A senior Pentagon official in charge of military detainees suspected of terrorism is getting a well-deserve pounding for suggesting that corporate clients shouldn’t do business with a legal firm that represents prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On Federal News Radio last week, Charles D. Stimson named more than a dozen law firms that provide legal assistance, and he said that “CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms.”
But as Karen J. Mathis, president of the American Bar Association, responded: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales agreed. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- littlejohn on Open thread 11/23
- donndublin on Open thread 11/23
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Open thread 11/23
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
125 Comments
“A senior Pentagon official” is an idiot. Competent legal representation is one of the bedrocks of this system, and there is a long and honorable tradition and culture of providing pro bono legal assistance. Good for these firms, for holding the government’s feet to the fire and making sure that they abide by the law.
The government is going to have to make its case in court, and justify it’s position in the face of competent legal counsel. That is as it should be. If the government’s position is legally sound, such representation should not be a threat; on the contrary, it’s a blessing, in the long run. And we are all served by same.
It sounds to me like Gonzales is taking a very anti-American view of this situation.
Those that help the terrorists are with the terrorists, right? Shouldn’t these lawyers be imprisoned also?
Didn’t Bush say that you are either with us or against us?
I am guessing that Gonzales is secretly a traitor.
GMC is of course right. Duh.
But this “senior pentagon official” is merely stating that which has been the well-documented modus operandi of this administration since 9-11.
“Guilty until proven innocent” has been their de facto standard.
P.S. It IS interesting to see Gonzales state the obvious. But the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. Gonzales was fully on board for the “some evidence” standard and indefinite detention with no charges, among other things.
I guess even Gonzales can smell which way the wind is blowing.
thanks rage I was going to point that out. Gonzales was part and parcel with Cheney and Rumsfield on the treatment of SUSPECTED enemy combatants. He was willing to have even born and lived here all their lifes deny legal status.
He was the one that suggested that Bush&Co, instead of calling them P.O.W. calling them illegal combatants. Because it would give them some what a legal leg to stand on in the case that anyone was tried for being a war criminal or charged with crimes against humanity.
He is sing a totally different song it would seem now.
Judgment is reserved either on the ability in knowing all the facts or is it reserved for knowing some of the facts.
Perhaps Justice is the term I seek. Knowing all of the facts may be impossible to obtain. Making informed decisions on knowing enough facts may work in the eyes of American Law.
But does it comply with Muslim Law. Surely we all know even after we make our most informed decision as applicable with our current law that this too will be insufficient in the eyes of some, especially the Muslim.
World Court maybe? Well, that too is not seen in the eyes of Muslims as sufficient.
What then? Can we make our decision on how to be put these “illegal Combatatants” on trial, define their status, understand the charges and determine if the charges apply to their status if that status is determined to be triable?
Let’s say that we determine illegal combatant status is triable under our laws. Who makes the rules for the sentencing? I mean,is it worse than kidnapping but not as bad as rape? Or is it like special circumstances in Capital murder cases?
What if we to do nothing, but hold these illegal combatants until they died by attrition or natural causes? Would this perpetuate a new standard of Justice? Or would it invoke ferocious debate on the status of the individuals held?
What if the detainees were all let free and they once again committed atrocities against Citizens of the United States? Who would we blame? The Justice system or whoever is in charge at the moment?
What if we freed them and nothing happened? Who would we reprimand for in the minds of some unlawfully detaining them? Or would the status question come back to haunt us. In other words we could not prosecute a reprimand because certain status was never determined.
Perhaps…
Now if the question is if we the taxpayers should have to pay for this legal counsel, then I feel we have a say in the matter. But who is paying for this legal counsel for the detainees. Does anybody know?
Gonzales is at my house right now.He’s cooking breakfast for terrorists.Just ask woody.He knows I’m a terrorist coddler.
You guys hear about the border patrol agent that got sent to prison?
• Stopped a van that crossed illegally• Found drugs in said van• Chased two illegals• One illegal pulled something shiny from his pocket• Border patrol shot him in the butt• Bad guys got away• Slimy Texas lawyer went across the border, gave them amnesty for crossing illegally and bring in DRUGS to prosecute the agents• Agents found guilty• Jury was tampered with
Is THIS un-American?????
Yes, tracy. You seem to think this administation is more dangerous that the terrorists.Like the rest of you people, your hatred for Bush makes you blind.
Sollie, I’ve been following this one.It is outragous and should not stand.Here’s some BUSH PARDONS from last september:
Gene Armand Bridger, Elkhart, Ind., conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud, sentenced May 29, 1963, to five years probation.
Cathryn Iline Clasen-Gage, Rockwall, Texas, misprision of a felony, sentenced Aug. 21, 1992, to 18 months in prison and a year of supervised release.
Thomas Kimble Collinsworth, Buckner, Ark., receipt of a stolen motor vehicle that had been transported in interstate commerce, sentenced Aug. 22, 1989, to three years probation and a $5,000 fine.
Morris F. Cranmer Jr., Little Rock, Ark., making materially false statements to a federally insured institution, sentenced March 30, 1988 to nine months in jail.
Rusty Lawrence Elliott, Mount Pleasant, Tenn., making counterfeit money, sentenced April 26, 1991, to a year and a day in prison, two years supervised release and a $500 fine.
Adam Wade Graham, Salt Lake City, Utah, conspiracy to deliver 10 or more grams of LSD, sentenced Nov. 23, 1992 to 30 months in prison and five years of supervised release, including 250 hours of community service.
Rufus Edward Harris, Canon, Ga., possession of tax-unpaid whiskey, sentenced June 17, 1963, to two years in prison, possession and sale of tax-unpaid whiskey. He also was on May 28, 1970 to five years in prison, later reduced to two years probation.
Larry Paul Lenius, Moorhead, Minn., conspiracy to distribute cocaine, sentenced Sept. 29, 1989, to 36 months probation and payment of $2,500 in restitution.
Larry Lee Lopez, Bokeelia, Fla., conspiracy to import marijuana, sentenced July 19, 1985 to three years probation.
Bobbie Archie Maxwell, Lansing, Mich., mailing a threatening letter, sentenced Sept. 6, 1962, to 12 months probation.
Denise Bitters Mendelkow, Salt Lake City, Utah, embezzlement by a bank employee, sentenced May 21, 1981, to two years probation.
Michael John Pozorski, Schofield, Wis., unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, sentenced Sept. 14, 1988, to four years probation and payment of a $750 fine.
Mark Lewis Weber, Sherwood, Ark., selling Quaalude tablets, selling, using and possessing marijuana, sentenced Aug. 20, 1981, following Air Force court-martial to 30 months confinement at hard labor, forfeiture of 30 months pay at $334 a month and a dishonorable discharge.
SEEMS TO ME WE NEED A PARDONfor these border agents.Among a lot of badly needed policy changes.
woody you’re a nut.grow a brain and use it.
Good one, tracy.
This admin has killed far more innocent people than terrorists EVER could.And for no good reason, except a bunch of lies and bad intel.sheeshAdmit it, live with it, and do something to help make this country better,damn.
THANKS
Those pardons kinda’ make ya’ wonder who the hell these folks are related to.Lobbyists?Congress-critters?Both?
From the linked article, it appears that the attorneys representing the detainees are so doing pro bono. There is no evidence of which I am aware to the contrary.
Tracy:
For the record-
The border patrol agents shot first, then found the drugs. They also removed the evidence of shell casings from the scene, and encouraged other agents who arrived on the scene to help them in their “cover-up.” This occurred the day after a training session in which agents were informed of proper procedures- which DOES NOT involve shooting first and the removal of evidence from a crime scene. Anything pointing to criminal activity on the part of the person shot was found after the fact.
Jane,Except for the fact that they were illegal and were running form the agents?
But of course, the shot man was brown, which by some would be considered prima facie evidence of his guilt.
Again, any evidence of illegal activity was found after the man had been shot. Shoot first, ask questions later is not proper procedure. No gun was ever found on the illegals, or in their van.
So come on over, one and all. Bring a van of drugs with you. All are welcome…..
The testimony was that the illegal pulled something shiny from his pocket. So would you have the agent be shot first, then shoot back?
If someone is running from the police, wouldn’t it stand to reason that something against the law has transpired? Why would he run if all was well?
Nice try to muddy the waters. How could they know he was illegal before they apprehended him? If he was running away from the agents, how were they in danger? This is a matter or proportionality, police officers or border agents do not have the authority to shoot at will. If the agents had nothing to hide, why did they attempt to destroy the crime scene? Anyone can give testimony after the fact in an attempt to justify their actions. Their actions were not justified under the law, THAT is why they were convicted.
FYI: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52545
At trial, Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof told the court that the agents had violated an unarmed Aldrete-Davila’s civil rights.
“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled it is a violation of someone’s Fourth Amendment rights to shoot them in the back while fleeing if you don’t know who they are and/or if you don’t know they have a weapon,” said Kanof.
Kanof dismissed Ramos’ testimony that he had seen something shiny in the smuggler’s hand, saying that the agent couldn’t be sure it was a gun he had seen.
Further, Kanof argued, it was a violation of Border Patrol policy for agents to pursue fleeing suspects.
“Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not,” she told the Daily Bulletin.
Those shell casings Compean picked up were described to the jury as destroying the crime scene and their failure to file an incident report – punishable by a five-day suspension, according to Border Patrol regulations – an attempted cover up.
–àFurther, Kanof argued, it was a violation of Border Patrol policy for agents to pursue fleeing suspects.
“Agents are not allowed to pursue. In order to exceed the speed limit, you have to get supervisor approval, and they did not,” she told the Daily Bulletin.ß–
Enforcing the law? Only if you have a supervisory approval form CYA-1045B on file for each excessive use of either weapons or other devices residing within 10 ft of your person at the time temptation made you want to consider the possibility that you might endeavor in some minor manner to quietly establish an of action that could be construed as securing the borders of the United States.
Joking aside, the agents had their day in court. Let them appeal.
the judge “denied the defense’s motion for a new trial on the basis that three jurors said they were misled by the jury foreman and voted guilty because they thought they were not allowed to have a hung jury.”
thenewamerican.com/artman/publish/article_4292.shtml
Sol, be very skeptical of post-trial statements, etc., of jurors, especially when it’s a “said” not “testified” or “by affidavit claimed”, etc.
If there was jury misconduct, let the appellate court sort it out; right now, it sounds to me that three of the jury members have had second thoughts, perhaps of post-trial pressures, perhaps due to their own misgivings, and are saying what the defense wants them to say.
You people hate your country and what it represents. It drips from every pathetic word uttered here day in and day out. I am glad that you don’t represent anything the average kansan belives in.
dr: just what does the average Kansan believe in? I’m interested in hearing your thoughts?
I wonder what constitutes a “normal Kansan”?
And by whom?
“During his trial, Ismoil’s defense team contended that he did not know a bomb was in the vehicle and had been told it was a shipment of cleaning products.
“In court Friday, defense attorney Louis Aidala likened Ismoil to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and said history has shown that ‘yesterday’s terrorist may be today’s peace negotiator.’”
This was the vigorous free legal representation afforded to Eyad Ismoil – a conspirator in the first WTC attack. Mr. Ismoil’s release date is set for 08-30-2204 (that is no typo) – he just has a little under two more centuries of time to do.
This trial was in 1998. Have times changed enough that no defense attorney would ever say anything like the above? My first thought when I read the above quote was, ‘times have sure changed.’
Ismoil attended WSU from 1989 till 1993, I believe. He studied engineering.
A link to the above quote:
http://www.cnn.com/US/9804/03/wtc.bombing/
Curiously…
Jane? Do you work for the ACLU?
Even Gonzalez agrees:
“Attorney General Alberto Gonzales agreed. “Good lawyers representing the detainees is the best way to ensure that justice is done in these cases,” he said.”
I am a supporter of the death penalty in certain cases. However, i want to be DAMN SURE we got the right guy. As GMC (hardly a ‘lib’) notes above, ” Competent legal representation is one of the bedrocks of this system, and there is a long and honorable tradition and culture of providing pro bono legal assistance.”
I join in with GMC’s comments as posted above; no one should fear legal representation by competent counsel, as it strengthens, rather than weakens, the society is well served.
I’m not a lib and there is no question that the defense lawyer is what makes the legal system work. Everybody, even tracy, deserves a good defense.Also, unlike some of my right thinking bretheren, I don’t loathe the ACLU. That would be like shooting the messenger, when it’s the ruling judge who should be shot.
Civil Liberties- It’s what The USA was founded upon. And that’s not doublespeak.
Jane, I wonder how you line up with a bill that will be introduced in this congressional session that will make it necessary to offer a liberal viewpoint to counter any conservative viewpoint on commercial radio. I just caught part of this discussion today and can’t furnish the sponsor of the bill but heard his defense of this attack on free speech. Just wondering how others feel about this. I to think that our civil rights are the most important right that we have.
If anybody has a link to the story ksgrm is talking about, I’d like to see it.
When Bush took over in 2001, his administration inserted oversight at NPR to insure that any liberal view, was countered by a conservative take. I wondered when I read grm’s post if she was thinking of that manuever. Or, this story sounds suspiciously like right wing conspiracy urban myth, too. I don’t think the government could require commericial stations to put out any particular viewpoint. On its face, this story is not passing the smell test.
My apologies to ksgrm, there is something to her story. It is about bringing back the “Fairness Doctrine” – when there was an attempt to provide more balanced news. It was abandoned under Ronald Reagan.
http://www.aim.org/guest_column/5167_0_6_0_C/
I am against this, I think. Liberals don’t listen to radio, let the conservative hate mongers have it – is my view.
No this is a current story. I heard the sponsor talking today but unfortunately I don’t have his name. Hopefully it will come to nothing. With PBS there is a flipside to the coin. Both conservative and liberal tax payers are footing the bill. But with commercial radio this isn’t the case. Sorry I don’t have more details.
This is my opinion, not necessarily a justification for either side liberal or conservative.
In Liberal Radio, Press and other mass media markets they tend to talk about trend issues or stated otherwise issues that are current to the movement of the times. Liberals appear to have values based on their education, occupation and up bringing.
Now for conservatives. Substitute the world conservative for liberal in the above paragraph. :)
So, one might ask what is the difference is betwen liberal and conservative might be.
In general, but not in 100 percent of the cases, conservatives tend to hold onto values held from their childhood and massaged along the way by their idea of the conservative pathway.
Liberals, but not 100 percent of the cases, following what occurs to them after they become adults to follow the path of what is trendy or current to the times. They usually won’t hold the same values of their parents, unless they were liberals as well and tend to be more independent and have a tendency to be focused on topic of the day.
There is course, enough differences between the two mind sets to fill a library or several libraries.
But in general Conservatives listen to talk radio because they can capture sound bites of information for decision making in their chose path.
Liberals tend to like long and drawn out commentaries, documentaries and other longer forms of communications that convince them by appeal of emotion or “universal” set of standards. In shorter words, their opinion is not set by the borders of the U.S. on all matters.
Conservatives tend to restrict their decisions on what is good for the U.S.
Oddly enough, liberals tend to want to be Isolationists while Conservatives do not object to push their ideologies outside of their own border.
A contradiction in belief system, but it tends to be true more often than not.
I have studied various civilizations that have failed and found that as their social structure became looser and their sense of morality changed it weakened the infrastructure of their nations. It a recent ethics class we were reminded of this and one point that the professor expounded on was that family structure became weaker and the role in families by government became stronger. As I look around I wonder if that isn’t the way we are heading. I am a conservative but not an isolationist. I can see that we are drawn into a global economy whether it is best for us or not. I also see that our country has became a melting pot for immigrants that are leaving countries where their governments have failed them and are now trying to change our country to mirror that of their doomed governments. The problem with this is that there is a large segment of our country that feels we should let everyone do their own thing. I hope it isn’t fatal for the good ole USofA.
Steven I wonder if you refer to Paul Begalla, James Carville and Chris Matthews as hate mongers or if they are just good commentators.
An interesting analysis, JM, regarding conservative v. liberal attitudes.
I have found that those from my generation (people try to put us down) tend to be more liberal in inverse relationship to the conservatism of their parents. That is, the more conservative the parent – the more liberal the children as adults.
My a mother was a moderate Republican. My a father is a far right wing hard core Republican.
Of course, I am a far left liberal. Actually, I am far left politically while being personally moderate.
My generation (just because we get around) is not necessarily a good example due to the Vietnam War, but it still is interesting.
“The problem with this is that there is a large segment of our country that feels we should let everyone do their own thing.”
So, in the absence of “letting everyone do their own thing” how should society manage the population? Who should make the rules and how should they be enforced?
And what happened to freedom of choice?
WS I won’t pretend to have all the answers. I have grandchildren growing up in todays world and I do worry about the state of the world we are leaving them. I grew up in the sixties and we were the original “if it feels good” do it generation. I was raised by a ‘yellow dog’ democrat but don’t feel that either party is what they were then. There are good and bad in both parties. I realize that. I just want this country to survive for those to come behind us. Neither party has all the answers and if we don’t wake up and realize that I am afraid of what our kids and grandkids will inherit.
My three children are adults and are generally liberal, but perhaps not as liberal as I am, with one exception.
My grandchildren are too young to know the hypocrisy of politics yet. My granddaughter is Native American, while my grandson is mostly white, with the inherited mix that I add to the gene pool.
My granddaughter knows that she is Native but does not think anything of it. Her only complaint is that her black hair is not curly like her best friend’s African American hair.
I believe that our youngest generation will have less racism, less sexism, less homophobia and less xenophobia than my generation (hope I die before I get old.)
I am more worried about the debt we are leaving for our children and grandchildren. I am also extremely worried about the horrid view of America that the rest of the world now holds thanks to GWB. We are now the most hated country on the planet – and most of that is due to George W Bush.
In my view, at age 54, I will never live to see America held in the esteem that the world viewed us right after WW II.
We are now a debtor nation. China holds the key to our economic future. Most in the Middle East hate us with a jihadist’s passion. Even moderate Arab and Muslim countries hate America now. Thanks to Iran-Contra, Allende and the attempted overthrow of Chavez, most of South America hates us now. We are no longer the ugly Americans – we are now the “butt ugly, don’t look or you’ll puke Americans” to most of the world.
Before too much time passes, we need to realize that America does not rule the world, but we do have to play our part in the world as a whole or risk total alienation.
And for Christ’s sake, we have to do something about our national debt, the deficit and our future entitlement obligations. We are halfway down that slippery slope and we are picking up speed.
Steven let me help you out.
What germie is referencing is from the Sean Hannity show!
Oh I heard it too germie. Ol’ Sean talked over his guest the whole length of the interview.
Germie? You and Sean maintain that the media is liberal and that talk radio provides balance.
Um ok.
In Wichita, right wing unanswered unopposed radio runs from 9 AM in the morning until 3 AM the next day.
Balance? Germies pal railed for a year! “You don’t wanna wake up to hear Speaker of the House Pelosi.”
Ol’ Sean pleaded and wheedled and begged and cajoled folks to get out and vote for Republicans.
Germie? Can you show me a similar liberal outlet?
Nope you can’t. In fact the media is not liberal at all. It just is not conservative and so….liberal. Kind of like if something is not entirely true…. well it must be entirely false!
Why are conservatives afraid of a fairness doctrine? Is it because that doctrine was repealed in 1987 by RONALD REAGAN after 48 years and thus heralded the Republican takeover in 1994?
Are conservative defending the need to have wall to wall lies posted on the air to deceive otherwise good folks to vote against their own best interests? Are they really so afraid of fairness and truth?
We MUST have a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Ol’ Sean and Rush and Boortx and Savage can do point counterpoint.
Can’t they?
JR – how have Rush, Hannity, O-Reilley, Boorst, et.al. reacted to Pelosi? Any heart attacks or strokes?
J R,
I don’t know about the fairness doctrine, sorry to say. If people don’t know that Rush, Sean, et al. are full of shit, there is absolutely no hope for them anyway.
I don’t want the government imposing its version of truth upon NPR or the Rush Limbaugh show.
Thank you.
“Steven I wonder if you refer to Paul Begalla, James Carville and Chris Matthews as hate mongers or if they are just good commentators.”
Sorry grm, I don’t have cable and when my parents invite me to view such stuff, I am not impressed.
Nice try, from a conserative stance, to discredit me. You’ll have to do better than that weak attempt.
Steven I am not trying to discredit you. I really wonder how the lines are drawn. I do listen to Sean and Rush on occassion – not all the time or I would have known the whole story today. I also listen to Chris Matthews and Paul Begalla and I can’t tell the difference in their talk except they are talking about different people. It does scare me that anyone’s voice will be silenced but it also bothers me that government wants to step in and control commercial airwaves. They are licensed by the FCC and are then allowed to broadcast the programs that will allow them to sell advertising. Take Howard Stern for instance, I take offense at the language he uses. But as an employee of SIRRUS he has been given the go ahead to use that language. When government comes into the mix – what do we do tell them they have to give Billy Graham equal time.
Good points, ksgrm.
We agree.
There is no intention of silencing anyone.
Rush gets to vent his anal gasses for 2 minutes. A 2 minute rebuttal from someone who is not insanely self absorbed to the point of claiming divine inspiration.
Hannity gets to be the pretty poster boy for the will of Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes for 5 minutes. And then the voice of those NOT controlled by the super rich get their 5.
Steven? Do you imagine for one minute that the ascendance of the right and the demise of the fairness doctrine are just coincidence?
The Fairness Doctrine had stood for 48 years. It was Reagan that repealed it.
That would be the SAME Reagan that sold out everything he formerly believed in …..for money.
Sort of like germie confesses to doing.
Oh I know so many good good people who listen to Rush and Hannity and that crowd. They buy the lies and vote against their own interests.
Can we PLEASE just have equal time? The rich and the right already control…..everything.
Can we please have folks to talk and tell folks what they need to do and how they need to vote to have a fighting chance?
JR,
You do have fair time. It was called Air America was it not?
And why is it failing? Why is it loosing it’s radio hosts?
It is because not enough liberals listen to it to make it worth while.
Quit crying because not enough people wanted to listen to that liberal crap.
The fairness doctrine is nothing more than state funded liberalism when we already have NPR.
Get over yourself already.
JR,
You show your typical liberal colors.
You are jealous of the success conservative radio hosts have and instead of going out and becoming successful on your own you demand that the Government make things “fair”
“Steven? Do you imagine for one minute that the ascendance of the right and the demise of the fairness doctrine are just coincidence?”
J R, let me type this slowly, I have met you, and I know you are not stupid. Our ideas are so much better than the crap those lame-ass jerks can provide, that I feel pretty confident, we DON’T need the government’s help in winning the ideological conflict. Okay?
JR I wasn’t aware that I knew you personally so I am interested in when you found out that I sold out for money. I keep looking for the money but can’t find it and I am still standing up for the things I believe in. If enough liberals would listen to Air America this would be an unnecessary debate. Government trying to decide when to allow an oppossing argument scares me. Who could we put in charge of this? From what I have seen here tonight I am amazed that so many liberals do listen to talk radio and it appears to be more than I do.
Sure, bring back the Fairness Doctrine. But let’s apply it to Newspapers and Periodicals as well.
heh heh
And to your posts, JM.
It’s a blog Steven Davis.
No one is stopping you expressing your views or opinions. :)
I didn’t say anyone was anyone was interested in such supression.
:-)
Need some tea?
always
Good to know…
JR,
How much time did you spend listening to liberal talk shows a day?
I can tell you that when I am home I am constantly listening to Either Neil Bortz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Bill Oriely, Mike Savage… etc.
That is why they do well, because people listen to them.
JM,
Thats just it JM. Once you start saying fairness doctrine about anything other than radio you will hear the whoops and hollars of outrage.
But since there is one thing which seems to be more dominated by conervatives, the radio, who cares?
There is nothing “fair” about the fairness doctrine.
Nathan,
“I can tell you that when I am home I am constantly listening to Either Neil Bortz, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Bill Oriely, Mike Savage… etc..
That is why they do well, because people listen to them.”
And THAT is why so many Americans are misinformed on vital issues.
UPDATE to the thread header,
‘U.S. Official Apologizes for Guantanamo Remarks’http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601442.html
Cosmos,
I am informed just fine. Because I don’t share the same liberal philosophy as you do doesn’t make me uninformed.
So, JR -
Your goal is to impose a contrary view (YOURS? Why yours?) on private, non-government run outlets, because – lets see – you disagree with them.
You have HEARD of the 1st amendment, haven’t you?
Let’s get out in the open what this is really about. JR believes that ONLY his view is THE correct one, and that those of us who dare to disagree with him are the great unwashed masses who need his guidance. If we just knew better; if we were just better “informed,” why, then, we’d all think like JR. JR can’t imagine that a reasonable person could possibly disagree with him; why, if you disagree with him, you’re by definition not a reasonable person, and you desperately need government imposed “re-education” (i.e “fairness” doctrine).
P-lease. A free press must stay just that – a FREE press. JR, if you don’t like what those outlets print or say, don’t watch. Period. Read or watch what you like. But don’t presume to impose your point of view on anyone else you disagree with. Don’t like Fox? Don’t watch.
Simple.
The price of a free press is that you will have media you disagree with.
Good job GMC!
You got it just exactly ass backwards and downside up.
Re read councilor. In advocating the fairness doctrine I am in favor of ALL points of view being heard.
YOU will say “Let the market decide”. That would be fine except for the fact that Hannity and Rush are MANDATED programming on a large number of corporate owned radio stations. They are on because management says PUT THESE SHOWS ON.
I have this battle with the Heckler all the time. He always dances away.
You show me an outlet for liberal speech that even approaches the reach, power and influence of right wing radio. Show me an outlet that openly campaigns for democrats as talk radio does for republicans.
GMC? I know the founders were wealthy white men. And I know it was their tendency to want to reserve power and voice to themselves. But saying there is a first amendment issue here is a bit of a stretch. That is unless you are advocating that free speech means you have just as big a voice as you can afford/
Is THAT what you are advocating?
Oh and Steven you are mistaken if you think this is not necessary. Let me show you why.
Fairness doctrine was introduced in 1949.
The democrats controlled Congress.
Now I know. That fits my agenda. But think about the country. Wasn’t it getting better all the time over those years?
Well along comes Ronald Reagan. Hey I loved the man. I bought into all of his sunshiny lies.
Well he repeals the fairness doctrine in 1987. Here comes Rush Limbaugh with his lies. And boy does he fool a lot of people.
The GOP takes over in 1994. Now you tell me the country has been getting better since 1994.
We now have an entire generation of people that have been raised on the lies of talk radio.
Where is the balance? The mainstream media isn’t liberal! It just isn’t conservative.
In Lib World the goverment would prop up Lib Radio because it has been proven that that is the only way it can survive in a market economy. One has to wonder why that is. A few years ago it could not be proven, but, thanks to Air America everybody knows it and the Lib World residents don’t like it. “There aughta be a law”Can’t compete in the free market of ideas = No successful Lib Radio
Nathan,
You believe that most Americans who listen to Rush et al know the Pentagon estimates that Bush’s “surge” could cause U.S. military deaths to exceed 6,000 this year?
And 10,000+ dead by end of 2008? More than 100,000 wounded?
That battle-weary soldiers are more likely to make mistakes, and cause casualties?
That Pentagon report was given to the WH, two days before Rice told Boxer (and the Senate committee) that it was impossible to make such estimates.
No corporate control of the airwaves = lib radio doesn’t get a chance.
If your oft quoted by right wing radio demographic were correct BDP fleet, why elections should not even be close! Liberals should be so outnumnbered as to never be heard from!
The country is about evenly split. Thing is only one side gets to be heard.
cosmos,
Could you provide a link to these reports or where you are getting your info from please?
Did you also know that initial causulty reports for our invasion of Iraq were over 10,000?
I really would like to know where they are coming from, because I don’t see how that many causulties will result in an increas of 20,000 troops.
jr-Hogwash. If you answer why Air America failed, you will be one step closer to the truth.
I watched ‘Shoot Out’ on the history channel last night. Heard a young buck state that – “I would like to serve 6 months, cycle back home for 15 days, then return for another 6 months.”
This, and other things I’ve heard from people who have actually been there, seems to be the mentality. The troops believe in what they are doing. We have a highly motivated force engaged. When I was in the Gulf War, we were kind of disappointed that it was over so quickly. Our chance to serve as our fathers had in a time of war, and it was over before it really started.
The press and those that have never served will never, and should never attempt to, understand the brotherhood of service.
JR,
I noticed you ignored the comments about Air America. The great liberal wonder of radio.
Why are you not listening to it?
Last time I checked, there was AM radio and FM radio. You could listen to an entire multitude of different stations on FM let alone the ones on AM.
You are going to sit here crying about only conservatives on the radio?
You are, quite frankly, full of BS.
The consumer doesn’t have to listen to News Talk 1240 every day. As a matter of fact, more people are probably listening to the smut monger Howerd Stern when he is on than Rush Limbaugh and Rush Limbaugh has a large audience.
You sit here and pretend like Rush Limbaugh was handed an audience of around 20 million.
It is quite the opposite. Those 20 million purposefully and intentionally turn their radio stations to listen to Rush Limbaugh.
They have a choice to listen to many other radio stations, no one is forcing those 20 million to tune into Rush Limbaugh.
Yet you sit here acting like the only station on the Radio is Conservative talk radio.
You have no understanding of how the market works, you are little more than some conspiracy theorist nut job talking about the “coincidences” of Rush coming on the air and the Republicans taking office.
Give me a break.
So, once again, please tell me why you are not listening to Air America?
As you must know Nathan, Air America is not and has never been broadcast in Wichita. At least not to my knowledge.
And I DO know how the market works. Or doesn’t work when it is controlled by outside forces.
Oh and you can spare me the name calling Nathan. Or I could engage you in it.
Before 1987? There was no shortage of right wingers on the radio. I listened to a regular Ronald Reagan feature called “viewpoint” for years.
The REPEAL of the fairness doctrine allowed the market to go unbalanced.
AGAIN. The Fairness doctrine silences NO ONE. I would never be in favor of restricting speech.
WHY are the right wing radio shills so afraid? They can hold their own against the other side.
Can’t they?
Why do leftist talk shows need gov’t help? It is a free market. Buy the air time and balance things out for themselves.
This is what gives Libs a bad name, run to the gov’t whenever you want to change things. Why should they try to do it for themselves?
JR,
If you really wanted Air America you could have gone out of your way to get Satelite Radio or even probably some type of internet subscription?
I was fortunate enough to have someone donate Rush 24/7 to me so I can still listen to the show out here. :)
From my perspective, the growth of “right wing talk radio” was the result of not only repeal of the fairness doctrine, but also the changes over time in the FCC regulations concerning ownership of outlets. By enlarging the number of outlets which could be under “common control”, this allowed a shrinkage in the actual number of owners of the various stations. If the owners felt it was in their commercial interest to provide the programming being complained of/supported by the various posters here, the lack of the fairness doctrine to a small degree allowed them to so do.
Thank you Vaughn.
I had forgotten to mention the effects of deregulation and the resulting “free” market.
Nathan you make my point for me. Air America is not as freely available in my market as the conservative viewpoint is.
The sponsors of the “Fairness Doctrine” no that few listen to liberal radio. So an even playing field is not the goal. When radio stations are forced to provide a liberal show that draws no one because their profitable show is conservative, it makes the conservative show less profitable. The goal is get the stations to quit carrying conservative talk radio.
Of course only the marginal or local shows would be hurt. Limbaugh, Hannity and the like will be around regardless.
For those who might be interested, I direct your attention to the SCOTUS opinion in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969), which held that the “Fairness Doctrine” was not unconstitutional. Contained in the court’s opinion is the language of the FCC rule itself. Read and enjoy.
We didn’t get the Howard Stern show in Wichita when he was on the “air”.Who should I have gone to to whine about that?
JR you have actually made our point for us. Talk radio doesn’t tell its listeners how to think, it gives them facts with which they make an informed opinion.
You said: “If your oft quoted by right wing radio demographic were correct BDP fleet, why elections should not even be close! Liberals should be so outnumnbered as to never be heard from!”
This is entirely accurate. Conservatives don’t vote as a block as liberals do. We make up our own minds and vote for the candidates who we feel will advance our interests best.
Government in a free society should never be in a position to limit a business from profitably running their own business.
ksgrm-Please, let the left wing continue to believe that we can’t think for ourselves. All they have to throw out, sometimes, is we listen to Rush, Hannity, etc, THEN know what to believe.We don’t jump them for going to the left wing websites to get their ideas. We could, but we don’t. We have more class than that.I will now cut and paste several pages from a wacko Lib site, but I’m ashamed to tell you what it is.
“Government in a free society should never be in a position to limit a business from profitably running their own business.”
Really germie you are too easy.
Hey I want you to post that sentiment again on the next abortion thread though.
But lets stick with that sentiment. Well you surely must be against ALL wage laws, OSHA standards and collective bargaining. And that is just for a start.
A totally free market ineveitably brings tyranny.J R 2007
Figures.
Do you have any idea how hypocritical you look? YOUR side whines incessentally about the “liberal” media.
I have asked you to provide examples of media that are anywhere near as liberal as talk radio is conservative. You can’t do that.
And I’M the whiner for demanding that all sides get an equal hearing?
PS Wait a while. I will catch a ditto head or one of the Hannitized spouting directly from the mouth of the master.
Challenge to the bloggers:
Call your fellow bloggers by the name they actually have on the blog and not some sort of inflammatory “I’m better than you” handle.
For starters listen to Paul Begalla, James Carville or Chris Matthews. They collectively haven’t got a conservative thought between them. The whole CNN network – I feel about them the way you feel about FOX. But FOX does let the liberals have a voice – Alan Combs for one.
I have never said abortion clinics should be shut down. I have said you can’t legislate morality. And I have also said that even abortion clinics are not above the law. Nuff said.
Why do you start demeaning people when they make a very valid point. That is always when I know I have made a point for which you have no rebuttal.
JR I’m sorry I didn’t answer your questions about wage laws, osha and the other things you threw out. Give me examples of when conservatives have lobbied against these.
JM,
Amen. I don’t mind sollie though. JR, I will be the first. No more junior k?
Wage laws? Kill em. OSHA, keep it, it is for SAFETY – duh. Collective bargaining. Ban it. This is America, not some socialist swine hole. If you can’t barter for a better wage, then maybe you aren’t good enough to deserve one.
When I ask for a raise, I know my reputation speaks for itself. Not much bargaining needed.
The liberals don’t call Alan Colmes the “stooge” for nothing. He is the straight man for Hannity’s schtick.
I think sol just gave an example of conservatives lobbying on the side of unregulated employee abuse. SO I don’t need to address that. Except to say that without others standing up for the worker, sol would stand on lower ground. And if he has any sense he knows it.
ksgrm (I’ll play ceasefire for now. But you are going to have to earn it.)
What valid example did you provide? CNN has liberals on its network? And?
Right wing radio actively campaigns for Republicans and conservatism. There is NO similar liberal comparison you can name.
The fairness doctrine is just that. An attempt to address an imbalance.
J R,
Seeking your opinion on this. Is the Fairness Doctrine Constitutional?
Or how does the Constitution and subsequent Amendments not provide the ability of free speech?
At what point does the Fairness Doctrine draw the line? I mean if ABC News TV puts on a special talking about White Supremacists, do the White Supremacists have the right to put an equal documentary on ABC News TV that shows their view?
At what point does one draw the line? Who decides what is fair and what is not fair? The courts?
If that is true, shall every challenged broadcast or publication be challenged in court before it is released to the public?
“Except to say that without others standing up for the worker, sol would stand on lower ground.”
And just how, exactly is that the lower ground? If I were being abused at the workplace, I wouldn’t go there any more.
I don’t need anyone to hold my hand and tell me what I’m worth. I do just fine on my own.
But to say that letting an employee decide that for him/herself? That is the low ground?
No JR, I just choose to lead my own life as I see fit. I don’t need others to do that for me. Shame more people don’t stand up for themselves but hide behind unions and government.
JR you are right in that at times the commentator is pro the rep. or conservative candidate. Not always though. Do you remember how staunchly Sean campaigned for Joe Liberman because he believed in him. Locally I have voted for dem. candidates because I felt they were not in the pocket of big business as much as the rep. I don’t care if CNN has 100% liberals. You asked me to give you an example. Chris Matthews, Paul B and James C regularly campaign for the liberal candidates. This is called free enterprise. CNN and MSNBC have decided that this is good business for them. Listen to their reporters and pretend you are a conservative for a few days. I’m sure you will see what I am talking about. Little things like telling us over and over again how GWB was stupid eventhough his grades at Yale were better that both Kerry and Gore. He actually graduated, something Gore, who is pretending now to be a scientist, didn’t do. These are just a few examples. I could go on and on, but like short posts.
By the way I am confident enough in my own abilities that I don’t feel the need to win your respect. It is a nice thing that you are offering it however.
JM, see my earlier post upthread concerning constitutionality of the fairness doctrine.
VT
1969 was a different world. Broadcast licenses were tightly controlled, broadcast media closely regulated. Pre-internet, pre- the explosion of radio stations, etc. Frequencies were few, outlets few.
That’s no longer true. Look on your local cable TV. How many channels? How many different organizations putting the news (and commentary) out there? The number of radio frequencies available is far more, plus satellite radio, and good God, the internet. There is NO shortage of outlets for points of view.
Frankly, the deregulation of communications has led to far more political speech, on all sides. The “fairness” doctrine had the effect of sanitizing the expression of opinion, not promoting it.
If decided today, I believe there’d be quite a different outcome. There should be quite a different outcome.
BTW – McCain-Feingold was decided wrongly by the SCOTUS, in my opinion; it’s little more than incumbancy protection by Congress. And they’re at it again. SEE http://armsandthelaw.com/ – posting entited “Register Bloggers, not Guns?” It appears Congress wants to further regulate and silence those who criticize them and hold them accountable. On any side of the political aisle, that ought to give pause.
Troubling.
JR -
What you seek to do, is to appropriate private businesses and require them, using their equipment, at their expense and taking up their programming time, to promote an opinion you (or I presume some gov’t agency) believe should be out there.
Will you pay the business for said time? Will you even reimburse the business for the costs of your mandated broadcast? I suspect not. Who will decide what opinions are worthy of mandated broadcast? How many differing opinions shall we require?
Have you thought through your proposal at all?
NO, JR, what you seek to do is impose by the State what you cannot win in the marketplace. Look at the ratings on cable news commentary shows, for example. I note that O’Reilly is winning the ratings battle; Olberman trailing far in the distance (we’ve seen those ratings numbers posted here before, I’ll not try to track them down and post them again). Would you mandate O’Reilly give Olberman a slot on his show, in “fairness?” If so, in “fairness,” should not Olberman bot be required to reciprocate?
Costner once told us “if you build it, they will come.” Well, Al Franken and Company built it. And they didn’t come.Air America’s been a dismal failure, even in the “blue” markets. Hell, JR, even you listen to Rush (your word: monitor, but Rush’s sponsors, and thus Rush, could care less what you call it. And once again that mental image of JR, angrily throwing plates at the radio comes to mind!! Funny image). :-D
So now the tactic is to take by legislative seizure what they apparantly cannot earn in the marketplace.
Once again, the left shows its true colors. “Free speech for me, but not for thee.” No, we want to promote our point of view at YOUR expense.
Interesting commentary GMC70,
I can see I need to devote more time to homework on this matter before I set forth my mouth in motion. :)
Great post GM, I couldn’t have said it better myself.
GMC
I do not often call you a hypocrite.
Here your hypocrisy is showing.
If you were truly interested in a free market, you would acknowledge the danger inherent in a very few people controlling it.
BUT those few controlling it happen to be on your side politically, so hey, no harm no foul.
Be careful what you make good for the goose. Cause ya might end up the gander.
ksgrmPlease. The fact that some commentators are not pro bush or visibly conservative does not convict them as flaming liberals. I did not mention the FOX network. Though they are CLEARLY more biased right than the others are left, they do not begin to approach talk radio.
Yes GMC I do monitor those folks. I DO NOT buy from their sponsors locally or nationally. I let those sponsors know that. It is important to be able to confront lies and misinformation. Talk radio is full of it. Often I bust a poster on this very forum who has not their own words, but what they have been worked into a lather to believe.
Let’s talk about those folks for a second. It might be interesting to compare notes from the two sides.
Rush: self absorbed arrogant hypocritical lying pig. He is even condescending to his own fans! Pure neocon shill.
Hannity: Ranter with a pretty face. Boxed and sold by Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch. He’s not any better than the rest of them. He just looks good on TV. Well to conservatives anyway.Again, mindless shill. Wind up doll.Boortz: Bitter, failed attorney. Actually one of the founders of the format. BItter he is a little fish in it. Not a neocon applogist but CLEARLY a classist. Comment on the homeless “Pave ‘em over.’
Savage: The most crdible of the group. But an angry maybe even crazy man. He is fighting the wrong enemy. Liberals are far better Americans than neocons.
JR I really do appreciate you giving us your obviously unbiased opinion. But why won’t you talk about Begalla, Carvelle or Matthews. While they don’t have their own radio shows they do reach a lot of people. In Matthews case it is mostly college students as a lot of his programs are handled as town hall meetings on college campuses. I did go back to school to finish my degree at the age of 57. It was something I had wanted to do for some time. I was amazed that of all my professors only one was leaning conservative. The others were very liberal and made no bones about it.
Should we in fairness make sure that there are an equal number of lib and cons teaching in our institutes of higher learning, molding those skulls of mush to go out into the world?
GMC, I am with you about what might happen today should SCOTUS be presented with a “fairness doctrine” case. The foundation for the 1969 decision was, as I recall, the fact of limited air wave frequency available to licensees making it difficult for opposing views to be heard. As you so correctly point out, that isn’t true in the “marketplace of ideas” that exists today. And, it (the fairness doctrine) did lead to “sanitized” views; not a good thing overall, IMHO.
I am undecided on McCain/Feingold decision; at least a part of it bothers me. I am tempted to agree with your characterization of the Act as the “Incumbency Protection Act”, but will withhold that for the moment.
On your link, very, very troubling; don’t like it at all. I’ve a client who has been providing me information on this, and it is disquieting, to understate my feelings.
I am also troubled by the concentration of ownership of local outlets as well. I recognize this is one likely outcome of a deregulated market; no, I am not ready to declare a violation of the Sherman/Clayton/other acts yet, but DOJ needs to keep an eye on this, irrespective of the party in power.
JR -
You presume that those “few people controlling it” (and yes, consolidation of media by few corps is a problem) is the cause of the perceived problem you seek to redress.
But boardrooms don’t decide what goes on the air. Neither, in any meaningful way, do programming managers, supervisors, etc.
We do. You and I. All of us – millions of us.
It’s simple, really. Economics 101.
The media corps are driven by one thing: profits. Period.
Profits, for media, are driven by advertisers. Period.
Advertisers buy on shows which people watch or listen to, as measured by ratings.
In other words, get the ratings, your show gets more advertisers and is more profitable. More media outlets want to run your show, because it generates advertisers, and thus profits. Rush grew because people listened. Period (and his advertisers drop your letter of complaint in the circular file on their way to the bank).
Air America failed where it mattered – in the marketplace. They did not get listeners, thus advertisers, thus profitability. Stations (and media corps) put on shows which generate listeners to get advertisers. Stockholders (and boardrooms) don’t particularly care about politics, they care about profits.
I suspect you really do understand that. Surely you’re not that obtuse? You understand how the world works; you simply don’t like it.
You don’t like that many people would rather listen to Rush than, say, Franken. You don’t like that more watch O’Reilly than Olberman.
One answer – the correct one – would be to make your message (or perhaps messenger) more appealing, to attract more listeners/viewers. Franken and Co. tried that; it failed.
So now your answer is to dictate by law what we will watch or listen to, according to YOUR (or worse, some gov’t bureaucrat’s) preferences.
Uh, no, I’ll pass, thank you.
And this comment says it all: “Liberals are far better Americans than neocons.”You really think it is up to you to decide who are “good Americans?” Wasn’t the premise of America that all opinions are tolerated, not just those I agree with?
You’ve roundly condemned some on the right for making those identical assertions, and such criticism was valid. But here ya go, making the same charges.
Hypocrit indeed.
Chris Matthews, like most of MSM, is not liberal. He gladly parroted RNC’s BS character smears on Al Gore.
Sample quote from Matthews: “What is it, the Zelig guy who keeps saying, ‘I was the main character in ‘Love Story.’ I invented the Internet. I invented Love Canal.”
MSM is dysfunctional. They waste time on stupid trivia like wardrobe, and ignore important issues. They’re most concerned with getting high ratings, and having fun.
ksgrm
Begalla? Politics is his job. He chose democrats. How deep his commitment is I could not say.
Carville? You can HAVE him. Again, politics is his job. How deep can his feelings be considering who he sleeps with?
Tweety Matthews? Someone is gonna post a link where Matthews said he hated democrats. I’ve seen it before. I honestly don’t know his politics.
I forgot the other blow hard. Oreilly I may hate the most of all. No that’s Rush. Well maybe it’s a tie.
Bill O’reilly has an ego the size of Montana. He may be the worst of all with this “looking out for you” crap of his. Truth? IF there was money to be made on the other side he probably would flip. No thanks. Keep him.
Oh and keep his novel writing too! Ewwwww.
Colleges? Well I’m sorry but better educated and enlightened people tend to be liberal. There isn’t big money in education and that is what conservatives want.
I don’t think conservatism works for society anymore. When we were an agrarian economy it made sense. But in an industrial and service economy? There are too many “masters” and too much opportunity for tyranny.
PS Solie? IF there were no minimum wage and no collective bargaining? You start out at 1 cent an hour and no benfits. IF there is no enforced “floor” the floor tends to get as low as the employer wants it.
BTW, JR
First a disclaimer. I don’t listen to talk radio, period, much much less Rush, other than NPR when I’m driving. I like NPR; it’s intelligent, even when I (as I often do) disagree with it.
But your descrition of Rush as
“self absorbed arrogant hypocritical lying pig”
strikes me as fitting perfectly another: Michael Moore.
How could I forget Michael Moore? It was just to painful to remember him I guess.
More misinformation from JR:
“Well I’m sorry but better educated and enlightened people tend to be liberal.”
Uh, no. Those who tend to STAY AT THE UNIVERSITY tend to be liberal. And that’s YOUR definition of enlightened, not mine. The alternative is to go out in the world and DO things – and yes, make money. That’s the goal, isn’t it? The pursuit of happiness? (Yes, there is more to happiness than material success, but ya gotta admit, it’s a large part of it!!)
The next paragraph – substitute “libertarian” for “conservative” and I’d agree with you. Unfortunately, your answer (as clearly spelled out in your media hijacking proposal) is to make the state the master.
Just what in the 5,000+ year history of man and governments makes the state worthy of such trust? Remember, the founders wrote a Constitution designed expressly to LIMIT that government – a limit that our perversion of the commerce clause (and the 16th amendment) has effectively eliminated, unfortunately.
Ah but GMC you have missed the earlier difficulty with your “market” arguement.
The country is evenly split. There SHOULD be equal appeal for both sides. You seem to suggest that since coservative programming is popular, well there must be more conservatives. The numbers do not bear that out.
I AM pleased that you see the problem with media monopolizaton.
Oh and GMC? Mike Moore is very self deprecating. Unlike Rush, he does not claim divine talent. Is he making money because he does good or is he doing good because it makes him money I CANNOT say. Did success spoil him? Again I don’t know. But he is doing good. His next movie is about the problems in the health care system.
I know J R just adores this website and is a subscriber to the philosophy of the Website Commentator. :)
http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/
OF by and for the people GMC. Goverment by consent of the governed and all that.
And you well know I am very suspicious of government.
Neocons? GMC? It is a demonstrable fact that there is a faction of the GOP that is not interested in this nation or its future at all.
THEY are focused on how much wealth and so power over others that then can accumulate. And the bulldozer they are driving is picking up speed. They are the folks that are the most dangerous. Us liberals are only dangerous to them.
Horowitz?
I give him the Ronald Reagan award in ackowledgement of his making his money and turning his back on his principles. Sell out pure and simple. Just like Reagam.
” Unlike Rush, he does not claim divine talent.”
Yea, JR, I’ve heard enough Rush to know the line. “Talent on loan from God!”
Ya need to grow a sense of humor. Rush says what he says for one reason – it generates listeners. It’s a laugh line. He doesn’t particularly care whether his listeners love him or hate him, as long as they listen. Ratings. Advertisers.
No, Michael Moore simply claims to know what is best for the rest of us, and seeks to impose same. No, thanks.
“It is a demonstrable fact that there is a faction of the GOP that is not interested in this nation or its future at all.”
Nothing demonstrable about that at all. It merely demonstrates that what they believe is good for the country (without endorsing one belief or another, for purposes of this discussion) is not what YOU believe is good for this country.
I could make the same claim for “a faction of the Democratic Party” and it would be equally true, as evaluated by the standards you assert. I could even substitute mom and apple pie. It’s a meaningless assertion, demonstrating only that what YOU and yours believe is good for the country is different than what you ascribe to THEM.
I think that the difference is quite apparent.
Conservatives generally LISTEN to the radio to get their information and opinions.
Liberals generally READ newspapers, magazines and websites to get their information and opinions.
Jeez.
Of, by and for the people. Consent of the governed.
Agreed.
But those phrases – and they’re NOT just empty phrases – were written EXPRESSLY because gov’t COULD NOT be trusted.
And this is a gov’t (both parties) intent in maintaining its own position; i.e. McCain Feingold’s Encumbent Protection Act, the current proposal to regulate grassroots organizing – see link above. Let gov’t dictate what opinions should be mandated, and just who’s interests do you think those mandated opinions will serve?
Again – just what in the history of man and governments would make us want to turn over MORE power to them? Remember – governments believe in freedom to the extent it benefits government.
GMC is chatty today
Good. Maybe I can nail him down a bit.
GMC? Borders?, Outsourcing?, Trade? Energy policy? Roe?
And better know me?
I started out a conservative. Some of that remains. But I don’t think it works anymore. Too few people with too much money and so power.
Get specific, JR, and I’m game.
But perhaps we should take it elsewhere; we’ve strayed FAR off this thread (where I suspect we both agree) already!
Perhaps this ought to be part of a discussion at the meet-up? I’m actually looking forward to meeting you all; and I would not have said that at the last proposed meet-up. Live, learn, and grow, I suppose.
Basically, what this all boils down to is JR wants the government to pay for him to have a radio station where he can get liberal views.
Just him.
Because it is obvious that liberals don’t listen to radio that much or Air America would not have failed.
JR go listen to NPR. There is your “fairness”