Webmaster Forum

Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Controversial Social Issues Discussions concerning controversial social issues. Topics include politics, religion, culture, social and economic issues, etc. Respect required at all times.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Share |
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 07:14 AM
South's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
The fairness doctrine would never be able to be enforced.
Why do you say that? It would be very easily enforced. Even private broadcast facilities use public airwaves and are therefore regulated by the FCC and required to follow specific procedures every day from public service files to ID placements to documentation of hourly transmitter output, and waaaaay more, all mandated by the federal government. Failure to produce proper evidence of compliance puts the broadcasters license in danger. It's the burden of the station owner to provide legal affidavits of compliance. You think business owners are going to risk fines, losing their license to broadcast, and possibly even jail by submitting less than factual affidavits? Of course not.

Implementing the fairness doctrine, which Obama and the Dems absolutely intend to try, isn't to get the equal airtime. It's to silence anyone who would dare speak out against the administration or educate people beyond what the administration wants them to know. Because the doctrine is deliberately impossible to legally comply with, broadcasters will be left with only the option of eliminating all programming which would call the administration to task. This would make it, in effect, illegal to disagree with the government over public airwaves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
Besides, if there were people like yourself so against it, would it ever be implemented?
A socialist massive debt bill that will weaken America and yoke our children for generations while providing almost zero lasting benefit to anyone was just crammed down our throats while millions upon millions of Americans were shutting down the switchboards in Washington pleading for this bill to be rethought and improved before passing. Americans were denied even the opportunity to read it before it passed. The people voting on it didn't even get time to read it. Do you honestly think that a president bent on socialism cares who is for or against his agenda. You'll shut up and like it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
Since Obama supports programs like net-neutrality, it's very unlikely he would support something like the 'fairness doctrine' - although it has 'fair' in the name, it is any but fair.
It's true that he has vocally said that he wouldn't support it. There again, he is a documented pathological liar. He also said he would promote bipartisanship. We now know he lied. He said he wouldn't hire lobbyists. He lied. He said the porkulus bill contained no pet projects. He lied. He said it contained no earmarks. He lied. He said he would withdraw troops in 16 months. He lied. He said he would appoint a staff based on high ethical standards. He lied. Somehow his disciples still believe whatever he says.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
Besides, the fairness doctrine wouldn't gerrymander just from republicans - they're just the ones with the most to lose. I would worry about other things... (THE ECONOMY) you know.
Gerrymandering isn't really a concern where the fairness doctrine is concerned. Obama just seized the 2010 census. Yes, the federal government just seized the US census to be handled behind closed doors in the White House. The results of the census are used to draw political voting lines.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

Really, how numb-skulled has America become? This isn't uncharted territory, we've seen how it works out.
__________________
Angry Mob Member
 
Reply With Quote

Advertisement

Advertisement

  #62 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 10:35 AM
gekiranger's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 02-13-09
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
Well, after the Democrats suggested it, the White House could have just said they will not support it, instead of wavering. Maybe, it's like the birth certificate. The one he posted had four questionable features. So, he could have shut up the controversy, just by giving the information out on how to get a verifiable copy. It could have been done in minutes. Instead, he let multiple law suits go on throughout the country, with lawyers making millions reviewing what he did release as a matter of sufficient evidence. But to this day, there are still people wondering about the birth certificate posted. And it would be so simple to clear up all their doubts, just by giving out the information in Hawaii, in a most customary manner. I don't get it. He looks very dumb. But is he just playing dumb about something? So maybe, he's just playing with the fairness doctrine. Maybe!!
lol, his birth certificate has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine. And if he really wasn't a U.S. citizen, you think he'd be able to get by the republicans? Definitely not. All of the google results I found for 'obama reconsidering the fairness doctrine' were 1 to 2 years old, and the only site that suggested he was thinking about it was a site about Karl Rove or something (wtf?). I don't know, I don't think 1984 is going to happen anytime soon man.
 
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 10:49 AM
gekiranger's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 02-13-09
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
..this isn't a double post..

Quote:
Originally Posted by South View Post
Why do you say that? It would be very easily enforced. Even private broadcast facilities use public airwaves and are therefore regulated by the FCC and required to follow specific procedures every day from public service files to ID placements to documentation of hourly transmitter output, and waaaaay more, all mandated by the federal government. Failure to produce proper evidence of compliance puts the broadcasters license in danger. It's the burden of the station owner to provide legal affidavits of compliance. You think business owners are going to risk fines, losing their license to broadcast, and possibly even jail by submitting less than factual affidavits? Of course not.
Fines? freedom of speech & the threat of gerrymandering - and republicans wouldn't put a fight up against it?

Quote:
Implementing the fairness doctrine, which Obama and the Dems absolutely intend to try, isn't to get the equal airtime. It's to silence anyone who would dare speak out against the administration or educate people beyond what the administration wants them to know. Because the doctrine is deliberately impossible to legally comply with, broadcasters will be left with only the option of eliminating all programming which would call the administration to task. This would make it, in effect, illegal to disagree with the government over public airwaves.
Why would you assume this?

Quote:
A socialist massive debt bill that will weaken America and yoke our children for generations while providing almost zero lasting benefit to anyone was just crammed down our throats while millions upon millions of Americans were shutting down the switchboards in Washington pleading for this bill to be rethought and improved before passing. Americans were denied even the opportunity to read it before it passed. The people voting on it didn't even get time to read it. Do you honestly think that a president bent on socialism cares who is for or against his agenda. You'll shut up and like it.
The patriot act?



Quote:
It's true that he has vocally said that he wouldn't support it. There again, he is a documented pathological liar. He also said he would promote bipartisanship. We now know he lied. He said he wouldn't hire lobbyists. He lied. He said the porkulus bill contained no pet projects. He lied. He said it contained no earmarks. He lied. He said he would withdraw troops in 16 months. He lied. He said he would appoint a staff based on high ethical standards. He lied. Somehow his disciples still believe whatever he says.
At this point I'm pretty sure you would be negative towards Obama, regardless of his presidential performance.

Quote:
Gerrymandering isn't really a concern where the fairness doctrine is concerned. Obama just seized the 2010 census. Yes, the federal government just seized the US census to be handled behind closed doors in the White House. The results of the census are used to draw political voting lines.

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)

Really, how numb-skulled has America become? bush lolThis isn't uncharted territory,
we've seen how it works out.
Nah. If Obama would have had the intent do to any of the above listed, he wouldn't have been elected. Granted, Bush was elected, but I digress - Obama is not a retard in the least. And if you're a republican, I wouldn't worry about your political party's demise anytime soon - look up the definition for 'im-****ing-possible'

p.s.
 
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 01:55 PM
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
lol, his birth certificate has nothing to do with the fairness doctrine. And if he really wasn't a U.S. citizen, you think he'd be able to get by the republicans? Definitely not. All of the google results I found for 'obama reconsidering the fairness doctrine' were 1 to 2 years old, and the only site that suggested he was thinking about it was a site about Karl Rove or something (wtf?). I don't know, I don't think 1984 is going to happen anytime soon man.
OK, you didn't actually read what I said on the birth certificate. But why make a response then? Fox News covered the story on the Fairness doctrine several days this week.
 
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 03:29 PM
gekiranger's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 02-13-09
Posts: 11
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhatsLeft View Post
OK, you didn't actually read what I said on the birth certificate. But why make a response then? Fox News covered the story on the Fairness doctrine several days this week.

No, I read what you said. It was a 'non sequitur' - 'it does not follow'

"Because Obama may or may not be a U.S. citizen, he must be toying with the fairness doctrine."

see what I mean?
 
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 05:09 PM
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
No, I read what you said. It was a 'non sequitur' - 'it does not follow'

"Because Obama may or may not be a U.S. citizen, he must be toying with the fairness doctrine."

see what I mean?
You are using a straw man argument. With the birth certificate issue, he could have dismissed the controversy easily and routinely, but instead chose to let lawsuits throughout the country proceed to test the sufficiency of the evidence he did use according to complicated legal standards. With the Fairness Doctrine he could in like manner dismiss the controversy easily, but instead he chooses to waver. Thus, there is a parallel to his technique which says something about how he does things.

The position I set out was not difficult to follow. Thus, your response does appear most disingenuous. I have posted in forums for many years; yet never once did I resort to a straw man argument. How does it give you any satisfaction to resort to such tactics?? If you do not have the capacity to set forth an honest answer, why demonstrate it. Wouldn't it be better just not to respond?
 
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 02-14-2009, 08:38 PM
South's Avatar
v7n Mentor
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 10-13-03
Posts: 2,489
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
Fines? freedom of speech & the threat of gerrymandering - and republicans wouldn't put a fight up against it?
Republicans can fight all they want. The dems have a filibuster proof majority. Business owners will follow the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
Why would you assume this?
I don't assume it. The most powerful among the leftwing Dems have outright said it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
The patriot act?
A stab at humor there I'm supposing.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
At this point I'm pretty sure you would be negative towards Obama, regardless of his presidential performance.
That's true. His voiced intentions have always been bad for America.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gekiranger View Post
Nah. If Obama would have had the intent do to any of the above listed, he wouldn't have been elected. Granted, Bush was elected, but I digress - Obama is not a retard in the least. And if you're a republican, I wouldn't worry about your political party's demise anytime soon - look up the definition for 'im-****ing-possible'
Seizing the census? It's not an intent. It's done. He did it. He would have been elected no matter what because he counted on the votes of people who don't, didn't, and won't have a clue what's going on beyond MTV.

Let's face it, they would have voted him in even if he was friendly with domestic terrorists, even if he was wrapped up in dirty real estate deals with known bad guys, even if he attended a church of black liberation theology that spewed American hate rhetoric from the pulpit, even if he had personal relationships with people who gave awards to Farrakhan. They would have voted for him even if he wrote a book with his own hands expressing his admiration for the principles of Marxism.

Oh yeah, he did all that.
__________________
Angry Mob Member
 
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2009, 02:02 AM
Contributing Member
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 01-08-09
Posts: 79
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Quote:
Originally Posted by dWhite View Post
7 for Harrison

3 for GWB.

hmmmm... if its true about harrison will so be it
GWB so be it also.lol
 
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 02-15-2009, 04:44 AM
No Longer Active
Latest Blog:
None

 
Join Date: 12-27-08
Posts: 150
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Here's a news link on the Fairness Doctrine. It also notes Obama now is wavering on the issue.

I reviewed somewhat Obama's affinity toward Marxism in the "Welcome Back John" thread.
 
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 02-17-2009, 06:53 PM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: 02-17-09
Posts: 5
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Interesting discussion you have here.
 
Reply With Quote
Go Back   Webmaster Forum > The Webmaster Forums > Forum Lobby > Controversial Social Issues

Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do you think President Bush was a "good" president? - Question for McCain supporters gregdavidson Controversial Social Issues 51 10-17-2008 01:46 PM
Dumbest Telemarketing Call ever!!! Mia Forum Lobby 5 09-17-2008 10:07 AM
Dumbest SEO mistake you ever made? sniperhiga SEO Forum 37 01-03-2008 07:27 AM
The Dumbest Thing You Did As A Child Skinny Forum Lobby 43 08-26-2007 02:38 PM


V7N Network
Get exposure! V7N I Love Photography V7N SEO Blog V7N Directory


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2014 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Copyright © 2003 - 2018 VIX-WomensForum LLC


Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 RC 2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.