Freedom of Speech?

[eweikum338]

The Democrats in the US Senate must have taken a page right out of Hugo's playbook in reference to Radio broadcasting.

"Critics say that the Chavez government is becoming less and less tolerant of differing opinions. In late May, it forced opposition-aligned television station Radio Caracas Television off the air by refusing to renew its broadcasting license, and promptly opened an investigation against Globovision, the only remaining channel critical of the President. The other major privately owned television network, Venevision, has shifted its coverage from critical to favorable, leaving the broadcast landscape largely bereft of independent voices willing to challenge the government."

 

[proutdoors]

I am assuming you are referring to the talk of re-enacting the "Fairness Doctrine". The left is only in favor of free speach when what is said is in agreement with want they believe, all other viewpoints are branded as either hateful, bigoted, and/or unconstitutional.

PRO

 

[huntindude]

The right doesn't do the same thing? give me a break. remember " you're with us or you're against us" in other words "if you don't like what we're doing shut the hell up or you're a traitor." that invites fair and open debate now doesn't it?

 

[proutdoors]

> The right doesn't do the
>same thing? give me a
>break. remember " you're with
>us or you're against us"
>in other words "if you
>don't like what we're doing
>shut the hell up or
>you're a traitor." that
>invites fair and open debate
>now doesn't it?


One major difference is when Bush said, "You are with us or against us", he didn't try and pass a law making it mandatory to be with/against. If you can't see the difference in merely stating something and trying to, thru the system by passing LAWS, mandate something, then you are beyond hope.

PRO

 

[jodog]

> The right doesn't do the
>same thing? give me a
>break. remember " you're with
>us or you're against us"
>in other words "if you
>don't like what we're doing
>shut the hell up or
>you're a traitor." that
>invites fair and open debate
>now doesn't it?

He said "you are either with us, or you are with the terrorist" and he was talking about other countrys.
Thats alot different, telling someone that might harbor the enemy that wants to kill you than shutting down your fellow americans because they are getting one up on you.

 

[SMOKESTICK]

I thought it was amazing, at the wolf hearings in Cody, WY this month, some of the environmental groups were complaining that wildlife should not be politicized. They said politics doesn't belong with wildlife management; yet, these are the same groups that run off and higher attorney's when they don't get what they want.

BTW, jodog, nailed it down. President Bush was talking to any country or any individuals which that might harbor terrorists. Obviously, if you are at war and someone is harboring your enemy they are not on your side.

 

[MortgageMan]

Hdude - Nice try on the spin though It almost worked

 

[Forthewall]

Mass-media is certainly an outdated term when you look at the consolidation in television, radio, and print media. To only have a handful of corporations controlling the media leaves one questioning how unbiased media reporting is.

As for not politicizing wildlife management I think there is something to be said about that. As of late, we have seen or heard accounts of multiple agency which are supposed to be partisan neutral, that have been politicized. Leaving interest groups on both sides of the aisle no recourse but to hire a lawyer. Of course, this generally depends on which party is in power at the time.

McCain recently mentioned terrorist groups have been operating out of Iraqi Kurdistan entering Turkey to commit act of terrorism againt the Turkish people.

As well, our own president along with the intelligence communities have noted the growing Al Queda presence in Pakistan.

So in these cases, WE are harboring terrorists, as well we are supporting the Pakistani government which is harboring the the most infamous terrorists responsible for 9/11.

As for the fairness, well since the catch phrase is "the liberal media" these days, why would the democrats be concerned about a fairness doctrine, if the media is already in their pocket?

Seems a little strange to me.

 

[jodog]

"As for the fairness, well since the catch phrase is "the liberal media" these days, why would the democrats be concerned about a fairness doctrine, if the media is already in their pocket?

Seems a little strange to me. "

The media is it's the american people that aren't.

 

[NeMont]

>As for the fairness, well since
>the catch phrase is "the
>liberal media" these days, why
>would the democrats be concerned
>about a fairness doctrine, if
>the media is already in
>their pocket?
>
>Seems a little strange to me.


I think the left lives in fear of talk radio and view it as a threat. Since they could just make people listen to Air America they wanted to end the threat through legislation. To say the mainstream media is not highly biased to the left is stupid. Right wing talk radio shows make no bones about it that they are partisan. The networks and newspapers pretend to care about balance but don't even come close to a non biased news story.

Nemont

 

[proutdoors]

FTW, and you mock me on the "island" comment. The reason the left wants the Fairness Doctrine back is BECAUSE conservative radio gives other views than theirs. It drives the left nuts having someone 'expose' what the left is doing and the 'other' side of the story. Look how the left tries to minimize Fox News, why? Because they report things the mainstream/old media WON'T. They hate having opposing views, so they attempted to give us Airhead America, that has gone well hasn't it? Fox is kicking the crap out of CNN and MSNBC. Rush and Sean are killing the left radio folks. Since the left can't beat them, they want to shut them down, increasing the odds of dems getting the White House in 2008.

PRO

 

[eweikum338]

Nemont, you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Cornhusker]

it's all a matter of perspective. To most far right conservatives the media looks way to the left. to the majority of Americans who are moderates it doesn't lean so far to the left. I've always cosidered myself a moderate Republican but I think their almost extinct

 

[Cornhusker]

I also believe Bush would do exactly as Chavez is doing, squash the opposition if it wasn't for that inconvient thing called the Constitution.

 

[proutdoors]

>I also believe Bush would do
>exactly as Chavez is doing,
>squash the opposition if it
>wasn't for that inconvient thing
>called the Constitution.


Possibly the most ignorant post I have ever read. WTF supports such an assinine comment? What a joke, moderate Republican my ass, more like Michael Moore wannabe.

PRO

 

[NeMont]

LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-07 AT 03:09PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-26-07 AT 01:55?PM (MST)

>I also believe Bush would do
>exactly as Chavez is doing,
>squash the opposition if it
>wasn't for that inconvient thing
>called the Constitution.


If it wasn't for the inconveint thing called the Constitution our country would have ceased to exist long before this administration.

I believe Clinton would have suspended the Constitution as well in order to not go through the impeachment process, So would have Reagan with Iran/Contra, Nixon over Watergate, Johnson over Vietnam, Kennedy over Bay of Pigs etc, etc. Pick something where any President had wished for more power and the Constitution blocked him and most would have justified going around the Constitution.

That is a simple minded statement.

Nemont

 

[huntindude]

What supports such a comment? how about an actual Bush quote " Stop throwing the constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned peice of paper " now while this was not in reguards to the topic of media fairness does that sound like a president who respects the constitution and would never stray from it?

With us or against us, if you don't think that line was directed at Americans also you have a short memory. or you were'nt against it and didn't notice the back lash at those who dare speak against the Iraq war early on. by the way just how many countries are with us? and how many Americans are still with Bush? I guess he got his answer.

 

[Cornhusker]

It is not a simple statenent. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely." You bet Clinton would have circemvented the constitution and so would Reagan, Kennedy did and most of our other modern day presidents. Pro didn't your folks or your teacers teach you respect or manners not everything has to be an in your face response.NeMont asked Pick something the constituion blocked Bush on. the confinement and interogration techniques to be used at Guatanmo Bay.

 

[Cornhusker]

Sorry eweikum338 I think we hijacked your thread my apology. Just another short idea about Bush and the Constitution. This is in relation to the secret wiretapping and is from jan1st 2006 CBS

"Many Democrats and some Republicans in Congress have questioned whether Mr. Bush's actions have gone beyond the constitutional powers and congressional resolution he has cited in defense of his actions authorizing the secret program.

Sen. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the Judiciary Committee, has called for hearings into the program.

In 1978 Congress established a secret court to handle requests for surveillance and to issue warrants ? a system the Bush-authorized program bypassed.

The president was asked whether he misled the American people in 2004 when, during an event promoting the Patriot Act, he said that any wiretapping required a court order and that nothing had changed. He made the statement more than two years after he approved the NSA program.

"I was talking about roving wiretaps, I believe, involving the Patriot Act," Mr. Bush said. "This is different from the NSA program."

 

[NeMont]

> What supports such a comment?
>how about an actual Bush
>quote " Stop throwing the
>constitution in my face, it's
>just a goddamned peice of
>paper " now while this
>was not in reguards to
>the topic of media fairness
>does that sound like a
>president who respects the constitution
>and would never stray from
>it?
>

Please provide a citation to the above from a credible source. I am not talking about MoveOn.org or any other left wing propaganda outlet but an actual verifiable source.

Nemont