However jouer poker virtuel jouer poker omaha gratuit juego al instante portal web poker linea video poker…

Dessus ganar dinero real online poker stars net casino en lignes 7 card stud tips caribbean poker…

??berlegen jeu baccarat la ruleta de la suerte regole craps jugar apostar pagina web casino online no deposit bonus…

ba882e969127e434ec43…

….foot tapping….arms crossed…..

And now for All Things Really Considered

We all think that it’s a crazy idea, but it’s a little dangerous to just chalk Denny and his friends up as harmless loons.

BacaDog on February 1, 2007 at 7:43 AM

Loons? Yes. Harmless loons? No.

….Give Rush a nightly seat next to Couric, correcting her idiotic gossip as it comes out of her mouth. Ditto Brian Williams …

But, the networks aren’t biased, Jailbones. I mean, after all, Andrea Mitchell said so.

Does this Fairness Doctrine stand any real chance of being legislated??

laelaps on January 31, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Do the Democracts control of both the House and Senate?

Does Ted Kennedy drive off bridges?

How is this idea of mandated programming differ from the force-fed propaganda that existed in the U.S.S.R.? Do we really want to go down THAT road? Of course some of these closet Socialists would privately say yes.

hillbillyjim on January 31, 2007 at 11:45 PM

This will fit nicely with the socialist Hillary health plan.

I heard Sean interview this guy a couple weeks ago on his radio show. This idea sounded dumb then and it hasn’t improved any since. From what I was hearing (I haven’t researched it yet) the “Fairness” doctrine would apply only to radio.

Should I buy Sirus stock for when Sean & Rush go Sirus?

I guess it would be good in one way. Now everytime a talking head rambles on about how great the Packers are I should get equal time for describing how lousy they are!

Give Rush a nightly seat next to Couric, correcting her idiotic gossip as it comes out of her mouth. Ditto Brian Williams and whomever is on NBC that night. (I swear I don’t even know.) PBS, etc., etc.

That’ll get it tabled, quick.

Why stop there? The photons bouncing off of a printed page are owned by the public. The sounds coming out of a speaker’s mouth travel through the air, which is owned by the public. Why not regulate those, too?

Oh, wait…

We all think that it’s a crazy idea, but it’s a little dangerous to just chalk Denny and his friends up as harmless loons.

Write your legislator and let them know how you feel. This wouldn’t be the first instance of nutty legislation getting passed.

Uh, there is no National Government in the Constitution.

You are right and I did not mean to make it sound like the Constitution set up a National government. That is not what I meant at all. But we do have a national government now, and that was my point.

I’m glad you referenced Federalist 39, it makes the point clear that we were supposed to have a federal system. However, the 14th amendment (along with the Supreme Court cases interpreting it), while good at protecting individual freedoms, destroyed the federal system and replaced it with a national one.

Jefferson said:
“In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

The government is no longer bound down by the Constitution. It serves only as a paper chain to those who would usurp power from the people and supplant the divinely inspired Constitution with their unfettered socialist utopia.

You read the Constitution and tell me where it gives the national government (as opposed to federal government, which is an interesting discussion on its own) the power to, for example, establish Social Security or the EPA or any of the other hundreds of alphabet soup agencies. The only place that one might tease out such a power (and this is what has been done) is two small words: General Welfare. Article I, Section 8 lays out the powers granted to Congress. Skip paragraph 1, read the other 17 paragraphs and tell me where the power is to do 90% of what the national government does. It isn’t there.

Uh, there is no National Government in the Constitution. According to the Federalist Papers #39 the Constitution sets up a Federal System (and therefore is one of the major reason secession was legal).

It says:

`But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States.” And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken? The handle which has been made of this objection requires that it should be examined with some precision.

On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a NATIONAL, but a FEDERAL act.

Federalist 39

How is this idea of mandated programming differ from the force-fed propaganda that existed in the U.S.S.R.? Do we really want to go down THAT road? Of course some of these closet Socialists would privately say yes.

According to the backers of this proposal, we are unfit to decide what we want to watch and listen to. THEY know what’s best for us if only they can MAKE us listen.

They lost and are still losing in the marketplace of ideas; therefore, they want to do away with the marketplace. Naturally, they will try to find a way to stop any conservative thought to be transmitted via internet also.

These jerks spout off about freedom of speech until they’re blue in the face. When that speech doesn’t align itself with their philosophy, however, it is deemed unfair, and subject to strangulation through regulation.

To all: which carries more weight with this issue…
1) Two words in the Preamble, “general Welfare,” taken out of context to justify expanding the government’s reach.
2) The first five words of the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law,” clearly telling Congress to keep its paws off of the following areas listed.

I would say that, at the time of the Bill of Rights, the people understood the dangerous nature of governments to claim as much power as they could. As a result, rather restrictive amendments on the power of Congress came into being. If I remember my history well, some states wouldn’t even ratify the Constitution itself without such restrictions… without those states, we might not cherish a piece of paper from 1787 nearly as much today.

Alas, were those holdout states ever right. Abuses like the unfairness doctrine happen in spite of such clear wording at the start of such restrictive amendments.

Constitutional law scholars, help me out here. How would such a “fairness doctrine” fall be legal within the bounds of the first amendment? Wouldn’t it be limiting the freedom of speech?

Of course, such a defense would require a hack-liberal court to understand such a viewpoint.

flutejpl on January 31, 2007 at 5:08 PM

Ok, it is very simple. It is right there in the Constitution next to the Amendment about the “Right to Privacy” and the “General Welfare” clause explanation that allows for Social Security, Medicare, the EPA, corporate welfare, government funded non-military science, public education etc. etc.

You have to remember that McCain-Feingold blatantly stifles free political speech and SCOTUS upheld it. As was stated above, the Constitution really counts for little these days. It’s opinion polls that matter the most….please shoot me now.

And if you think conservatives will get a fair shake with the MSM, please have someone slap you back to reality. Katie ain’t about to cohost with Hannity.