Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine

American · Feb 20, 2009

Hatuey said:
What does Obama saying that Rush is an idiot who shouldn't be listened to have to do with Obama's on record opposition to the Fairness doctrine?

The fact that he talks about him at all publicly is very telling.

American · Feb 20, 2009

The founders' believed that anything unconstitutional was null and void on its face, without any judicial review. If Congress "passes" a law banning freedom of speech, then technically you should ignore the law and so should any law enforcement and any other authority because it is obviously unconstitutional. By not following this approach would lend credence to the notion that the law is in affect until it is struckdown. This is totally obsurd.

Hatuey · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Such an emergency that he flew to denver after a 3 day weekend,.

You mean a 3 day Federal Holiday in which nobody worked? Well then

If it was such an emergency, hope and change could have signed it.

Still why was it not available for review as promised?

Could have, would have, may have. So your argument is that because Obama didn't sign it when you wanted him to there is no economic crisis and this bill wasn't an emergency bill?

Yeah such an "emergency" Obama flew to CO after a 3 day federal holiday.

He flew to Colorado to sign the bill after a 3 day federal Holiday? Say it ain't so!

Your complete failure to provide any evidence for this being considered "emergency legistlation" NOTED.

So you do not believe there is an economic crisis? And you never answered my question. Do you believe the right to petition exists?

Good example. Note how the law was put into place, then repealed? That is how democracy works.

Now if you have a supreme court ruling showing banning this would be uncontitutional, we could go from peurile to sophomoric with your arguments.

This is basically why nobody takes you seriously. The law that was repealed was the one the gag rule regarding bringing up anti-slavery petition. It was repealed based on the right to petition a right which protects people who wish to bring up laws to the government. Can you show that it is constitutional to ban people from bringing up laws to the government?

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

Hatuey said:
You mean a 3 day Federal Holiday in which nobody worked? Well then

So a non emergency emergency...

Still 5 days, and by your argument, 5 business days. Show me where it was available.

Could have, would have, may have. So your argument is that because Obama didn't sign it when you wanted him to there is no economic crisis and this bill wasn't an emergency bill?

No this is not my argument at all. Why are you trying to make yourself look obtuse?

He flew to Colorado to sign the bill after a 3 day federal Holiday? Say it ain't so!

If it was such an emergency, and therefore not subject to his promise of transparency, why wait so long.

Please, your obamaggles are foggy with lust.

So you do not believe there is an economic crisis? And you never answered my question. Do you believe the right to petition exists?

I believe the market is the best solution not porkzilla.

This is basically why nobody takes you seriously. The law that was repealed was the one the gag rule regarding bringing up anti-slavery petition. It was repealed based on the right to petition a right which protects people who wish to bring up laws to the government. Can you show that it is constitutional to ban people from bringing up laws to the government?

Ok you whine and bitch in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057932541-post21.html

about the mods and bitch fests while you are one of the biggest cuplrits of snide idiotic comments that turn threads into the very bitch fests you talk of.

You want to turn it into one, by all means.

But don't cry when you look like a hypocritical troll. :2wave:

And why you want to get on one another. Who the hell do you think takes you seriously? IT?

Laughable....

Thorgasm · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
And why you want to get on one another. Who the hell do you think takes you seriously? IT?

So in a thread that I agreed with you and thanked your OP you felt the need to try another of your infamous guilt by association fallacies.

Yep, I'm the one, bitching, whining, crying, and throwing an overall tantrum. :roll:

Please show where I have brought your name into a thread when not directly in a conversation with you or to smear you when I agree with you.

Yes, I'll wait.

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

independent_thinker2002 said:
So in a thread that I agreed with you and thanked your OP you felt the need to try another of your infamous guilt by association fallacies.

Yep, I'm the one, bitching, whining, crying, and throwing an overall tantrum. :roll:

Please show where I have brought your name into a thread when not directly in a conversation with you or to smear you when I agree with you.

Yes, I'll wait.

Gee, when I start behaving like you, You start to cry?

Quite frankly, The status quo you and others have built around here is played.

YOu get what you give..... Now that its turnabout. It's an issue? :lol:

Please. each thread is not a vaccume.

American · Feb 20, 2009

Okay, how about you all comment on my last post?

Thorgasm · Feb 20, 2009

American said:
The founders' believed that anything unconstitutional was null and void on its face, without any judicial review. If Congress "passes" a law banning freedom of speech, then technically you should ignore the law and so should any law enforcement and any other authority because it is obviously unconstitutional. By not following this approach would lend credence to the notion that the law is in affect until it is struckdown. This is totally obsurd.

American said:
Okay, how about you all comment on my last post?

Do you promise this will be your last post? :2razz:

Seriously, how do you know if a law is unconstitutional without a judge reviewing it. Who would decide?

Thorgasm · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Gee, when I start behaving like you, You start to cry?

Quite frankly, The status quo you and others have built around here is played.

YOu get what you give..... Now that its turnabout. It's an issue? :lol:

Please. each thread is not a vaccume.

So you can't find an instance of me bringing your name into a thread when not directly in a conversation with you or to smear you when I agree with you.

I know, you are an innocent victim here. :roll:

You reap what you sow.

Now go cry to weak friends who sympathize...

American · Feb 20, 2009

independent_thinker2002 said:
Do you promise this will be your last post? :2razz:

Seriously, how do you know if a law is unconstitutional without a judge reviewing it. Who would decide?

Why is only a judge qualified? Is not the power in the hand of the people ultimately?

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

independent_thinker2002 said:
So you can't find an instance of me bringing your name into a thread when not directly in a conversation with you or to smear you when I agree with you.

I know, you are an innocent victim here. :roll:

You reap what you sow.

Now go cry to weak friends who sympathize...

Victim? nah. I am an equal partner in your games from now on.

You indeed reap what you sow.

So bringing up my "weak friends" after bitching about me bringing you up...

Hypocritical much?

American · Feb 20, 2009

Forget it.

Hatuey · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So a non emergency emergency...

In your opinion.

Still 5 days, and by your argument, 5 business days. Show me where it was available.

What 5 business days? I argued that this bill wasn't all that different from the drafts that had been available for weeks before the final was signed and in any case saying that Obama lied because he signed what has been deemed emergency legislature in the same manner he said he would is dishonest on your part.

No this is not my argument at all. Why are you trying to make yourself look obtuse?

:rofl - So then what is your argument? That Obama lied because he signed emergency legislature, which in your opinion isn't emergency legislature. Just like he said he would?

If it was such an emergency, and therefore not subject to his promise of transparency, why wait so long.

Because it was a FEDERAL HOLIDAY. Bills have NEVER been signed on a holiday or weekend. Not during WWII, not during the Vietnam War, Not during 9/11. Not EVER.

I believe the market is the best solution not porkzilla.

Doesn't answer my question. Do you believe the right to petition exists? Yes or No. If you do then you have to by logic oppose a ban on bringing up a law you don't agree with regardless of what that law is.

Ok you whine and bitch in this thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057932541-post21.html

about the mods and bitch fests while you are one of the biggest cuplrits of snide idiotic comments that turn threads into the very bitch fests you talk of.

You want to turn it into one, by all means.

But don't cry when you look like a hypocritical troll. :2wave:

And why you want to get on one another. Who the hell do you think takes you seriously? IT?

Laughable....

The only thing laughable here is the fact that you think it's perfectly reasonable to use the people's right to petition to ban people from using the right to petition.

Thorgasm · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Victim? nah. I am an equal partner in your games from now on.

You indeed reap what you sow.

So bringing up my "weak friends" after bitching about me bringing you up...

Hypocritical much?

The "weak friends" comment was a lyric from the Pantera song "Walk".

Run your mouth when I'm not around
It's easy to achieve
You cry to weak friends that sympathize
Can you hear the violins playing you song?
Those same friends tell me your every word

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

Hatuey said:
In your opinion.

no in yours. Apparently its was not enough of an "emergency" to quell a 3 day weekend.

What 5 business days? I argued that this bill wasn't all that different from the drafts that had been available for weeks before the final was signed and in any case saying that Obama lied because he signed what has been deemed emergency legislature in the same manner he said he would is dishonest on your part.

Link to where I could view any version of this bill 5 days before the One signed it.

2nd request.

:rofl - So then what is your argument? That Obama lied because he signed emergency legislature, which in your opinion isn't emergency legislature. Just like he said he would?

Show me how it was "emergency legislature", this far you fail.

Because it was a FEDERAL HOLIDAY. Bills have NEVER been signed on a holiday or weekend. Not during WWII, not during the Vietnam War, Not during 9/11. Not EVER.

Why not on Friday then? Why was the bill not available for you and I to read. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday?

Doesn't answer my question. Do you believe the right to petition exists? Yes or No. If you do then you have to by logic oppose a ban on bringing up a law you don't agree with regardless of what that law is.

The only thing laughable here is the fact that you think it's perfectly reasonable to use the people's right to petition to ban people from using the right to petition.

Straw man? red herring? nice. :lol:

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

independent_thinker2002 said:
The "weak friends" comment was a lyric from the Pantera song "Walk".

Not a pantera fan....

Hatuey · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
no in yours. Apparently its was not enough of an "emergency" to quell a 3 day weekend.

Because bills REGARDLESS of the emergency have never been signed outside of Congress business days. This is getting silly now. You don't seem to understand how our government works. If I go to a hospital with a broke arm and it takes a few hours to see a doctor does that no longer mean it's not an emergency?

Link to where I could view any version of this bill 5 days before the One signed it.

2nd request.

ReadTheStimulus.org

Wow. That seems to have been easy. It even comes with links detailed all the changes as they happened. Have fun.

Show me how it was "emergency legislature", this far you fail.

Obama chides Republicans, demands speed on stimulus | U.S. | Reuters

Obama said quick action on the package was imperative to avoid catastrophe and praised the group of moderate senators from both political parties for coming up with a compromise.

Senate Democrats agreed late Friday to trim spending proposals and support tax cuts in a roughly $800 billion bill. They rolled back an earlier $937 billion proposal by culling what critics, mostly Republicans, called billions of dollars in unwarranted spending.

NewsDaily: Congress sends $787 billion stimulus to Obama

The U.S. Congress, handing President Barack Obama a major legislative victory, approved on Friday a $787 billion stimulus bill that aims to rush emergency government spending and tax cuts to a nation in the grip of a severe recession.

Why not on Friday then? Why was the bill not available for you and I to read.

It was. That you keep acting like a completely different emergency bill was signed in Denver. One not reviewed by anybody is simply dishonest.

Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday?

What?

Straw man? red herring? nice. :lol:

So then you oppose this law considering that it supports banning the people from petitioning their government on certain matters?

Orion · Feb 20, 2009

Another bash-Obama thread. This is productive.

Someone needs to create a new forum section to put all these.

I'm against the Fairness Doctrine, and so is Obama, and apparently so are you Rev, so I fail to see how Obama has done something wrong.

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

Hatuey said:
Because bills REGARDLESS of the emergency have never been signed outside of Congress business days. This is getting silly now. You don't seem to understand how our government works. If I go to a hospital with a broke arm and it takes a few hours to see a doctor does that no longer mean it's not an emergency?

still no where are you proving it was an "Emergency bill". I grow bored.

ReadTheStimulus.org

Wow. That seems to have been easy. It even comes with links detailed all the changes as they happened. Have fun.

Uhm yeah. Did you even read the "About" before you posted this?

ReadTheStimulus.org

You fail as usual...

Obama failed at his promise. This site is there to do what he faile to do.

Obama chides Republicans, demands speed on stimulus | U.S. | Reuters

NewsDaily: Congress sends $787 billion stimulus to Obama

It was. That you keep acting like a completely different emergency bill was signed in Denver. One not reviewed by anybody is simply dishonest.

What?

So then you oppose a law being brought up to banning the people from petitioning their government?

Yup, I am the one who is dishonest..... Laughable

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

Orius said:
Another bash-Obama thread. This is productive.

Actually it wasn't, it was the ilk of others here who made it this way.

Someone needs to create a new forum section to put all these.

I'm against the Fairness Doctrine, and so is Obama, and apparently so are you Rev, so I fail to see how Obama has done something wrong.

As far as the FD is concerned. I agree, thus far, he has done nothing wrong. His actions though make me concerned (his constant mentioning of Rush for one)....

Keorythe · Feb 20, 2009

winston53660 said:
Why is the far right so scared of the FD?

Because they would have to fit the bill to have an opposing view given equal time as them on the air instead of the opposing view getting off their rear ends and funding it themselves. Sadly, this isn't going to affect news agency commentary so news commentators can make any partisan remarks or style their reporting accordingly without reprecussion.

Its a free speech issue. Its akin to requiring anti-war protestors to organize an equal in size pro-war rally on the same site at the same time.

winston53660 said:
Censorship occurs when the corporation shuts out opposing views.

You have to prove that a corporation is shutting them out. Failure to generate ratingS and money is not being shut out. It means that you'll have to find someone to foot the bill or foot it yourself to stay on the air.

winston53660 said:
It is not unconstitutional since the airwaves are legally considered PUBLIC PROPERTY.

Yup, but the medium that you use to get your point across may cost money. Freedom is free, the soapbox you stand on might cost a few bucks.

Hatuey · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
still no where are you proving it was an "Emergency bill". I grow bored.

Wow this is sad now. You claimed this wasn't emergency legislature only because you didn't think it was. Obama deemed it emergency legislature because he seeks to quell the growing rate of layoffs, foreclosures which are adding to the economic crisis. Your entire OPINION is based on well nothing more then opinion. What you think. Obama deemed this emergency legislature based on the economic crisis and then did as he said he'd do sign it if he thought it was urgent enough.

Uhm yeah. Did you even read the "About" before you posted this?

Not really. I thought the first page would give you a clue considering what was written on it :

Yesterday, the both the House and Senate passed the stimulus package. The White House is now soliciting comments on the bill, and we encourage everyone to --- politely --- share their feedback.

ReadTheStimulus.org

You fail as usual...

Obama failed at his promise. This site is there to do what he faile to do.

:rofl - You mean post the Stimulus?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...ine?height=220&width=370&inlineId=tb_external

Yup, I am the one who is dishonest..... Laughable

You still haven't answered my question : Do you believe the right to petition exists? If so then you have NO REASON to support this law banning the people from bringing up legislature others might not agree with.

ReverendHellh0und · Feb 20, 2009

Hatuey said:
Wow this is sad now. You claimed this wasn't emergency legislature only because you didn't think it was. Obama deemed it emergency legislature because he seeks to quell the growing rate of layoffs, foreclosures which are adding to the economic crisis. Your entire OPINION is based on well nothing more then opinion. What you think. Obama deemed this emergency legislature based on the economic crisis and then did as he said he'd do sign it if he thought it was urgent enough.

Show me where he deemed it "emergency legislation".

3rd request.

:rofl - You mean post the Stimulus?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press...ine?height=220&width=370&inlineId=tb_external

So resorting to lies now. So uhm prove this was available 5 days before the long weekend.

You cant.

You do relize you are arguing both he did not put it up because it was emergency legislation, and that he did now...

How silly for you.

You still haven't answered my question : Do you believe the right to petition exists? If so then you have NO REASON to support this law banning the people from bringing up legislature others might not agree with.

This is called a loaded question, and thusly rejected.

jallman · Feb 20, 2009

winston53660 said:
Why is the far right so scared of the FD?

The entire country should be frightened of the Fairness Doctrine as it is a direct violation of the first amendment. Any time the Bill of Rights is infringed upon, the country should be concerned.

Hatuey · Feb 20, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Show me where he deemed it "emergency legislation".
3rd request.

Obama calls for swift action on `economic emergency'

President Barack Obama on Monday used his first news conference in office to urge Americans to embrace big government in the face of a recession he called "the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

"The federal government is the only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy back to life," Obama said during his the news conference. He implored Congress to pass his $800 billion -plus economic stimulus program.

Or are you going to argue now that a bill seeking to alleviate economic emergency is not emergency legislation?

So resorting to lies now. So uhm prove this was available 5 days before the long weekend.

I don't have to because that's not what I said.

You cant.

I didn't say it was. I said drafts of this bill had been available for weeks to all members of congress. Thanks for proving your over reliance on straw man.

Copies of the stimulus bill had been around LONG before he signed the final piece of legislation. Acting like huge changes were made on the day Obama signed it or for that matter 2-3 days before is non-sense.

How is it a lie? Lawmakers were discussing the drafts for the bill weeks before a final copy was made. You're acting like 100 billion were added the day Obama signed the bill.

This is called a loaded question, and thusly rejected.

This bill banning fairness doctrine bans people from using the right to petition to bring up the Fairness doctrine. Do you not understand that yet?

Senator to Force Vote on Bill Banning Fairness Doctrine

Trump Grump Whisperer

Trump Grump Whisperer

Rule of Two

I don't respect you.

Bus Driver to Hell

I don't respect you.

Trump Grump Whisperer

Bus Driver to Hell

Bus Driver to Hell

Trump Grump Whisperer

I don't respect you.

Trump Grump Whisperer

Rule of Two

Bus Driver to Hell

I don't respect you.

I don't respect you.

Rule of Two

I don't respect you.

I don't respect you.

Active member

Rule of Two

I don't respect you.

Rule of Two