Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » What do you think of the Fairness Doctrine? (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: What do you think of the Fairness Doctrine?
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"as a sea urchin knows about the far side of the moon"

Channeling Lewis Carroll?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Why can't he spin Obama out? You just spun yourself out of a gross assumption by diverting this whole thread into an "it's all about me!!!" thread on why you hate Obama.

We were talking about political rhetoric, and how Obama's was supposedly exalted, and that of talk radio supposedly debased and ignorant. It was perfectly contextual. But thanks again for making it all wonderfully personal. I can feel the warm fuzzies.

Fine for you all to say you don't hear the patronization in Obama's words. You share it, so that's no surprise.

And if you think enslavement to the welfare state is the price rural America should have to pay for just getting on with life, it's your right to join in the progressive revolution as you see fit.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fine for you all to say you don't hear the patronization in Obama's words.
Question: do you hear the patronization in Palin's?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Patronization of Obama? I would call it accurate criticism.

If you mean patronization of small-town people, she's speaking as one of us, and many of us identify with her.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, better to just let them die then pay for life support. But of course, if you cast it as "enslavement" you can convince a few of them to commit suicide so you don' have to pay to keep them alive until they can figure out a way to bring back some new vitality.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you mean patronization of small-town people, she's speaking as one of us, and many of us identify with her.
So, to clarify, you do not hear the patronization in that statement?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If you mean patronization of small-town people, she's speaking as one of us, and many of us identify with her.
So, to clarify, you do not hear the patronization in that statement?
What she said is obvious and not patronizing at all. When someone says one thing to your face, and in a chat session with the Bay Area wingnut glitterati talks about you clinging to your guns, religion and xenophobia out of bitterness (implying that such "clinging" is not just bad but a psychological condition), that tells you about the person exercising the hypocrisy.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gina:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If you mean patronization of small-town people, she's speaking as one of us, and many of us identify with her.
So, to clarify, you do not hear the patronization in that statement?
What she said is obvious and not patronizing at all. When someone says one thing to your face, and in a chat session with the Bay Area wingnut glitterati talks about you clinging to your guns, religion and xenophobia out of bitterness (implying that such "clinging" is not just bad but a psychological condition), that tells you about the person exercising the hypocrisy.
Ooh. Now you're making up even more implications that weren't in the original message to accuse him of. We're seeing spin in progress here.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What she said is obvious and not patronizing at all.
So, again, that's a "no?" You don't hear her patronizing small-town people in that statement?

Because, quite frankly, her statement drips with condescension for the "real America."

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
nd if you think enslavement to the welfare state is the price rural America should have to pay for just getting on with life, it's your right to join in the progressive revolution as you see fit.
No, the rural south is ALREADY enslaved to the welfare state. It's going to take a serious overhaul in the way we do business to get rural america off food stamps, subsidies, WIC, and the other ways we are already dependent on the government. That may mean a short term reliance on more government to get a long term result of less.

That's not a revolution, it's doing what needs to be done. You want to keep my people poor and ignorant? I'll just go around you.

[ September 03, 2009, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You don't hear her patronizing small-town people in that statement?"

If one judged by appearance (rather than lurking), it would appear they (Gina and Sarah) can't hear it. It's as if they both believe small town America is as skewedly small-minded as they appear to be.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"We're seeing spin in progress here."

But not progress in spin.

Oh what a tangled web we unweave!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
What she said is obvious and not patronizing at all.
So, again, that's a "no?" You don't hear her patronizing small-town people in that statement?

Because, quite frankly, her statement drips with condescension for the "real America."

Alright, I'll humor you. How so?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh and no Gina, you brought up Obama to get the heat off yourself, we and everybody else here know it. I'm wating for you to elaborate on conservative principles, maybe one beyond "Gina is the center of the universe"

[ September 03, 2009, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Viking_Longship ]

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
A smei-piquant olive branch:

it is merely *dipped*, at most, in urban elite attitudes toward rural America.

It was a stump speech. Getting votes. You live in the area, you know the drill.

Move back to that small town and stand TALL!!!

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"And if you think enslavement to the welfare state is the price rural America should have to pay for just getting on with life, it's your right to join in the progressive revolution as you see fit."

Right, because the vaunted rural America doesn't take welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. Uh-huh.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Viking_Longship wrote,
quote:
maybe one beyond "Gina is the center of the universe."
While each of us occupies the center of our own universe, that remark seems more personal than is needed. It would be better to keep the debate to the issues.

But on further thought, the Fairness Doctrine seems to be dead. So this thread may not address any issue, which may be why it tends to veer off the rails.

[ September 04, 2009, 07:44 AM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As an actual policy, it's dead. As a poison pill and a scare tactic it's still very much alive.

So really, it's a zombie. One that's sent to walk through town every once in a while to help keep business good for self-professed zombie killers.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"While each of us occupies the center of our own universe, that remark seems more personal than is needed. It would be better to keep the debate to the issues."

It is rhetorically hyperbolic but accurate in essence. Gina's approach to substantiation is to say it's so and that's that. I challenge you to find her substantiating any of this, hobbs.

Her approach here is essentially solipsistic.

'Acting nice' is only that, hobbs. People act nice all the time while blatantly stomping all over the actual social contract of a given setting.

If you paid more attention to what people do rather than the superficial manner by which they do it, you'd have a better handle on this kindergarten cop thing you've taken on.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While not succinct, and totally biased, this article sums up the conservative view of Fairness Doctrine III:

Diversity Czar: end run around the Fairness Doctrine?


Since the Mainstream Media seems to have dropped its duty as government watchdog, I'm glad others have taken on the responsibility:

An Attempt to Reimpose the Fairness Doctrine?

The sly Mark Lloyd approach appears to be a form of detrimental taxation, disguised as fees, consisting of sums equal to total operating costs that opposing-view broadcasting outlets may grab money from a public trough. Whatever the proposed route, an attempt to impose Fairness Doctrine equivalency, or worse, may be in the offing.


Grassley Seeks Reassurance on Fairness Doctrine

Though Genachowski said during his nomination hearing that he wouldn't, Grassley fears the rise of the essence of the defunct Fairness Doctrine under another name through a so-called "backdoor method."


Fairness Doctrine Raises Its Ugly Head Under New FCC “Diversity Czar”

Lloyd wrote a book back in 2006 that must have caught someone in the Obama administration’s eye titled Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America, published by the University of Illinois Press. Matt Cover explains that “Lloyd wrote Prologue to a Farce while a senior fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress. In that capacity, he co-authored the 2007 report The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio”


Fairness Doctrine dead? Not if some people can help it:

Here's How You Can Strike Back Against Right-Wing Cable, Radio

"...By pressuring the reconstituted FCC about bringing back the prudent and sane Fairness Doctrine, which required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance -- and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced..."


Fairness Doctrine Must Be Returned To Radio Airwaves

With radio markets such as the Dallas-Fort Worth area flooded with an uncontested stream of right-wing talk shows without any counterbalance, what Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on Fox "news" Sunday Sen. Dianne Feinstein tells me that there may be some politicians who finally want action to at least balance this stream.

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SO the guy would like diversity and egalitarianism?

How evil!

I notice the softness of the language here:

"The sly Mark Lloyd approach appears to be a form of detrimental taxation, disguised as fees, consisting of sums equal to total operating costs that opposing-view broadcasting outlets may grab money from a public trough. Whatever the proposed route, an attempt to impose Fairness Doctrine equivalency, or worse, may be in the offing."

when it says "appears to be". I also notice the hardness of the language as it describes those appearance, and finally, the complete vacuousness when it comes to ANY substantiating data.

I like at least a TRACE of factual fiber with my slimy innuendo and allegation, please. Something, anything, to suggest there might be more than speculative projection going on.

Or is that too much to ask?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Oh and no Gina, you brought up Obama to get the heat off yourself, we and everybody else here know it. I'm wating for you to elaborate on conservative principles, maybe one beyond "Gina is the center of the universe"

Keep waiting. Oh, and if I was so sensitive about "heat," do you think I'd be here talking to you [edited for politeness]?

[ September 04, 2009, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Gina ]

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"And if you think enslavement to the welfare state is the price rural America should have to pay for just getting on with life, it's your right to join in the progressive revolution as you see fit."

Right, because the vaunted rural America doesn't take welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. Uh-huh.

This is my point, or at least related to it, but thank you for underlining.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From one of Ornery's links:

"Libertarians, who unlike Saul Alinsky are the only true radicals, made up as they are of enlightened individuals who have rejected both the liberal line as well as the conservative cant, have a place in their ranks for those who successfully escape the government-huggers."

Wow. True Believers in the One True Faith. That reads like a Morton Downey, Jr. rant.

Morton Downey, Jr. was the grandfather of modern, post-Fairness Doctrine talk radio and tabloid TV rabble-rousing talk shows. Limbaugh took his place at the station wherefrom Morton graduated into TV.

Read about him here.

Yes, the Fairness Doctrine was and is constitutionally untenable. That doesn't mean it didn't exert an extremely valuable influence on media. The very fact it was introduced despite its glaring unconstitutionality, and lasted as long as it did, says something about the evils its architects were trying to counterbalance.

Incidentally, yuou can read here how non-draconian the FD was:

"The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented."

It's sole purpose was to prevent propaganda from dominating news media.

When I say glaring unconstitutionality, I perhaps exaggerate:

"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 Fairness Doctrine entitled him to free air time to respond to the personal attacks.[7]"

COntiniung:

"Although similar laws are unconstitutional when applied to the press, the Court cited a Senate report (S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 [1959]) stating that radio stations could be regulated in this way because of the limited public airwaves at the time. Writing for the Court, Justice Byron White declared:
“ A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.[1] ”

"The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its constitutionality should be reconsidered.I

"However, in the case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974), Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote (for a unanimous court):
“Government-enforced right of access inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. ”

"This decision differs from Red Lion v. FCC in that it applies to a newspaper, which, unlike a broadcaster, is unlicensed and can face a theoretically-unlimited number of competitors.

"In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not forbid editorials by non-profit stations that received grants from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court's 5-4 majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. stated that while many now considered that expanding sources of communication had made the Fairness Doctrine's limits unnecessary:
“We are not prepared, however, to reconsider our longstanding approach without some signal from Congress or the FCC that technological developments have advanced so far that some revision of the system of broadcast regulation may be required. (footnote 11)"

"After noting that the FCC was considering repealing the Fairness Doctrine rules on editorials and personal attacks out of fear that those rules might be "chilling speech", the Court added:
“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. (footnote 12)[8] ”

Revocation

"Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

"On February 16, 2009, Fowler told conservative radio talk-show host Mark Levin that his work toward revoking the Fairness Doctrine under the Reagan Administration had been a matter of principle (his belief that the Doctrine impinged upon the First Amendment), not partisanship. Fowler described the White House staff raising concerns, at a time before the prominence of conservative talk radio and during the preeminence of the Big Three television networks and PBS in political discourse, that repealing the policy would be politically unwise. He described the staff's position as saying to Reagan:
“The only thing that really protects you from the savageness of the three networks — every day they would savage Ronald Reagan — is the Fairness Doctrine, and Fowler is proposing to repeal it![9] ”

"Instead, Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law."

And so on. Read the rest at wiki if ye like. Frankly, I find the current justification for its removal:

"The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists."

specious. The above rests solely on the word intrusion. The concepts of "restriction" and "detriment" do not at all follow. Mandating *some* opposing viewpoint surely does not restrict journalism. Rather, it elevates it because now the dude has to have his ducks more in a row lest the other dude call him on it more or less in his face.

No, I do not wish to return the Fairness Doctrine, but I do not think it was a bad thing nor did it promote 'liberal bias'. Rather, it appears to have prevented conservatively-biased propaganda organs from growing into major networks.

It's very existence back in the day required propaganda at least by confronted with some amount of counter-propaganda.

I'd be happy with a Truthfulness Doctrine myself. You can't see titties on TV but you can hear lies all day long.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's Mark Lloyd:

quote:
Inspired by Madison’s observation, Mark Lloyd has crafted a complex and powerful assessment of the relationship between communications and democracy in the United States. In Prologue to a Farce, he argues that citizens’ political capabilities depend on broad public access to media technologies, but that the U.S. communications environment has become unfairly dominated by corporate interests.

Drawing on a wealth of historical sources, Lloyd demonstrates that despite the persistent hope that a new technology (from the telegraph to the Internet) will rise to serve the needs of the republic, none have solved the fundamental problems created by corporate domination. After examining failed alternatives to the strong publicly-owned communications model, such as anti-trust regulation, the public trustee rules of the Federal Communications Commission, and the under-funded public broadcasting service, Lloyd argues that we must recreate a modern version of the Founder’s communications environment, and offers concrete strategies aimed at empowering citizens.

This is MAdison's observation:

"A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy or perhaps both.”--James Madison, 1822"

Wow. Founders. Are leftists allowed to make positive emulatory reference to the Founders?

Remember when Tinky Winky was gay? Remember when it was evil that private folks made money from Sesame Street spinoffs? (Can't be stimulating the economy with public funds, you know.)

BTW, does Obama have any privileges under the 1st Amendment? Like, you know, to broadcast to schoolkids on a voluntary participation basis?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"enslavement to the welfare state "

Ens;lavement to charity. Cute.

Having no choice BUT government charity because the economy stinks is one thing, but enslavement involves a bit of coercion, don't you think?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
With the Obama's propensity to try and ram major legislation down our throats in such a helluva hurry, I think we'd be prudent to stay ahead of the Lloyd "fines and fees and other regulations" curve:

Don't call this 'diversity'

...considering the radicals that Barack Obama has been surrounded by his entire life -- from communist Frank Marshall Davis to the Weather Underground founders to Jeremiah Wright and "Green Jobs" czar Van Jones -- it's not a stretch to believe something's afoot.

It may seem even less farfetched when you consider that famous socialist Saul Alinksy -- author of the book Rules for Radicals -- has fans in such people as Lloyd, Hillary Clinton -- who wrote her college thesis about him -- and Barack Obama.

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW, Saul Alinsky isn't the devil, had brass balls, and helped a LOT of people.

That said, Obama ALSO palled around with some real square conservative dudes. Worse, he has friends who are *atheists*.

I like Russell Kirk. I like Saul Alinsky. I like Gandhi. I like Bismark.

Taint by association requires ALL associations to be taken into account. Meanwhile, those cherries you keep picking over and over are smushed into juice by now.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
0rnery
Member
Member # 398

 - posted      Profile for 0rnery   Email 0rnery   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds like a few cherries might have sealed ole' Van's fate too, eh?

One man's "smushed fruit" is another man's cherry puree, but both have cumulative weight...

[ September 04, 2009, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: 0rnery ]

Posts: 384 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sounds like a few cherries might have sealed ole' Van's fate too, eh?
It's possible. But I tell you, if one of the brightest and most constructive people in the administration gets thrown to the wolves because Obama's people can't find the gumption to stand up to the slavering, gibbering idiots, I'm going to wash my hands of the whole thing.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think they'll find the gumption.

I think declining to comment yea or no on the matter would itself be caving in. Van continues to work for the White House is plenty sufficient.

The article linked is all spin set around a simple statement: yes, he works for us, whatever.

The trick, you see, to not dignifying a stupid question or allegation with a response is to NOT answer the stupid question or allegation but simply reset to the basic fact:

Yes, Van Jones works in the position you describe.

Period.

Here at Ornery we are mostly just amusing ourselves, but those guys in the White House have real jobs. Imagine if they bothered to engage every cream-scream from the calculatedly lunatic fringe.

In football, it's called a stiff-arm.

I'll wait until I'm toothless before I puree cherries.

Y'know, I thought the zombie banshee howlers from the right were bad back in the Saddam did it! days, but I see the mentally undead have only grown in numbers.

I get it! We've been shooting them in the brain. Standard zombie kill method right? With these zombies you gotta shoot 'em in the ass to hit their... well, I guess it's a brain.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
BTW:

quote:
t's worth pointing out that Ben Smith at Politico has spoken to two signatories of that petition, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn, who say they were misled about what they were signing. And the conservative website Little Green Footballs points out that Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of “Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" has posted on her website, the American Center for Democracy: "PLEASE NOTE: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is not a signatory of the 911Truth.org. She has asked several times to have her named removed from the list, but the organization failed to comply."

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" Right, because the vaunted rural America doesn't take welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. Uh-huh.

This is my point, or at least related to it, but thank you for underlining."

This IS your point? That rural America doesn't take welfare?

You jest, yes? Red states take more (considerably) in federal money than blue states, and more than they send. This has been proven exhaustively. Now, if you wanna pretend that only the corrupt city dwellers of Memphis, Nashvile, Jackson, Little Rock, Lincoln and so on take welfare, whereas the hicks in the surrounding farm counties don't.... I got this bridge, fantastic investment opportunity. Just sign here, here, here and here.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for that scripture-based argument on how Jesus could *possibly* not be in favor of universal coverage.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It's worth pointing out that Ben Smith at Politico has spoken to two signatories of that petition, Rabbi Michael Lerner and historian Howard Zinn, who say they were misled about what they were signing. And the conservative website Little Green Footballs points out that Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of “Funding Evil; How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It" has posted on her website, the American Center for Democracy: "PLEASE NOTE: Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld is not a signatory of the 911Truth.org. She has asked several times to have her named removed from the list, but the organization failed to comply."

But they said that they verified!!!!! [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gina
Member
Member # 6372

 - posted      Profile for Gina   Email Gina   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
" Right, because the vaunted rural America doesn't take welfare, unemployment, and food stamps. Uh-huh.

This is my point, or at least related to it, but thank you for underlining."

This IS your point? That rural America doesn't take welfare?

If I'm talking about enslavement to welfare, does that plausibly suggest that I'm arguing that no welfare is present in the communities I'm referring to?

quote:
Oh, and I'm still waiting for that scripture-based argument on how Jesus could *possibly* not be in favor of universal coverage.
These were not my words, and what I did say was that I don't do that sort of political exegesis. You, OTOH, seem to think you've got God's perspective on a lock.

Go back and read what I said, or else don't bring it up again. Maybe both.

Posts: 476 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If I'm talking about enslavement to welfare, does that plausibly suggest that I'm arguing that no welfare is present in the communities I'm referring to?"

I dunno what's plausible, because I'm having a really tough time following your logic. So we're addicting rural America to handouts, is that it? Specifically *rural* America, in a way not applicable to urban America? Cause you made the distinction. Are we also forcing anyone to take them?

"what I did say was that I don't do that sort of political exegesis."

Ah, you don't do. So what practical meaning does your religion have for you, if it doesn't inform how you treat others? Is yours only a home and garden religion, but when it comes to politics it has no meaning? I'm asking seriously here. I thought the question that informs a Christian's life is WWJD.

Myself, I like the J-Dawg. He was my homie and a fine Yid. But I don't think of him as either God or my personal savior. However, if I did, I'd sure as hell try to figure out which course of action He'd approve of on the main issues of the day.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You, OTOH, seem to think you've got God's perspective on a lock.
Well Jesus was explicitly asked about taxation, and he clearly answered "yeah, I'm cool with taxation".

Given that, one has to wonder *what* sort of government programs Jesus would approve of. Feeding the hungry and treating the sick seems consistent with the rest of his message.

Posts: 3318 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how Jesus felt about separation of church and state?

Oh, I remember, he died on a cross instead of politicizing his followers.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Viking_Longship
Member
Member # 3358

 - posted      Profile for Viking_Longship   Email Viking_Longship       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gina:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viking_Longship:
Oh and no Gina, you brought up Obama to get the heat off yourself, we and everybody else here know it. I'm wating for you to elaborate on conservative principles, maybe one beyond "Gina is the center of the universe"

Keep waiting. Oh, and if I was so sensitive about "heat," do you think I'd be here talking to you [edited for politeness]? [/QUOTE

Sorry about that Gina. I had been spending too much time here and boiled over. My appologies

Posts: 5765 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1