divider, a Big A!!

JerseySean

10-26-2008, 07:41 PM

Yeah, I can see that retarded logic:

Kerry - done more for U.S. Veterans in the last 2 years than John McCain has done in the last 20...
.
http://patriotpost.us/news/images/stuck_in_irak.jpg

celery

10-26-2008, 07:42 PM

A Big A, defending the Consti....Consti...st....sttt....Constit....

A Big AAAAA!

hammersavage

10-26-2008, 07:43 PM

The A is for altruistic, aaaaBig A!!!!

JerseySean

10-26-2008, 07:46 PM

A Big A, defending the Consti....Consti...st....sttt....Constit....

A Big AAAAA!

Nice one

scottinnj

10-26-2008, 07:49 PM

Yeah, I can see that retarded logic:

Gore, a true moderate,

Yeah, I can see that too.

Really? Have you listened to his speeches?

And his "carbon offsetting" scam is the Amway of the enviromentalists.

scottinnj

10-26-2008, 07:50 PM

http://patriotpost.us/news/images/stuck_in_irak.jpg

Classic. and QFT

JerseySean

10-26-2008, 08:01 PM

A.J.

10-26-2008, 10:47 PM

Way to jinx it.....

speaking of, DONT EVEN DARE POST IN HERE HIPPOS. JUST KEEP QUIET

Please. You know how superstitious I am but there is no way to jinx this. It's going to be an ass-kicking -- the only question is by how much.

Stankfoot

10-27-2008, 02:45 AM

"Democrat Party Dominance " - Sean must be a "dittohead" since he renamed the Democratic Party. I'm renaming his party the "Republic" Party since it seems to fit .....

yojimbo7248

10-27-2008, 03:19 AM

JerseySean, you of all people throwing in the towel this early? Seems I have more faith in your party than you do. I'm still betting on a McCain victory purely on the number of newly registered voters who won't actually vote. US college students and others around that age are too lazy to actually get out of bed on 4 November and cast a ballot. They are the ones giving Obama these massive crowds but they don't matter because they won't vote. On the other hand, I have no doubt old racist white voters will be going to the polling booths in hordes. McCain thinks he will pull this off based on voter turnout and I agree with him.

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 06:27 AM

Fezticle98

10-27-2008, 07:19 AM

On the 2009 agenda.....

"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.

"Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Frightening

Wouldn't that take care of the "liberal media bias" that all you conservatives are constantly bitching about?

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 07:26 AM

Wouldn't that take care of the "liberal media bias" that all you conservatives are constantly bitching about?

no, conservative talk radio isnt biased. It is an in your face point of view. Same with liberal talk. Those two mediums should be able to flourish without being squelched.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:45 AM

Classic. and QFT

Which "truth?" That Kerry made some silly comments or how the picture in absolutely no way countered the point AKA made in his post?

It's a pretty consistent pattern. Someone posts something that Sean doesn't like or agree with politically, so he replies with a spun link or picture or declaration that only has tenuous connections at best to the initial point made.

Snoogans

10-27-2008, 08:58 AM

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:59 AM

so i guess that makes him a pretty good politician?

Maybe he is the Chosen One.

Snoogans

10-27-2008, 09:00 AM

Maybe he is the Chosen One.

i thought that was Eddie Murphy. So chosen he didnt even see that guy was gonna steal his 100 bucks.

I WANT THE..........KNIIIIIFE

epo

10-27-2008, 01:18 PM

On the 2009 agenda.....

"So I don't see it [the Pence bill] coming to the floor," Pelosi said.

"Do you personally support revival of the ‘Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.

"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Frightening

You are speaking of course of:

A. Representative Mike Pence (R) - Indiana. His strict conservative bill on immigration. Link to story about bill. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1196991,00.html)

B. The idea of a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, cast out of law by Reagan in the 1980's as a means to deregulate our airwaves.

Intellectually you may not like the plans that Reid or Pelosi have for legislation, but why in the bloody hell do you think they would discuss a harder immigration bill than the McCain-Kennedy bill on immigration that never got voted on? There is no way in bloody fuck that the Democrats are going to move to the right.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, that is something that progressives have been screaming about for 20 years, so why wouldn't they look at the issue? See...that's kind of the point of being in charge.

Of course you wouldn't know that from all of the empty promises that the Republicans didn't deliver to the Religious Right from 2000-2006.

KnoxHarrington

10-27-2008, 07:33 PM

You are speaking of course of:

A. Representative Mike Pence (R) - Indiana. His strict conservative bill on immigration. Link to story about bill. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1196991,00.html)

B. The idea of a reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, cast out of law by Reagan in the 1980's as a means to deregulate our airwaves.

Intellectually you may not like the plans that Reid or Pelosi have for legislation, but why in the bloody hell do you think they would discuss a harder immigration bill than the McCain-Kennedy bill on immigration that never got voted on? There is no way in bloody fuck that the Democrats are going to move to the right.

As for the Fairness Doctrine, that is something that progressives have been screaming about for 20 years, so why wouldn't they look at the issue? See...that's kind of the point of being in charge.

Of course you wouldn't know that from all of the empty promises that the Republicans didn't deliver to the Religious Right from 2000-2006.

And there have been so many outrageous lies about what the Fairness Doctrine would mean anyway. It doesn't mean that if you air Rush Limbaugh, you have to pick up Randi Rhodes' show. At most, it might mean that if someone wants to put a reply to Rush on your station, you'd let them. And, similarly, if you wanted to do a reply to Randi Rhodes, you could do that too.

It's another bullshit fake issue to keep the rubes scared. "Hey, they'll make stations cancel Hannity! You might have to turn to actual news sources to get your information!"

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 07:51 PM

You are speaking of course of:

As for the Fairness Doctrine, that is something that progressives have been screaming about for 20 years, so why wouldn't they look at the issue? See...that's kind of the point of being in charge.

Of course you wouldn't know that from all of the empty promises that the Republicans didn't deliver to the Religious Right from 2000-2006.

the fairness doctrine is an outright horrorshow for talk radio. Yes, it would mean that you have to pick up a Rush Limbaugh type if you carry Randi Rhodes. That in fact is EXACTLY what it means. A 2009 bill could also include bloggers and cable networks to do the same. Its not to keep "rubes" scared, this is a legitimate danger to legislate what point of views can and cannot be on the airwaves. It is a frightening path that should be DOA from both parties.

SP1!

10-27-2008, 08:00 PM

funny, i bet most people would vote for bush again if he could run.

fucking people scare me.

The people that think either one of these assholes are going to change a goddamn thing scares me

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:10 PM

the fairness doctrine is an outright horrorshow for talk radio. Yes, it would mean that you have to pick up a Rush Limbaugh type if you carry Randi Rhodes. That in fact is EXACTLY what it means. A 2009 bill could also include bloggers and cable networks to do the same. Its not to keep "rubes" scared, this is a legitimate danger to legislate what point of views can and cannot be on the airwaves. It is a frightening path that should be DOA from both parties.

Just because you say that's what it is doesn't ACTUALLY make what you say reality.

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 08:12 PM

Just because you say that's what it is doesn't ACTUALLY make what you say reality.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

How about a counter argument then? It ACTUALLY is.

celery

10-27-2008, 08:21 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

How about a counter argument then? It ACTUALLY is.

We've been through this. The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper, owned by the Unification Church.

Posting an editorial from there doesn't prove your case - it just demonstrates who you're aligned with.

epo

10-27-2008, 08:22 PM

A. You do realize that the fairness doctrine was two things:

1. It required that broadcasters devote a reasonable time to discussion of controversial public issues.
2. It permited "reasonable" opportunities for opposing views to be heard if an adversarial position was presented.

Also, broadcasters have broadly ignored the "local interest" section of the Fairness Doctrine, which has gutted the "localism" element of talk radio.

Honestly if anyone conservative or liberal equates "reasonable opportunities" with "equal time", then they don't understand the original doctrine.

AND MY SECOND POINT:

The Fairness Doctrine issue is only an example of the Democratic Leadership offering to "cash in" for their constituents on their promises. When did the Republican leadership ever "cash in" all of those abortion promises to the "knuckledraggers" (as Rove called them) of the Religious Right?

Isn't it better to be intellectually honest by delivering something, rather than to bullshit those who vote for you?

epo

10-27-2008, 08:23 PM

We've been through this. The Washington Times is a conservative newspaper, owned by the Unification Church.

Posting an editorial from there doesn't prove your case - it just demonstrates who you're aligned with.

Very true. An editorial is NOT proof. It is simply another opinion.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:27 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/

http://www.house.gov/hinchey/issues/mora.shtml

How about a counter argument then? It ACTUALLY is.

Yet again, you throw links out there that seemingly counter your argument. The first one claims what you claim, but it's an op-ed piece from the Washington Times, so of course it's going to cry foul. The second doesn't back up anything of what you're claiming.

The langauge of the doctrine could not be more plain...IT DOES NOT REQUIRE EQUAL TIME FOR OPPOSING VIEWS. It requires that opposing views be presented. It does not require at all that this needs to be "equal."

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 08:34 PM

The langauge of the doctrine could not be more plain...IT DOES NOT REQUIRE EQUAL TIME FOR OPPOSING VIEWS. It requires that opposing views be presented. It does not require at all that this needs to be "equal."

Which is almost worse. That says that Randi Rhodes can talk for an hour about what a piece of shit the Republicans are, but then needs to give an hour on why the Republican think they arent pieces of shit. That is directing content standards which is worse.

scottinnj

10-27-2008, 08:35 PM

Which "truth?" That Kerry made some silly comments or how the picture in absolutely no way countered the point AKA made in his post?

It's a pretty consistent pattern. Someone posts something that Sean doesn't like or agree with politically, so he replies with a spun link or picture or declaration that only has tenuous connections at best to the initial point made.

Because since he entered the Senate, Kerry has consistently voted against upgrading weapons systems for soldiers/sailors that have been proven to save American lives.

So you can go the backend and argue that McCain is against veterans benefits, and that I'll give you, and in fact, agree with, but don't deny that Kerry is against properly equipping soldiers with the latest technology the MIC has to offer.

Pointing out bad behavior on one side and denying it on the other side weakens your argument.

Plus the picture was a response to a Kerry comment that somehow American soldiers were the dummies of the citizenry. Which goes back to his assumptions (which are wrong) that only poor whites and uneducated minorities make up the bulk of the military since Vietnam. He was wrong when he threw his medals over the White House fence all the way up to 2004.

The difference between Obama and Kerry is simple:

Kerry is an elitist that couldn't see outside a ten foot radius of his own ego.

Obama is an intelligent guy who worked his way to the top and never forgot what it was like to struggle to get where he is today.

Obama>Kerry.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:36 PM

Which is almost worse. That says that Randi Rhodes can talk for an hour about what a piece of shit the Republicans are, but then needs to give an hour on why the Republican think they arent pieces of shit. That is directing content standards which is worse.

Good Lord, it doesn't mean that at all, as my post clearly stated. It mean a station can go hogwild and slam someone 23 hours and 59 minutes every day so long as they give a minute to their target to say something IF that target so wishes.

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 08:38 PM

Good Lord, it doesn't mean that at all, as my post clearly stated. It mean a station can go hogwild and slam someone 23 hours and 59 minutes every day so long as they give a minute to their target to say something IF that target so wishes.

So then why push the legislation? Honestly, why the political risk for just one minute? youre off base here sir.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:38 PM

Pointing out bad behavior on one side and denying it on the other side weakens your argument.

Who denied it?

Plus the picture was a response to a Kerry comment that somehow American soldiers were the dummies of the citizenry. Which goes back to his assumptions (which are wrong) that only poor whites and uneducated minorities make up the bulk of the military since Vietnam.

A volunteer army of that size is going to largely be pretty damn dumb and largely economically strapped. I say this as a poor idiot myself. I can smelll my own.

Seriously though, it was a stupid thing for him to say, though mainly that he opted to actually say it instead of just thinking it.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:39 PM

So then why push the legislation? Honestly, why the political risk for just one minute? youre off base here sir.

Nobody is "risking" anything in a sane world.

What does "you're off base" even mean?

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 08:41 PM

Nobody is "risking" anything in a sane world.

What does "you're off base" even mean?

If they were only pushing for "one minute" of opposing viewpoint, why risk the fallback from liberal talk radio as well as the conservative special interest which will go WILD over this. For one minute, you're wrong. They want equal time for opposing viewpoints, or worse, to edit content on a program.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 08:57 PM

If they were only pushing for "one minute" of opposing viewpoint, why risk the fallback from liberal talk radio as well as the conservative special interest which will go WILD over this. For one minute, you're wrong. They want equal time for opposing viewpoints, or worse, to edit content on a program.

Nobody is doing anything "for one minute." That was just a hypothetical scenario.

It's not any kind of new idea...the doctrine was originally created almost 60 years ago.

And I'm not wrong...if anyone tried to twist it for equal time or editing of content, it would be stamped out by the Supreme Court. Of course, this means nothing to you since you of course assume that someone like Obama is going to somehow magically select justices that only "rule to the Left" no matter what and stack the court. Sorry, that won't happen. Even Scalia puts party politics aside when something is blatantly violating the Constitution. These mythical "liberal only" justices would never make it past the review process, and the Supreme Court would never tolerate the Fairness Doctrine doing what you're trying to say people want to use it for.

The doctrine was created to offer the option of airtime for people or groups if they are attacked on air and wish to be able to respond. It in no way says that the time of broadcast has to be equal between the two.

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 09:01 PM

Nobody is doing anything "for one minute." That was just a hypothetical scenario.

It's not any kind of new idea...the doctrine was originally created almost 60 years ago.

And I'm not wrong...if anyone tried to twist it for equal time or editing of content, it would be stamped out by the Supreme Court. Of course, this means nothing to you since you of course assume that someone like Obama is going to somehow magically select justices that only "rule to the Left" no matter what and stack the court. Sorry, that won't happen. Even Scalia puts party politics aside when something is blatantly violating the Constitution. These mythical "liberal only" justices would never make it past the review process, and the Supreme Court would never tolerate the Fairness Doctrine doing what you're trying to say people want to use it for.

The doctrine was created to offer the option of airtime for people or groups if they are attacked on air and wish to be able to respond. It in no way says that the time of broadcast has to be equal between the two.

Wrong

n Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[4]

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 09:09 PM

Wrong

n Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (by a vote of 8-0) the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in a case of an on-air personal attack, in response to challenges that the Doctrine violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case began when journalist Fred J. Cook, after the publication of his Goldwater: Extremist of the Right, was the topic of discussion by Billy James Hargis on his daily Christian Crusade radio broadcast on WGCB in Red Lion, Pennsylvania. Mr. Cook sued arguing that the FCC’s fairness doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[4]

...

Seriously?

That's your reply? That example backs up exactly what I said.

The Fairness Doctrine entitles people attacked on-air airtime to respond if they wish. This guy was attacked and wanted to respond. The Supreme Court backed up the idea that he was entitled to airtime to respond. In no way does it say that he is entitled to his own show or equal airtime or whatever you keep trying to twist it as. It doesn't say the show he's responding to has to specifically give up its time or slot or anything like that. The doctrine says he's entitled to airtime to respond and the Court upheld that.

What I said the Court would NOT uphold are any attempts to do the hypotheticals you're bringing up. As per the Supreme Court:

Of course, the Commission may, in the exercise of its discretion, decide to modify or abandon these rules, and we express no view on the legality of either course. As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine "[has] the net effect or reducing rather than enhancing" speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case.

THAT is the stance of the Court on misuse of the Fairness Doctrine.

JerseySean

10-27-2008, 09:26 PM

As we recognized in Red Lion, however, were it to be shown by the Commission that the fairness doctrine ."[has] the net effect or reducing rather than enhancing" speech, we would then be forced to reconsider the constitutional basis of our decision in that case

The question put forth before the Supremes is of reduction or enhancement. If the Court sees equal time or balancing of viewpoints as enhancement, they would divert to past decisions which upheld the "Fairness Doctrine". The four "real" justices, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would surely view that as reduction. However, Ginsberg, Souter and Kennedy would surely go the other way. If you read the majority opinions of McConnell v. FEC from these Justices, their take on the first amendment and protection of political speech is chilling. Miami Herald v Tornillo is an abomination in their eyes as I think Ginsberg has published on this in the past. Check JStor, i know you have that Mojo.

TheMojoPin

10-27-2008, 10:02 PM

The four "real" justices, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito would surely view that as reduction. However, Ginsberg, Souter and Kennedy would surely go the other way.

You just shot your whole argument to pieces with these two lines. Your whole train of thought here is clearly hinged on your assumption that any "liberal" justice is going to automatically always make decisions that you disagree with for political reasons and you're cherry picking cases that you can spin that way. This is nothing more than your subjective twist that any justice that isn't "real" is "chilling." Your hyperbole gives you away. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't mean what you want it to mean, and the Supreme Court couldn't be more clear on how they would never allow your proposed scenarios to occur.

I'm going to bed.

spoon

10-27-2008, 11:23 PM

You just shot your whole argument to pieces with these two lines. Your whole train of thought here is clearly hinged on your assumption that any "liberal" justice is going to automatically always make decisions that you disagree with for political reasons and you're cherry picking cases that you can spin that way. This is nothing more than your subjective twist that any justice that isn't "real" is "chilling." Your hyperbole gives you away. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't mean what you want it to mean, and the Supreme Court couldn't be more clear on how they would nver allow your proposed scenarios to occur.

I'm going to bed.

Seriously JS, that line imediately destroyed your already weak, obviously biased argument. All I can say is wow. :wallbash:

Stankfoot

10-27-2008, 11:59 PM

http://patriotpost.us/news/images/stuck_in_irak.jpg

the sad thing is most of them are probably still there ....

celery

10-28-2008, 05:55 AM

You just shot your whole argument to pieces with these two lines. Your whole train of thought here is clearly hinged on your assumption that any "liberal" justice is going to automatically always make decisions that you disagree with for political reasons and you're cherry picking cases that you can spin that way. This is nothing more than your subjective twist that any justice that isn't "real" is "chilling." Your hyperbole gives you away. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't mean what you want it to mean, and the Supreme Court couldn't be more clear on how they would never allow your proposed scenarios to occur.

I'm going to bed.

Seriously JS, that line imediately destroyed your already weak, obviously biased argument. All I can say is wow. :wallbash:

BOARD PSYCHIC:

Next, he'll post a couple youtube videos vaguely related to the subject, but when closely examined actually disprove his point
When called on this, he'll spit out "Barry" and "Democrat Party" a few times
Finally, he'll tell us all to calm down, then move on to the next subject

AKA

10-28-2008, 09:25 AM

BOARD PSYCHIC:

Next, he'll post a couple youtube videos vaguely related to the subject, but when closely examined actually disprove his point
When called on this, he'll spit out "Barry" and "Democrat Party" a few times
Finally, he'll tell us all to calm down, then move on to the next subject

http://www.wearebsm.com/managed_objects/crystal_ball2_bmwPreview.jpg

Stop it, man...you're freaking me out!

celery

10-28-2008, 10:59 AM

http://www.wearebsm.com/managed_objects/crystal_ball2_bmwPreview.jpg

Stop it, man...you're freaking me out!

http://a.abc.com/media/primetime/Lost/images/season/3/episodes/321_greatesthits/gallery/22.jpg

JerseySean

10-28-2008, 12:20 PM

You just shot your whole argument to pieces with these two lines. Your whole train of thought here is clearly hinged on your assumption that any "liberal" justice is going to automatically always make decisions that you disagree with for political reasons and you're cherry picking cases that you can spin that way. This is nothing more than your subjective twist that any justice that isn't "real" is "chilling." Your hyperbole gives you away. The Fairness Doctrine doesn't mean what you want it to mean, and the Supreme Court couldn't be more clear on how they would never allow your proposed scenarios to occur.

I'm going to bed.

No I am not, I specifically cited cases which you can go and read opinions. Feel free to do so before you shoot down an argument based on the opinions written by the above stated justices. Go ahead and read what I cited before you shoot down an argument because of the word chiling. Youre the same guy who doesnt mind when people call PAlin a cunt, but God forbid, we use the term Barry, you go apeshit.

mikeyboy

10-28-2008, 12:26 PM

No I am not, I specifically cited cases which you can go and read opinions. Feel free to do so before you shoot down an argument based on the opinions written by the above stated justices. Go ahead and read what I cited before you shoot down an argument because of the word chiling. Youre the same guy who doesnt mind when people call PAlin a cunt, but God forbid, we use the term Barry, you go apeshit.

This is why I'm convinced you're a board character. You pick and choose what you decide is relevant and hear what you want to hear. You also deflect regularly. Why does your response go back to the Barry thing? Mojo stated repeatedly that he has no problem with the Barry term, and that he was asking why you kept using it. You repeatedly use it to paint him as getting upset over it's use and point back to it here even though, even if it were true, it would have no relevance here. I think you're an intelligent guy with some interesting vierwpoints, but the continued use of this kind of thing seriously damages your credibility.

TheMojoPin

10-28-2008, 03:46 PM

No I am not, I specifically cited cases which you can go and read opinions. Feel free to do so before you shoot down an argument based on the opinions written by the above stated justices.

So the opinions of the Supreme Court on cases other than those regarding the Fairness Doctrine are more relevant to the Fairness Doctrine than the Court's actual statements and rulings on the Farness Doctrine.

Really?

Go ahead and read what I cited before you shoot down an argument because of the word chiling.

Re-read what I just said above. Why are the Court's rulings and statements on the Fairness Doctrine somehow less pertinent to this issue than cases that have nothing to do with it?

Answer: because then you can't try and make everything sound all doom 'n' gloom and terrifying and your argument completely collapses.

Contrary to what people on the Right or Left think, justices who are going to completely misues and violate the Constiution just for the whim of whoever is in power as you seem to think we're on the verge of seeing don't make it to the Court. They never pass the review process.

Youre the same guy who doesnt mind when people call PAlin a cunt,

Why would I? I can figure out how people come to that conclusion.

but God forbid, we use the term Barry, you go apeshit.

Please quote where I went "apeshit" over you calling him Barry. I asked why you do, you gave a vague response, I asked you to clarify and you've since dodged the question or accuse everyone of going "apeshit" when you're the one flipping out and using wacky hyperbole about things being "chilling" and "terrifying" to fit your wonky conspiracy theories that are based almost totally on your opinions and not reality. I really don't care that you call him that...I was trying to figure out the reasoning why and if there was anything to it than just spite.

scottinnj

10-28-2008, 04:44 PM

Seriously though, it was a stupid thing for him to say, though mainly that he opted to actually say it instead of just thinking it.

Thanks for understanding my opinion on this. And let me add that while I disagree with his outlook on military spending, I am convinced he (Kerry) is a true patriot of the United States, and I still get a twist in my stomach when I hear about the Swift Boaters.

JerseySean

10-28-2008, 06:22 PM

So the opinions of the Supreme Court on cases other than those regarding the Fairness Doctrine are more relevant to the Fairness Doctrine than the Court's actual statements and rulings on the Farness Doctrine.

Really?

Re-read what I just said above. Why are the Court's rulings and statements on the Fairness Doctrine somehow less pertinent to this issue than cases that have nothing to do with it?

Answer: because then you can't try and make everything sound all doom 'n' gloom and terrifying and your argument completely collapses.

Contrary to what people on the Right or Left think, justices who are going to completely misues and violate the Constiution just for the whim of whoever is in power as you seem to think we're on the verge of seeing don't make it to the Court. They never pass the review process.

No Mojo, the reason I cited the aforementioned cases ids because they have in-depth writings by the aforementioned justices on the First Amendment. It isnt about justices who "misuse" or "violate" because of political pressure, but their Judicial philosophy. Justices DO get through confirmations as Ginsberg went 96-3. She clearly had a Judicial philosophy which disagrees with people like Hatch, etc. To try to understand how the court would vote on an issue like this, you need to look at their opinions on previous First Amendment cases as well as look at prior Court decisions. When you read Kennedy, Ginsberg and Souters opinions on the First Amendment. I've done a lot of reading on this. The bottom line is that my belief is that previous rulings on Fairness are closer to what Roe v Wade is to Steinberg v Carhart as opposed to Plessie v Ferguson to Brown v Board.

The underlying question is how will the Court use the previous decisions going forward.

TheMojoPin

10-28-2008, 08:24 PM

Well, that's your opinion. I think your whole argument is flawed when you do something like this:

The bottom line is that my belief is that previous rulings on Fairness are closer to what Roe v Wade is to Steinberg v Carhart as opposed to Plessie v Ferguson to Brown v Board.

How is this relative to the Fairness Doctrine? The context and circumstances with each is drastically different. I'm also assuming you buy into the idea tha SvC is encouraging partial-birth abortions. It's not some kind of mutation of RvW; it's ensuring that a procedure almost always done only when the mother's health is in danger due to the pregnancy isn't outlawed.

I also find it ridiculous that your response to this...

Contrary to what people on the Right or Left think, justices who are going to completely misues and violate the Constiution just for the whim of whoever is in power as you seem to think we're on the verge of seeing don't make it to the Court. They never pass the review process.

...is to bring up Ginsburg as if she's some kind of dangerous Suprem Court justice. This is as bad as people on the Left who assume Scalia is some kind of ultraconservative robot who can't rule on a case without wanting to appease the Republicans.

JerseySean

10-28-2008, 08:54 PM

Well, that's your opinion. I think your whole argument is flawed when you do something like this:

How is this relative to the Fairness Doctrine? The context and circumstances with each is drastically different. I'm also assuming you buy into the idea tha SvC is encouraging partial-birth abortions. It's not some kind of mutation of RvW; it's ensuring that a procedure almost always done only when the mother's health is in danger due to the pregnancy isn't outlawed.

I also find it ridiculous that your response to this...

...is to bring up Ginsburg as if she's some kind of dangerous Suprem Court justice. This is as bad as people on the Left who assume Scalia is some kind of ultraconservative robot who can't rule on a case without wanting to appease the Republicans.

First of all, my analogy to the aforementioned cases Roe, Plessie, was to show the difference between a landmark/indisputable case for which all others will be judged against or Plessie which was an outdated ruling which was found to be completely wrong and misguided by the time of Brown v Board.

And to the second point, I dont think Ginsberg is some Democrat Party hack, I just find her judicial philosophy to be dangerous and counter to the Founders' views on what the Supreme Court should do. If you think the Constitution is a "breathing" document which can be interpreted according to the times we live or according to a personal ideology, then I find that to be dangerous.

Scalia and Ginsberg arent hacks, but they have been partisans on more of a level than a Justice should be. However on many cases, over the last 10 years or so, they have been the only dissenters as their libertarian streaks and philosophy seem to match.

TheMojoPin

10-28-2008, 09:39 PM

First of all, my analogy to the aforementioned cases Roe, Plessie, was to show the difference between a landmark/indisputable case for which all others will be judged against or Plessie which was an outdated ruling which was found to be completely wrong and misguided by the time of Brown v Board.

But they're not really comparable to the Fairness Doctrine at all, which is nowhere near a "landmark case" on the level of rulings on abortion and civil rights.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the FD is nowhere near as significant as those issues and rulings. There is zero precedent for the FD calling for qual time, so what you're talking about is the Supreme Court declaring something out of thing air instead of modifying a previous decision. All the Court has done with the FD is uphold it when it's been challenged.

And to the second point, I dont think Ginsberg is some Democrat Party hack, I just find her judicial philosophy to be dangerous and counter to the Founders' views on what the Supreme Court should do. If you think the Constitution is a "breathing" document which can be interpreted according to the times we live or according to a personal ideology, then I find that to be dangerous.

"Dangerous?" It was written over 200 years ago. That's just common sense. Talk to nearly any constitutional lawyer or professor and they'll tell it's all bt necessary to have a flexible view of a document that was written centuries ago for a country that has drastically changed in every facet imaginable since then. You can't rigidly enforce every aspect of a document written in the 18th century as if it is perfectly applicable to the country and our lives today? Are there critical aspects of it that are essentially "universal?" Of course, but to act like an adaptive approach to a document that is that old (filled with AMENDments, for God's sake) is automatically "dangerous" is incredibly shortsighted and unrealistic.

Scalia and Ginsberg arent hacks, but they have been partisans on more of a level than a Justice should be. However on many cases, over the last 10 years or so, they have been the only dissenters as their libertarian streaks and philosophy seem to match.

A justice is going to be inherrently partisan to at least some degree since they're human beings and they have their own opinions and they occupy a postion largely informed by politics. Your expectations are increasingly vague and unrealistic, and continually talking about being "chilled" and seeing "danger" from justices that are ultimately remarkable for how unremarkable they are when it comes to explicitly partisan rulings makes it difficult to buy into what you're arguing.

JerseySean

10-30-2008, 09:41 PM

Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has approached Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) "about possibly serving as White House chief of staff," the AP reports.

"The Democrats who described the Obama campaign's approach to Emanuel spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to be quoted by name. An aide to the congressman, Sarah Feinberg, said in an e-mail that he 'has not been contacted to take a job in an administration that does not yet exist. Everyone is focused on Election Day, as they should be.'"

Marc Ambinder: "Emanuel has been a regular behind-the-scenes adviser to Obama, knows everyone in Washington, is one of the better communicators in the party, and certainly is qualified for the post. But he's ... got a very strong personality that doesn't exactly jibe with the tone Obama likes to set for his endeavors... He also has a young family, and he has not moved them to Washington, and his hours as chief of staff would be hellish."

One of the best political books Ive ever read was this.

Emmanuel is an interesting guy, but I doubt he will be COS.

If Leo McGarrey didnt die of a heart attack a few years back, he would have been perfect

http://www.amazon.com/Thumpin-Democrats-Ruthless-Republican-Revolution/dp/0385523289

Bob Impact

10-31-2008, 02:51 PM

BOARD PSYCHIC:

Next, he'll post a couple youtube videos vaguely related to the subject, but when closely examined actually disprove his point

Can I just take the time to point out that this:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aLqQttJinjo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aLqQttJinjo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Is perhaps the greatest example of that point ever?

To point it out, yes i know im posting a video including the "debunking" of what he's saying, its intentional, i'm not trying to derail the thread too badly.
I never get tired of it.

JerseySean

11-04-2008, 10:50 PM

Fucking the dog already:

Report: Corzine being vetted for Treasury SecretaryBy Matt Friedman, PolitickerNJ.com Reporter
President-elect Barack Obama's staff is actively vetting Gov. Jon Corzine as a potential pick for Secretary of the Treasury, The Star-Ledger's Josh Margolin reports.

Asked yesterday by PolitickerNJ about the prospect, Corzine said "I like my job," but would not commit unequivocally to turning down a potential offer.

A.J.

11-04-2008, 11:40 PM

PapaBear

11-04-2008, 11:59 PM

And I, for one, welcome our new Democratic overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted Naval requirements officer, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
My son told me that his Coast Guard friend was going to go AWOL in protest. I said, "It's just the damned Coast Guard!" Then I suggested he tell his friend to go AWOL while he's being a civilian flunky, and take time off from being AWOL, while he's being a Navy flunky. He gets to protest, but he doesn't fuck up his life.

El Mudo

11-05-2008, 08:51 AM

My son told me that his Coast Guard friend was going to go AWOL in protest. I said, "It's just the damned Coast Guard!" Then I suggested he tell his friend to go AWOL while he's being a civilian flunky, and take time off from being AWOL, while he's being a Navy flunky. He gets to protest, but he doesn't fuck up his life.

Somewhere in his wing of the nut house Reeshy just dropped a tear

NewYorkDragons80

11-05-2008, 08:58 AM

Forget the ideologues, it's a shame we lost a moderate like John Sununu in the Senate.

TheMojoPin

11-05-2008, 09:05 AM

Forget the ideologues, it's a shame we lost a moderate like John Sununu in the Senate.

I was honestly shocked he was still alive and in politics.

NewYorkDragons80

11-05-2008, 09:20 AM

If you're talking about the former Governor, this was his son.

TheMojoPin

11-05-2008, 10:07 AM

If you're talking about the former Governor, this was his son.

OK, that makes much more sense.

JerseySean

11-11-2008, 10:01 AM

Democratic leaders are tamping down on expectations for rapid change and trying to signal they will place a calm hand on the nation’s tiller.

“The country must be governed from the middle,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Repeating themes from election night, she said she plans to emphasize “civility” and “fiscal responsibility.”

They are already lowering expectations. Who saw that coming?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-lower-expectations-2008-11-05.html

Zorro

11-11-2008, 11:10 AM

No fan of Pelosi, but what she said makes sense...only an idiot would raise expectations...under promise...over deliver

TheMojoPin

11-11-2008, 05:12 PM

They are already lowering expectations. Who saw that coming?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-lower-expectations-2008-11-05.html

Yeah, God forbid anyone attempts to be realistic.

JerseySean

11-11-2008, 05:58 PM

No fan of Pelosi, but what she said makes sense...only an idiot would raise expectations...under promise...over deliver

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V7RRBlng8fg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V7RRBlng8fg&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

They over promised

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/P36x8rTb3jI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

foodcourtdruide

11-11-2008, 06:36 PM

Yeah, God forbid anyone attempts to be realistic.

I agree. Rational thought doesn't seem to matter though.

For 2 years they've been screaming that Obama was the most liberal man in the senate and recently he's been deemed a socialist. After he wins the general election (by a rather wide margin considering the past 2 elections) they announce that though this country has just voted for this extreme liberal AND though the democrats strong showing in the legislative, we still lean to the right politically. Amazing.

TheMojoPin

11-11-2008, 07:10 PM

JerseySean

11-14-2008, 09:34 PM

I agree. Rational thought doesn't seem to matter though.

For 2 years they've been screaming that Obama was the most liberal man in the senate and recently he's been deemed a socialist. After he wins the general election (by a rather wide margin considering the past 2 elections) they announce that though this country has just voted for this extreme liberal AND though the democrats strong showing in the legislative, we still lean to the right politically. Amazing.

Funny, he never called himself a liberal now did he?

JerseySean

01-21-2009, 08:29 PM

Gitmo is closing and we are heaving a "healthcare" meeting....scary already

epo

01-21-2009, 08:43 PM

Gitmo is closing and we are heaving a "healthcare" meeting....scary already

Thanks sir. This board has been lacking a certain element I call "politics of fear".

http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/images/2005/rove2.jpg

JerseySean

01-21-2009, 08:45 PM

Thanks sir. This board has been lacking a certain element I call "politics of fear".

http://www.politicsonline.com/blog/images/2005/rove2.jpg

Im back....glad I could help

HBox

01-21-2009, 09:01 PM

They are discussing health care?

NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

http://hankblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/sun_apocalypse15001.jpg

http://www.digitalworldtokyo.com/entryimages/2007/05/070531_Kobe_earthquake.jpg

http://bloggin-ads.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/earthquake1.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00671/china-earthquake-40_671256c.jpg

Knowledged_one

01-21-2009, 10:02 PM

What i fear most is the big economic summit on day 101 of his administration with world leaders to discuss the future of the world economy. That is not a lot of time to get a plan together for he and his team especially when we dont even know if even took an econ class in college. That to me will be his first big test

high fly

01-22-2009, 02:32 AM

They are already lowering expectations. Who saw that coming?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dems-lower-expectations-2008-11-05.html

Only a fool would believe the mess we are in will be turned around soon.
Well, one such fool who was an ecomomic advisor to Bush said in the last week he thought the economy would turn around soon.
Of course it was Bush economic advisors who told us Iraqi reconstruction would cost $1.5 billion and the total price tag for the war would be in the $50-60 billion range.

After 8 years of an economic program which saw net wages drop for the middle and lower income groups, and which never got unemployment back to the rate they inherited or the surplus back and which gave us $5 trillion more in red ink, PLUS the $2 trillion+ the Iraq "cakewalk" will eventually cost, please forgive me if I don't listen to conservatives when it comes to ecomnomics....

epo

01-28-2009, 04:22 PM

Hey Jersey Sean....wanna know why there is a "Democratic Party Dominance Thread"? Look at this photo:

http://www.dailykos.com/images/user/191280/recoveryplan.jpg

Notice the ZERO votes by republicans? That'll play well at home.

keithy_19

01-28-2009, 04:34 PM

epo

01-28-2009, 04:37 PM

I'm curious. I've been following the economy and the plans that have been shopped around. The question I pose is not meant to be taken as sarcastic at all. I'm truley this uninformed.

Where is the 819 billion dollars coming from? Are we going to be printing more money? Raised taxes?

Unfortunately Keithy, we'll essentially be borrowing to print more money. But at this point, its really the only way to get the economy going again.

It's just weird that we are in this position....:wallbash:

keithy_19

01-28-2009, 04:49 PM

Unfortunately Keithy, we'll essentially be borrowing to print more money. But at this point, its really the only way to get the economy going again.

It's just weird that we are in this position....:wallbash:

I say we just start using something else as currency. Twinkies, for instance. We build a whole bunch of Twinkie plants which need people to work at the plant and we buy and sell with the delicious treat.

But I'm just a dreamer...

high fly

01-28-2009, 04:56 PM

oh never mind....

epo

01-29-2009, 04:40 PM

Obama looking at Gregg for Commerce Secretary: (http://www.rollcall.com/news/31881-1.html)

The Obama administration has been floating the idea of naming Republican Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.) to be Commerce Secretary, several Senate sources said Thursday.

Now there aren't any big details about the appointment yet. What would make the appointment a big deal would be two things:

1. It would put a republican in the Commerce chair.
2. It would then allow the New Hampshire governor to appoint a new Senator. The New Hampshire governor "happens" to be a democrat...which would influence his selection. Pending the "official" status of Al Franken in Minnesota...this would then give the Democratic Party the magic number of 60 senators.

high fly

01-29-2009, 06:20 PM

Then they could fire Gregg............

west milly Tom

02-04-2009, 04:55 AM

Here's one we can all agree on. Kudos Mr. Obama:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/obama-plans-cap-executive-pay-government-assisted-financial-institutions/

Obama caps salaries for bailed out execs at 500K.

west milly Tom

02-04-2009, 04:59 AM

Success!

SonOfSmeagol

02-05-2009, 05:54 PM

Obama looking at Gregg for Commerce Secretary: (http://www.rollcall.com/news/31881-1.html)

Now there aren't any big details about the appointment yet. What would make the appointment a big deal would be two things:

1. It would put a republican in the Commerce chair.
2. It would then allow the New Hampshire governor to appoint a new Senator. The New Hampshire governor "happens" to be a democrat...which would influence his selection. Pending the "official" status of Al Franken in Minnesota...this would then give the Democratic Party the magic number of 60 senators.

Not saying it’s not going to happen, but it’ll take more than that to get to 60.

BHO extended a political olive branch, nominating Sen. Gregg, R-New Hampshire, to the Commerce Department.

“Gregg, whose Senate term is up in 2010, threatened this week to turn down the nomination if it upset the balance in the U.S. Senate. But in a move that will leave the Senate's party breakdown unchanged, New Hampshire's Democratic governor named a Republican (Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff) to replace Gregg”.

Hello, NEWMAN. Hope you don’t have any tax problems. That would be deemed a screw-up (albeit a convenient one) by New Hampshire's Democratic governor.