What will the Right be allowed to say?

[Bob]

IF Obama gets the nod, I will respect him as my president, but more than anything, I think that I would just like to be left alone to my own thing. No protests, or cries of foul, but I simply want for the government to be unobtrusive. The government has grown under Bush, and as hard times occur – the trend will be (under Obama and McCain) to grow government to “fix” it. The more it gets bloated, the more demanding it may become. If there is no ballance to Congress either, there is naturally a greater tendency to abuse the power. Here are some concerns:

1. Gun control laws – I want to keep that control as a law abiding person. Will Obama respect that? He says that he does, but in Chicago there were restrictions put into place, so with a scant record one has to look at what the person actually did while in office. Obama’s ads (in Montana) frame the second amendment in the context of hunting rights. Well, sure -- but that is not the Founders take on this right, nor is it mine. It is in part so the citizens can protect themselves against an over zealous government. Folks in Chicago and DC have a right to bare arms as well.
2. What about the right for right wing radio to exist, and the “Fairness Doctrine.” It is my serious fear that the Dems will go after it harder than anything else. You shut up the conversation, you shut up the opposition, you control the flow of information. The regular media is already left of center – so one of the few sources left where a conservative point is shared is on radio – if they take this away through slight of hand, they are taking away my freedom of speech as well. You can frame it all you want – but this is a power grab plan and simple.
3. It seems that whenever someone speaks out against Obama’s policies they get characterized into what the left believes all those on the right Must believe --

[Garcia Bronco]

They cannot infringe on the 1st amendment, but they can stop slander, and they should. Anyone who is slandered by another should pursue it legally.

[Rohirrim]

In the first place, Obama would have had nothing to do with Chicago's gun laws, or any other laws the city of Chicago passed. He was a state senator.

In the second place, Right Wing radio does not put forth the "conservative" point of view. They put forth a radical fringe point of view. Hence, the reason all the old time "conservatives" are jumping ship on the shift to the radical right by the GOP. Obama has said nothing about regulating any media whatsoever, not to mention he's a constitutional lawyer who is no doubt opposed to such thinking, so I'm guessing this is just one of your own personal little nightmares concocted for no other reason than to give you a little thrill.

The true danger Obama faces is what every president faces, and where Bush miserably failed; That the fringe of his party will take over his presidency. If Obama allows that to happen, his presidency will flop, just like Bush's did. A good president realizes he is the president of the entire country and operates thus. Bad presidents (Nixon, Bush, etc.) operate at the whim of party politics.

[kappys]

blazing-saddles-535.jpg

[Paladin]

You may say: Yes, sir, no sir and here's my check.....

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

In the second place, Right Wing radio does not put forth the "conservative" point of view. They put forth a radical fringe point of view. Hence, the reason all the old time "conservatives" are jumping ship on the shift to the radical right by the GOP. Obama has said nothing about regulating any media whatsoever, not to mention he's a constitutional lawyer who is no doubt opposed to such thinking, so I'm guessing this is just one of your own personal little nightmares concocted for no other reason than to give you a little thrill.

The idea is not that Obama would pursue it, but that a leftist supermajority would be able to pass it without any fight.

Bob is right when he said that it is nothing more than an attempt to squelch opposing lines of propaganda.

Propaganda is best served without competition.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by Bob

IF Obama gets the nod, I will respect him as my president, but more than anything, I think that I would just like to be left alone to my own thing.

Good for you Bob. But lots of other conservatives are thinking otherwise. Led by an increasingly unhinged Sean Hannity, the outlines of the attacks are taking form now:

1. ACORN and others stole the election by voter fraud, and the Obama campaign colluded in it.
2. Obama's gaudy fundraising numbers are "suspicious," and he has never shown the sources of that money.

You're gonna hear a LOT about these two itens in the next 8 years. They think that all the DIebold-Florida-SCOTUS complaining gives them license to go all the way on this - even to claim the election was "stolen."

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by BroncoBuff

Good for you Bob. But lots of other conservatives are thinking otherwise. Led by an increasingly unhinged Sean Hannity, the outlines of the attacks are taking form now:

1. ACORN and others stole the election by voter fraud, and the Obama campaign colluded in it.
2. Obama's gaudy fundraising numbers are "suspicious," and he has never shown the sources of that money.

You're gonna hear a LOT about these two itens in the next 8 years. They think that all the DIebold-Florida-SCOTUS complaining gives them license to go all the way on this - even to claim the election was "stolen."

Sure.

They'll use whatever serves their end.

They'll have propagandists like LABF work overtime on forums around the web, and they'll use the same stupid "x + y = Obama's (Bush's) Fault" equation that has been so popular with the propagandists.

[ak1971]

Originally Posted by Paladin

You may say: Yes, sir, no sir and here's my check.....

[Rohirrim]

I've been listening to the Right Wing motormouths screaming from the rooftops for thirty years, doing everything in their power to squelch, or at least shout down, any and all opposing arguments. Now, it looks as if they may lose an election and what do they do? Engage in a bunch of pre-whine, "Oh, they'll take our right to speak away from us." Geez, we could only hope.

[barryr]

Free speech is already under attack by the liberals considering how this "Joe the plumber" guy was attacked for simply asking a question, which apparently didn't show the "messiah" in a great light. Great direction this country is headed in. I thought this was the U.S. and not Nazi Germany.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I've been listening to the Right Wing motormouths screaming from the rooftops for thirty years, doing everything in their power to squelch, or at least shout down, any and all opposing arguments. Now, it looks as if they may lose an election and what do they do? Engage in a bunch of pre-whine, "Oh, they'll take our right to speak away from us." Geez, we could only hope.

You know, it wouldnt be so bad if the left wasnt so underhanded with the whole deal. I can turn on Dennis Prager or Glenn Beck and know exactly to expect, and they make no apologies. I know that Medved is a self-motivated shill. However, his show centers around taking calls from people with opposing views and formulating arguments that refute their points. That, to me, is respectable. That is also very much the opposite of NBC or ABC which make every effort to conceal their propagandistic motives and slide them under your door packaged as infotainment.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by barryr

Free speech is already under attack by the liberals considering how this "Joe the plumber" guy was attacked for simply asking a question, which apparently didn't show the "messiah" in a great light. Great direction this country is headed in. I thought this was the U.S. and not Nazi Germany.

Odd that those on the Right equate a "fact check" with an attack.

[Drek]

Originally Posted by Bob

1. Gun control laws – I want to keep that control as a law abiding person. Will Obama respect that? He says that he does, but in Chicago there were restrictions put into place, so with a scant record one has to look at what the person actually did while in office. Obama’s ads (in Montana) frame the second amendment in the context of hunting rights. Well, sure -- but that is not the Founders take on this right, nor is it mine. It is in part so the citizens can protect themselves against an over zealous government. Folks in Chicago and DC have a right to bare arms as well.

He's never written or sponsored any gun legislation that takes the teeth out of the second amendment. He's in favor of the automatic weapons ban we had under Clinton but then I don't think that is particularly vital for self defense.

If you're worried about your right to bare arms you should be worried about McCain and his former #1 choice for VP, surefire Sec. of State if he's elected Joe Lieberman. They each have actively voted against gun rights at about a 70% clip and together wrote a piece of legislation that would allow any state's government to shut down a gun show that didn't have complete registration of every single participant, before the fact, effectively putting a ban on gun shows where states wanted to pursue this.

That is a hell of a lot bigger fear to your right to bare arms than a guy who talked about theories on how to minimize inner city violence over a decade ago.

2. What about the right for right wing radio to exist, and the “Fairness Doctrine.” It is my serious fear that the Dems will go after it harder than anything else. You shut up the conversation, you shut up the opposition, you control the flow of information. The regular media is already left of center – so one of the few sources left where a conservative point is shared is on radio – if they take this away through slight of hand, they are taking away my freedom of speech as well. You can frame it all you want – but this is a power grab plan and simple.

Fairness doctrine only applies if you're trying to pass yourself off as a journalist or news source. Someone like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh have no right to claim such things. I don't think Bill Maher particularly does either FYI. Restoring the "fairness doctrine" to me is something this country needs as our news sources have lost all integrity and are partisan mouthpieces for one side or the other. It cuts both ways.

3. It seems that whenever someone speaks out against Obama’s policies they get characterized into what the left believes all those on the right Must believe --

When someone speaks out about his policies without an informed opinion they shouldn't receive the benefit of the doubt should they? There are neocons and neolibs on both sides and they're all morons. But if you can't present a valid argument about why you don't like X policy or feel Y statement then you really aren't any better and don't deserve to have your opinions treated with any more merit.

Educated, informed opinions? I don't think many people outside of both extreme fringes would treat someone presenting their beliefs from that angle as a caricature.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

You know, it wouldnt be so bad if the left wasnt so underhanded with the whole deal. I can turn on Dennis Prager or Glenn Beck and know exactly to expect, and they make no apologies. I know that Medved is a self-motivated shill. However, his show centers around taking calls from people with opposing views and formulating arguments that refute their points. That, to me, is respectable. That is also very much the opposite of NBC or ABC which make every effort to conceal their propagandistic motives and slide them under your door packaged as infotainment.

While Fox news is "fair and balanced." Yep, those underhanded liberals should be ashamed.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Odd that those on the Right equate a "fact check" with an attack.

I'm "fact checking" your post.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

I'm "fact checking" your post.

Knock yourself out.

[Old Dude]

Speaking as one of the liberals, yes, we do intend to take away all of your your guns, silence your conservative radio-talk-show hosts and make you all marry homosexuals.

We're also going to tax the snot out of you, especially the plumbers, and we're going to spend it all on welfare and giveaways to third world countries and endangered animals and trees.

We are officially going to surrender in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else we have troops, and agree to pay reparations to the offended parties.

Your children will be forced to learn French and we are going to ban the Bible from all public or private buildings, including hotel rooms.

Get used to it.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

Speaking as one of the liberals, yes, we do intend to take away all of your your guns, silence your conservative radio-talk-show hosts and make you all marry homosexuals.

We're also going to tax the snot out of you, especially the plumbers, and we're going to spend it all on welfare and giveaways to third world countries and endangered animals and trees.

We are officially going to surrender in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else we have troops, and agree to pay reparations to the offended parties.

Your children will be forced to learn French and we are going to ban the Bible from all public or private buildings, including hotel rooms.

Get used to it.

Damn, OD! Didn't you attend any of the meetings? We're supposed to keep the lid on that stuff until after the election.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

While Fox news is "fair and balanced." Yep, those underhanded liberals should be ashamed.

I think that Fox News is as blatant as you can expect with their right-centric tendancies. If you dont get it after a couple of minutes, youre pretty much uncapacitated.

However, the major media outlets have made fortunes off of duping the stupid. They will continue to do so, and will continue to provide propaganda for the left. Sieg heil.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by Bob

2. What about the right for right wing radio to exist, and the “Fairness Doctrine.”

The FD would not prevent right wing opinion. It's intention is to provide the opposing viewpoint in areas where other media were not available. Thus, it would only affect people who have no access to media with the opposing viewpoint (does this even exist in America anymore -- maybe the deep, deep south?).

That said, I think such a law is unconstitutional, even if the motivating idea is not inherently bad.

It is my serious fear that the Dems will go after it harder than anything else.

Given what I know of him I doubt Obama WOULD veto it. Even if he does, such a law would *never* pass the scrutiny of the SCOTOS (especially with it's conservative majority). Of course, wouldn't that be "legislating from the bench?".

You shut up the conversation, you shut up the opposition, you control the flow of information. The regular media is already left of center – so one of the few sources left where a conservative point is shared is on radio – if they take this away through slight of hand, they are taking away my freedom of speech as well. You can frame it all you want – but this is a power grab plan and simple.

#1 "The media" is on average, neutral. The whining about the liberal agenda of the media is just silly and is simply trying to frame yourself as a victim. Nothing prevents you from watching Fox News, reading the Washington post, tuning into Rush, or visiting conservative blogs

#2 Even if the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine were passed, it would not silence conservative views, it would merely make media (whether is be liberal slanted or conservative slanted) air other viewpoints. As it was previously implemented, there wasn't even any airtime requirement. Your hero rush could still spout his partisan hackery 99.9% of the time.

Once again, I want to make it clear that I oppose this, but to make it out to some vast silencing of other viewpoints is disingenuous.

3. It seems that whenever someone speaks out against Obama’s policies they get characterized into what the left believes all those on the right Must believe --

Under the conservative majority, those who opposed the conservative agenda have regularly and consistently been called "anti-American", "unpatriotic", and even "terrorist sympathizers". Even Bush himself has said so "Either you are with us, or you're with the terrorists".

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by barryr

Free speech is already under attack by the liberals considering how this "Joe the plumber" guy was attacked for simply asking a question, which apparently didn't show the "messiah" in a great light. Great direction this country is headed in. I thought this was the U.S. and not Nazi Germany.

How was "Joe the plumber" attacked? All I saw was a great deal of media fawning over him and looking in to his background. The media does that to *anyone* who get's in their crosshairs.

That this SOP of the media exposed him as a fraud and a liar is own fault.

[TheDave]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

Speaking as one of the liberals, yes, we do intend to take away all of your your guns, silence your conservative radio-talk-show hosts and make you all marry homosexuals.

We're also going to tax the snot out of you, especially the plumbers, and we're going to spend it all on welfare and giveaways to third world countries and endangered animals and trees.

We are officially going to surrender in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else we have troops, and agree to pay reparations to the offended parties.

Your children will be forced to learn French and we are going to ban the Bible from all public or private buildings, including hotel rooms.

Get used to it.

Just a point of clarification... Has my forced homosexual marriage exception been approved yet?

Not that theres anything wrong with that.

On another note i received my white flag of surrender and my copy of "Learn French by Rosetta Stone.

[Fedaykin]

Originally Posted by McSkillet

That is also very much the opposite of NBC or ABC which make every effort to conceal their propagandistic motives and slide them under your door packaged as infotainment.

NBC and CBS may do it, but Fox has mastered it.

[gyldenlove]

Originally Posted by Old Dude

Speaking as one of the liberals, yes, we do intend to take away all of your your guns, silence your conservative radio-talk-show hosts and make you all marry homosexuals.

We're also going to tax the snot out of you, especially the plumbers, and we're going to spend it all on welfare and giveaways to third world countries and endangered animals and trees.

We are officially going to surrender in Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else we have troops, and agree to pay reparations to the offended parties.

Your children will be forced to learn French and we are going to ban the Bible from all public or private buildings, including hotel rooms.

Get used to it.

Those damn plumbers, the root of all evil. If you thought Mr and Mrs, okay Mr CEO on wallstreet was a bad guy, you have been duped, the plumbers are the real behind the scenes rulers.