The Unfairness Doctrine
posted at 11:20 am on June 27, 2007 by Michelle
Well, I’d embed the YouTube video of John Kerry’s comments about the Fairness Doctrine posted by Matt Drudge. But weirdly, the YouTube embed function has been “disabled by request.”
Anyhoo, you can watch it here.
The transcript:
“I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back. I mean these are the people who wiped out one of the most profound changes in the balance of the media is when the conservatives got rid of the equal time requirements. And the result is that, you know, they’ve been able to squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views and I think it’s been an important transition in the imbalance of our public…”
Trent Lott is nodding his head.
I just got off a blogger conference call with GOP Rep. Mike Pence, who talked about his efforts to beat back the Fairness Doctrine monster. Report is over at mm.com. Pence is asking folks to call their representatives and urge them to sign on as original co-sponsors of his bill, the Broadcaster Freedom Act.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
last time i checked, the first amendment gives you the right to say just about anything you want. it does not, however, declare that anyone has to listen to you.
pmoshields on June 27, 2007 at 11:24 AM
OK, what is the history of the FD? I would tend to bet that it was not the Conservatives who scuttled it? I may be wrong but there is ample anectdotal evidence to suggest it may have been someone else.
bbz123 on June 27, 2007 at 11:25 AM
We are becoming Venezuela. I’m sure Chávez would love the “Fairness Doctrine.”
Maxx on June 27, 2007 at 11:26 AM
WTF?
I don’t remember sending anyone to Washington to police what I listen to to make sure it’s “equally balanced.”
Half-an-hour of P-F’ing-BS will tell you all you need to know about the government and “equal time.”
saint kansas on June 27, 2007 at 11:31 AM
The Supreme Court might have to take care of this fiasco.
DCJeff on June 27, 2007 at 11:33 AM
Liberals can’t get their viewpoint out on the airwaves? Whatever happened to Air America and NPR?
aunursa on June 27, 2007 at 11:34 AM
These are strange scary times we are living in right now.
Zetterson on June 27, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Errr….
That scares the “Poopieschtinkel” ™ out of me if thats our savior… The Supreme Court
:(
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on June 27, 2007 at 11:36 AM
Seems to me if all’s fair in love and war. Then all’s fair in love and politics too!
soulsirkus on June 27, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Not that I think we should go down this road, we certainly should not, but if Congress does enact some type of “Fairness Doctrine” would it not end up at the Supreme Court sooner or later? With the current makeup of the SCOTUS I don’t see how it could stand up.
Secondly, if it was implemented, would that not create a huge demand for conservative points of view in the MSM to balance their extreme liberal bias? How could they legislate selective enforcement and target only conservative programs?
kjspeedial on June 27, 2007 at 11:37 AM
Things just keep getting better and better. I really hate DC.
Bad Candy on June 27, 2007 at 11:40 AM
Why limit the fairness doctrine to politics? There’s a serious lack of Broadway show tunes on my classic rock station.
DuffBeer on June 27, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Life ain’t fair!
LakeRuins on June 27, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is such a crazy idea I find it humorous. What’s next? Re-education camps?
Blake on June 27, 2007 at 11:56 AM
How on Earth can Kerry be on the wrong side of every single issue?
He’s trying to redefine idiocy.
What a maroon…
Corky on June 27, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Kerry, Feinstein, Clinton, etc. . . . . they would all have felt perfectly at home in the adminstration of Adolf Hitler.
Labamigo on June 27, 2007 at 11:58 AM
Damn those Zionist joos and there control of the media!
libertytexan on June 27, 2007 at 11:59 AM
Sigh….
see… the bad guys are a winnin…
First they destoy the rule of law… (immigration crap)
Then they destroy our moral outrage… (moral relativism… especialy about religion)
Now, a blatant assault on freedom of speech…
Romeo13 on June 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM
We have a choice between two completely different worlds by 2012. Probably the most important choice this country has faced since 1861. ‘Fahrenheit 451′ or ‘Common Sense’.
To quote a famous libtard….’Choose wisely’.
Limerick on June 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM
You want fairness Kerry? Then add many more conservative voices to ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, etc., etc., etc., . . . etc. Otherwise, stick it in your ear or the orifice of your choice.
rplat on June 27, 2007 at 12:00 PM
I know it’s probably been said before, but let’s see what would really happen with JF’nK’s Fairness Doctrine, if it really was applied like it says:
Not only would all conservitive talkers (and the EVIL FOX NEWS) have to have an “opposing viewpoint” but…
* NPR would have to bring on conservitives
* ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/MSNBC would have to give equal time to conservitive commentators/reporters
* NYT/Boston Globe/WaPo/LATimes/etc, etc, etc, etc would have to give equal time to conservitive commentators/reporters
* PBS would have to give equal time to conservitive commentators
Do they really want that? Of course not, which is why “Fairness Doctrine” is just CodeSpeak for “Liberal only viewpoints.”
crazy_legs on June 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM
The “Fairness Doctrine.” what’s so fair about silencing free speech. We don’t live in the Soviet Union. Liberal radio had a chance, the American people realized it was run by a bunch of left-wing nut jobs and it failed. simple as that.
chip91 on June 27, 2007 at 12:01 PM
John Kerry wasnt all that FAIR to John O”Neill and the Swift Boat Vets, now was he….
Remember, the Liberal definition of FAIRNESS is: we get to talk and conservatives get to shut up.
Always Right on June 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Wow rplat! Great minds, I guess!
crazy_legs on June 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Does this mean Conservatives get equal airtime on TV and cable? Or is that exempt because they dominate that forumn? Also who determines which content is conservative and which is liberal? In my view, Bush would be liberal listening, however, I suspect, the media elites would find him conservative. It’s relative….where doyou draw the line, & more importantly WHO draws the line?
Alden Pyle on June 27, 2007 at 12:02 PM
Why, our benevolant, most-ethical, Democrat-controlled congress, of course!!
crazy_legs on June 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Does fairness mean we have to give equal airtime to anarchists, commies, nazis and wiccans too?
libertytexan on June 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Just another case of the left trying to place the blame for their inadequacies upon someone else. No surprises here
Viper1 on June 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM
PBS already has you pinned….
NPR has David Brooks….gee, there is a reactionary for ya!
Limerick on June 27, 2007 at 12:06 PM
What about Anarcho-CommieNazi Wiccans? They deserve a voice too!
Bad Candy on June 27, 2007 at 12:07 PM
Is it just me or is like a couple of months ago, everything turned inside out and we entered Bizarro world?
Farmer_Joe on June 27, 2007 at 12:09 PM
Hey, that might be what you have to do to screw over the Fairness doctrine. The left is trying to seize control of that media, right? Use their own rules and balkanize the airwaves with crazies from all over the political spectrum, and make it next to impossible for them to use it.
Bad Candy on June 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM
Simply put. If the libs had product that sold, the slime that owns TV and radio would put them on. Their stuff does not sell. It’s all about money, and they don’t care where it comes from as long as it keeps rollin’ in.
LtE126 on June 27, 2007 at 12:10 PM
I wonder if all the Spanish language radio and TV stations that are advocating illegal
immigrationinvasion will be subject to the “Fairness Doctrine?”/sarc
infidel4life on June 27, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Kerry wasn’t very fair when he went after Sinclair broadcasting for airing the documentary “Stolen Honor” was he? Is it fair that the Dems refuse to debate on Fox News channel? Is it fair that the Cubs will never win a World Series?
LakeRuins on June 27, 2007 at 12:19 PM
Just a reminder, the Fairness Doctrine would only apply to media that use the public airwaves, such as radio and the broadcast stations. Cable and the print media would not be included – well, unless the left thought that they could get away with it.
rw on June 27, 2007 at 12:24 PM
You want FAIRNESS???
Ok…
LETS START WITH UNIVERSITIES FIRST. For every liberal prof, make sure there’s a conservative one.
ricer1 on June 27, 2007 at 12:25 PM
After what happened with the Rebubs yesterday, the Fairness Doctrine will pass – don’t kid yourself. The big money is behind the Fairness Doctrine. Now, call, email write. If you just complain here, we lose.
On-my-soap-box on June 27, 2007 at 12:29 PM
Liberal Mantra – “Free Speech for me, but not for thee!”
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 27, 2007 at 12:31 PM
While you’re at it, calling your congressmen, be sure to have them support the effort to save internet radio. There’s 17 days left.
Nethicus on June 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
How many of you are aware that most liberals think the alphabet network news slants to the right? This being the case, conservative talk radio will be silenced while the alphabet network new slants even further to the left. The mindset behind the fairness doctrine is the same one that would leave the fox guarding the henhouse.
speed911 on June 27, 2007 at 12:32 PM
The Democrats want to turn this country into a Stalinist “paradise.” What’s even sadder is that a lot of these damn milksop Republicans are going to sit on their asses and let them do it.
Frank Nitti on June 27, 2007 at 12:36 PM
The Political elite now have so much money and have become so corrupt(see Kerry, Feinstein, Bush et.al.) that they now consider themselves autocrats. They simply can’t allow any criticism from the hoi polloi.
It is no coincidence that Amnesty and the Fairness Doctrine have emerged at the same time. They are inextricably linked.
How do y’all like living in a Banana Republic?
there it is on June 27, 2007 at 12:37 PM
Ha ha. Good one. Corky hit the nail on the head here. Kerry’s just grasping at straws to get exposure and can’t help himself. Poor guy has “I’m a Liberal, Too!” Syndrome.
nationspatriotcom on June 27, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Seems to me the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” is anti-first amendment.
sadatoni on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
Guys, guys! The fairness doctrine will only affect radio.
Of course, that’s exactly where the conservative voice is strongest. And that’s exactly why they want it back. (They know they own the rest of msm, but they’ll never admit it.)
IrishEi on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
How unfair!
locomotivebreath1901 on June 27, 2007 at 12:41 PM
I question the timing
On-my-soap-box on June 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
This from people who won’t appear on FOX or take part in a FOX-sponsored debate?
Connie on June 27, 2007 at 12:44 PM
Silence of the Lambs. Fairness?? Even Fox’s Oreilly is disappointing. Shaw and Lou are our only hope on the cables.You can forget about the dinosaur media.Better to keep tuning in than tuning out,I guess.. I forgot about Glen Beck.. He’s ok on this immigr. issue..
Legions on June 27, 2007 at 12:47 PM
If the Fairness Doctrine goes through, we riot.
WisCon on June 27, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Why don’t they just cut to the chase and outlaw conservatism? That’s what they really want after all. Conservative thought keeps
mucking upslowing down their attempts to transition the US to a pure socialist paradise (like say, Cuba).kjspeedial on June 27, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Dick Morris was on Hannity’s radio show yesterday and said it wouldn’t take an act of Congress to reinstate the “Fairness Doctrine.” All it would take is a Dem President who appoints the 5th member to the FCC board. It would be the FCC that reinstates it.
KelliD on June 27, 2007 at 1:03 PM
…And for every rap song played on WMLK (or whatever)
radio station, there must be a tune by Hank Williams
or George Jones played immediately afterwards!!
gary on June 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM
“Man is not a rational animal. He’s a rationalizing animal.”
- Robert Heinlein
The dishonesty – with themselves and everyone else – on display by the promoters of “Fairness” is breathtaking. The pseudo-intellectual contortions offered in support of the “Fairness” [spit] Doctrine present such a display of rationalization born of cognitive dissoance that it suggests some underlying mental illness.
Donks in DC see nothing wrong with trying to cram shamnesty down our throats with backroom deals and cram-down legislative tactics, yet lament the lack of “balanced debate” on AM radio. And that’s only the beginning of it.
Scratch a liberal, and you’ll find a totalitarian underneath. Totalitarians don’t cope with opposing viewpoints; they don’t seek to craft a more compelling message of their own. They reflexively seek to obliterate the other point of view. Which is precisely what people like Kerry and Feinstein and Kucinich et al are aiming at here: a return to the days of “non-controversial” (i.e., bland, boring and audience-free) programming, the type of pablum that almost made AM radio go extinct … yet simultaneously they’d have us believe that they’re “promoting” debate.
Orwell would be very proud.
Libs easily cast a Nelsonian eye on things like the overt liberal slant at NPR and the major broadcast networks, as well as the abject failure of liberal talk radio (subsidized or otherwise), while pointing with horror to successful conservatives on AM radio. “Bias? What liberal bias? Hey, look – it’s conservatives on the radio! Unfair!”
Nothing so enrages the Champions of Diversity so much as an opinion “diverse” from their own. The truth of this assertion may be found in the fact that it’s not so much an “imbalance” of conservative expression on the airwaves that liberals find intolerable, as much as that it exists at all.
And you can safely wager that if they’re successful in bringing “Fairness” to the airwaves, the next stop is the Internet.
Spurius Ligustinus on June 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM
Thank God for Mike Pence, Indiana’s finest! We will need him and other true conservative congressmen like him to save our country from the toilet we seem to be bound for.
revolutionismyname on June 27, 2007 at 1:26 PM
So here’s my other question… Would the (un)Fariness Doctrine demand that a conservitive talk-show host be required to pick up a liberal co-host, or would someone like Rush or Ingraham have to be counter-programmed with a lib in a different timeslot?
If it’s counter-programming, who’s to say which timeslot is fair then? Obviously morning and afternoon drive-time have more listeners than evening timeslots, so will my personal favorite talk show host (Howie Carr) have to alternate timeslots with a lib in order to be “fair?” Or will he have to give it up completely?
crazy_legs on June 27, 2007 at 1:28 PM
gary on June 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Bwaahaaaa
On-my-soap-box on June 27, 2007 at 1:30 PM
does the fairness doctrine extend to forcing google and Digg to stop the nutroots from burying articles that they disagree with ?
Does it allow the right to post articles in the NY Times attacking them for leaking national secrets to the enemy ?
Does it allow me to post on Huff and Puff or the Daily krazy without the comments being deleted ?
Or again is this a one sided issue ?
William Amos on June 27, 2007 at 1:31 PM
That’s not really fair. Kerry’s global warming book touches on all sorts of issues that Al Gore overlooked.
And his transforming robots movie coming this fall may look like Transformers, but it’ll be smarter and better.
saint kansas on June 27, 2007 at 1:40 PM
That’s Communese for shut down the media since Conservatives have figured out a way to get out their message and debate.
Hening on June 27, 2007 at 1:47 PM
If you cannot compete, you legislate.
This restricting free speech thing doesn’t sound so good to me.
I doubt it would stand Constitutional challenge.
drjohn on June 27, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Fairness Doctrine?
Isn’t Hugo doing that now?
drjohn on June 27, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Fairness Doctrine = Trojan Horse.
If the left is sincere about their position on the fairness doctrine they would hold a dem presidential debate on Fox.
swami on June 27, 2007 at 2:05 PM
So download the .FLV and host it yourself. It’s not like YouTube can scream about copyright violation. It’s their whole business plan.
mojo on June 27, 2007 at 2:23 PM
This is gaining popularity because people like us called our congresspersons en masse (over the shamnesty bill) and reminded them that they work for us. This is not only dangerous because of what it does overtly to free speech, it’s dangerous because the next time their feet are held to the fire on an issue – the next time we make our presence known, they will come up with more legislation to try to shut us up. It’s very very scary to me. We need to let them know that if they want to continue to pursue this, we will start a movement to get rid of tax dollars going to Public Radion and TV period, and we will use their own club to bludgeon them with cable TV etc.
foxforce91 on June 27, 2007 at 2:45 PM
We rally round the family
Drtuddle on June 27, 2007 at 2:50 PM
The FD is code for “free-market is killing us, lets do somthing about it”
Dont let them kid you.
Although on another note, what would happen to all the MSM outlets if somthing like FD were to come back into play ? would Olby and gang have to have someone like Glenn Beck sharing his airtime ? or Anne ?
Im completely against anything that hinders the progress of free market as simply put that is whats made America rocket past every other civilization in history. It breeds contest, and rivalry, and therefore better products, cheaper prices, but I digress.
What would really happen to the other mediums of news that carry the liberal agenda if this were to come to fruition?
palefaced on June 27, 2007 at 3:06 PM
The reason liberal radio talk shows don’t have staying power is because NO ONE LISTENS to them. To me, it’s a simple market economy, no listeners, no sponsors, no show….
We don’t need government dictating what we “should” be seeing or hearing. We have a brain.
Aggie85 on June 27, 2007 at 3:26 PM
..with a pocket fulla shells.
Alden Pyle on June 27, 2007 at 3:46 PM
Or again is this a one sided issue ?
William Amos on June 27, 2007 at 1:31 PM
That is rhetorical, right?
The Fairness Doctrine was removed during the RR years. Not exactly sure of the history. Heard his son Michael talking about it yesterday.
Left wing radio doesn’t work because the facts usually aren’t on their side. When someone calls up with facts to question what they say, the response is mostly derision, silence or in the case of Air America bankruptcy. It’s a consumer driven market, and Dims don’t like that. Their guys can’t compete, unless they buy the airtime. Which reults in Chapter 11.
It’s like when you watch hannity and Colmes. You know how Colmes tries to make his point by being snarky? It usually fails and either gets you angry or laughing at him. same concept
PowWow on June 27, 2007 at 3:56 PM
The “fairness doctrine” is just another example of Socialist semantics. It isn’t about “abortion,” it’s about “women’s health issues” and “choice.” It isn’t about “Socialism,” it’s about “liberalism.” It isn’t about rejecting “God,” it’s about embracing “Humanism.” This is how Socialism works. Don’t call it what it is, dumb it down so that it will be more palatable for the ignorant and the illiterate. The seeds of Socialism are illiteracy and ignorance – just look at our public schools.
The “fairness doctrine” is another attempt by the Socialists to destroy the free-market concept of supply and demand … with emphasis on demand. It’s an Orwellian term, calling for the suppression of Conservative thought.
Because Air American’t, the Socialists will.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 27, 2007 at 3:58 PM
If the Fairness Doctrine confiscates conservative programming and transfers it to liberal programming on radio, does that mean that it will also mandate some portion of the big city liberal newspapers go conservative along with the Big 3 network news shows? Will it demand that a conservative PBS be established to balance the current lefty PBS?
What an interesting Pandora’s box this would open.
Tantor on June 27, 2007 at 4:56 PM
well wow theres a shock the biggest traitor/coward piece of garbage in the senate wants to silence talk radio.
That this guy is walking around free when he should have been executed as a traitor 30 years ago is just amazing to me.
Great_Red_Dragon on June 27, 2007 at 5:08 PM
What some equal time Kerry go finish the time on your tour of duty in Viet Nam when you left your men behind.
Wade on June 27, 2007 at 5:59 PM
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Just a little reminder…….
conservativecaveman on June 27, 2007 at 6:21 PM
Bravo, first quote is right on!
As for the “fairness doctrine,” I’d just like to say, obvious liberal MSM hypocrisy argument aside, an old saying that my father likes to use…Life isn’t fair, A Fare is what you pay to ride the bus, kid.
hollygolightly on June 27, 2007 at 6:45 PM
That will be the day when turn to the Air-1 station and you have to hear a Christian view, a Muslim view, a Jewish view, a Satanist view, a Wiccan view, A Voodoo view, an Atheist view….
whatthecrap on June 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM
gberez on June 27, 2007 at 7:23 PM
The scariest thing about this whole thing is:
Who gets to decide?
Who defines which minutes count towards “conservative” speech vs “liberal” speech?
Who gets to decide which position is the “liberal” one and which the “conservative one? Or which one is “republican” and which “democrat”?
What about topics or policies that are reviled by both camps?
Fatal on June 27, 2007 at 7:44 PM
So, in a nutshell, the Fairness Doctrine is really the “Sensible Homo-sapien Impatient with The Hollering Of Lefty Elitists” doctrine? (Those of you fluent in acronyms will quickly recognize my view of this).
If there was a real market in every-day America for the Liberal message, no “doctrine” would be required. Substantial amounts of citizens would demand it; and it would appear as if by magic.
So far, without the Fairness Doctrine, the liberal message has been left to dangle in the breeze until some upstart jumps in and funds it. Then, it just withers away because it’s sinply NOT POPULAR with the American people.
The very idea that the Federal Government should introduce “fairness” into a market where the people have repeatedly spoken against the message the Fed wants to “promote” ought to raise red flags. You simply cannot force people to listen to or read what they don’t want to hear or read. Not in this country. The average, hard-working American doesn’t care to hear how they must cough up more tax money for Free Loading Scum or trees. They care about increased taxes (if needed) going towards things like national defense, and protecting American interests.
Am I speaking for a lot of people? Yes I am. Why? Because the trend bears witness. The liberal message of “never swing a fist, give what’s yours to others” just doesn’t fly with Americans. Contrary to our current “society” dictated to us by our “betters,” the average American knows what domestic causes are just and knows a punch in the snot-locker of the “international community” is sometimes justified.
I’m tired of “elected officials” who have never scraped a day’s hard labor off their backs determining what is “best” for my friends, my family, society in general and me personally . We (The People) need blue-collar representation at all levels of the Federal Government. Someone who isn’t afraid to stand up on the House or Senate floor and say, “That’s a bunch of bullshit, sir/ma’am!” We need blue-collar courage in the two greatest fights we are currently facing. First, the resistance against global jihad. Second, the resistance against our own government.
American_Jihadist on June 27, 2007 at 9:51 PM
There are many serious reasons why not to have the FD and ET, one being not to have to listen to this haughty creature’s voice and that of the Reaper. Add Gore and J. Carter and I’m maxed out on snooty and idiotic tolerance.
Entelechy on June 27, 2007 at 10:20 PM
For everybody who is asking a question in the vein of…
“Won’t that mean we can demand that the MSM gets balanced with more conservative views?”
I have bad news for you. Those Who Know Best believe that the MSM is already balanced, or slightly right-leaning, believe it or not. They would see no reason to make any adjustments towards a balance that they believe already exists. That would be true for broadcast and print media. It is only talk radio, where the socialists are getting clobbered, that they find unfair.
I tell you a truth. When a socialist uses any variation of the word FAIR, grab your wallet with one hand and your Constitution with the other, because they are after one or the other.
But while we scream about the Fairness Doctrine, we have allowed a thousand other, smaller versions of the same crime to go unchallenged.
- Every law made by Congress that entitles one American to the money confiscated from another American.
- Every dollar of foreign aid to a nation that doesn’t consider us an ally (some would say EVERY dollar of foreign aid, period).
- Every attempt of government to create or control the operations of business.
- Every federal law that criminalizes non-criminal activities.
- Virtually every word of the current tax code, which creates special classes of citizenry both for greater and lesser tax-grabbing, as well as the criminally progressive tax rates.
- Untold other pieces of shinola with which our faces are slapped regularly, and we aren’t even aware of it.
conservativecaveman quoted the Declaration of Independence, specifically paragraphs dealing with the human right to revolt against a non-benevolent government. How close are we?
Freelancer on June 28, 2007 at 2:58 AM