View Poll Results: Read the intro and vote accordingly

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • yes

    7 70.00%
  • no

    2 20.00%
  • Other

    1 10.00%
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 30

Thread: Banning Anti-War Protests

  1. #1
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Banning Anti-War Protests

    If Bush would have tried to pass a law forcing private citizens protesting the war to hold up an equal number of pro-war signs as anti-war signs, thus negating their impact, on the logic that they are protesting on public property and are one-sided, would this make Bush a speech-trampling tyrant?

    Liberals are gearing up to do exactly that to conservative talk radio pundits, and only conservative talk radio pundits, while the actual news media, which is demonstrably overwhelmingly biased for Democrats, is left completely alone. It's called the "Fairness" Doctrine.

    This scam, perpetrated by the same people who misapply the 1st Amendment to defend flag-burning, porn, and NAMBLA's Rape and Escape manual, will be an even greater assault on the Constitution than the pork-payoffs and socialist power grabs railroaded through Congress by Obama under the incredibly sleazy guise of "stimulus."

    So, as stated above, the question is, would it have been an illegal assault on the Constitution for Bush to have imposed a "Fairness" Doctrine on private citizens protesting the war?
    Last edited by aquapub; 02-18-09 at 09:04 PM.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  2. #2
    Too big to fail
    niftydrifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    03-03-16 @ 02:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,725

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    "gearing up" ... where? who?

    see the other insipid thread. this goofiness was thoroughly refuted.

    "what if" false-analogy-hypotheticals hardly constitute an argument. but you didn't know that.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3227&dateline=1247527  127

  3. #3
    Sage
    bhkad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Last Seen
    08-13-10 @ 11:01 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    10,745

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
    White House: Obama Opposes 'Fairness Doctrine' Revival - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com

    OBL 11/24/02

  4. #4
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by niftydrifty View Post
    "gearing up" ... where? who?

    see the other insipid thread. this goofiness was thoroughly refuted.

    "what if" false-analogy-hypotheticals hardly constitute an argument. but you didn't know that.
    I realize you're a liberal, but you have to actually read the link posted to see what "gearing up" means.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  5. #5
    Too big to fail
    niftydrifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    03-03-16 @ 02:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,725

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    I realize you're a liberal, but you have to actually read the link posted to see what "gearing up" means.
    I repeat. "where?" ... "who?"
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3227&dateline=1247527  127

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    America (A.K.A., a red state)
    Last Seen
    09-24-13 @ 11:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,317

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by niftydrifty View Post
    I repeat. "where?" ... "who?"
    Again, top to bottom, left to right. It's called reading. Click the link provided and read what it contains or go lay down and let the adults finish this conversation.
    Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner (paraphrasing James Bovard).

  7. #7
    Too big to fail
    niftydrifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    03-03-16 @ 02:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,725

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    Again, top to bottom, left to right. It's called reading. Click the link provided and read what it contains or go lay down and let the adults finish this conversation.
    okay, so you have no argument. we already knew that. all that you have left are insults and another of your trademark ridiculous pictures.

    according to your link, 2/16/09:

    "An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life"

    according to the link in post #3, 2/18/09

    "President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday."

    again, "who?"
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3227&dateline=1247527  127

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Silent Bob for President!
    RedAkston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Indiana
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,130
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by niftydrifty View Post
    okay, so you have no argument. we already knew that. all that you have left are insults and another of your trademark ridiculous pictures.

    according to your link, 2/16/09:

    "An Obama senior adviser has indicated that the administration is mulling whether the controversial Fairness Doctrine will get a new lease on life"

    according to the link in post #3, 2/18/09

    "President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday."

    again, "who?"
    Congress. Have you never seen the "good cop, bad cop" routine before? It's played out in Washington each and every day. If you think that Congress won't try to pass it, you're head is still buried in the sand. If it does pass, do you really think Obama won't sign it?
    Welfare (Food Stamps, WIC, etc...) are not entitlements. They are taxpayer funded handouts and shouldn't be called entitlements at all. Social Security and Veteran's benefits are 'Entitlements' because the people receiving them are entitled to them. They were earned and paid for by the recipients.

  9. #9
    Too big to fail
    niftydrifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    03-03-16 @ 02:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,725

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by P/N View Post
    Congress. Have you never seen the "good cop, bad cop" routine before? It's played out in Washington each and every day. If you think that Congress won't try to pass it, you're head is still buried in the sand. If it does pass, do you really think Obama won't sign it?
    in the future, if you don't remember that you typed this today, I'll remind you.
    http://www.debatepolitics.com/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=3227&dateline=1247527  127

  10. #10
    Student Radical Ron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Palm Harbor, FL USA
    Last Seen
    05-06-12 @ 08:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    209

    Re: Banning Anti-War Protests

    Quote Originally Posted by aquapub View Post
    If Bush would have tried to pass a law forcing private citizens protesting the war to hold up an equal number of pro-war signs as anti-war signs, thus negating their impact, on the logic that they are protesting on public property and are one-sided, would this make Bush a speech-trampling tyrant?

    Liberals are gearing up to do exactly that to conservative talk radio pundits, and only conservative talk radio pundits, while the actual news media, which is demonstrably overwhelmingly biased for Democrats, is left completely alone. It's called the "Fairness" Doctrine.

    This scam, perpetrated by the same people who misapply the 1st Amendment to defend flag-burning, porn, and NAMBLA's Rape and Escape manual, will be an even greater assault on the Constitution than the pork-payoffs and socialist power grabs railroaded through Congress by Obama under the incredibly sleazy guise of "stimulus."

    So, as stated above, the question is, would it have been an illegal assault on the Constitution for Bush to have imposed a "Fairness" Doctrine on private citizens protesting the war?
    Pretty much yes. The fairness doctrine is really quite stupid.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •