Print

[Pax]

I love it when I see the righties fighting amongst themselves.

     "Fighting,"  FF?  I'd call it more "clarification." 

     The "laws" are written by lawyers, "interpreted" by lawyers, and "prosecuted" by lawyers - if that's not sufficient evidence in and of itself that the "laws" aren't exactly crystal-clear for us LittlePeople I can't imagine what would be.  "Standing," in legalese, is akin to the common man's expression "It's none of your friggin' business": we've all been incorrectly assuming that what happens in the government of WeThePeople is, In Fact our business; but that same government says and does otherwise.  Very few Americans alive today have ever been "free" to do much of anything except that which the government "allows," "licenses," or hasn't criminalized yet. 

     "No Standing" means we're supposed to shut up, or face the likely consequences of resisting tyranny.

[SMASH]

I was going to ask the same question, but you beat me to it.  Although I was going to go a step further and ask him to provide me the bill number that the President introduced.  Last I checked Presidents don't make it a policy to introduce legislation, maybe he wanted a fairness doctrine when he was Gov of TX?  Maybe CK is just far more enlightened than any of us know.  Either way the answer to the question should be an interesting one, though I think it will be more of a deflect, dodge, dismiss, rinse repeat.

They don't have to. The have the wonderous device known as the Executive Order which becomes law simply by being entered into the Federal Register.

[SMASH]

No,It's ok I'm always willing to look and see for myself. As long as I'm not ordered into a lock-step and blindly follow. That is what got us in this mess to begin with.I said before I'm a free thinker and my mind is still my own. I will look into it. And make my own decision. I will continue to STAND on my own convictions. I am a person of the U.S.. Not it's property.

You may want to look into that a little deeper too.
Like it or not you are owned. You and I are nothing more than serfs.

Quote from Thomas Jefferson:   
"If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered."

 Quote from Peter Kershaw:   
"The Founding Fathers of this great land had no difficulty whatsoever understanding the agenda of bankers, and they frequently referred to them and their kind as, quote, 'friends of paper money.' They hated the Bank of England, in particular, and felt that even were we successful in winning our independence from England and King George, we could never truly be a nation of freemen, unless we had an honest money system. Through ignorance, but moreover, because of apathy, a small, but wealthy, clique of power brokers have robbed us of our Rights and Liberties, and we are being raped of our wealth. We are paying the price for the near-comatose levels of complacency by our parents, and only God knows what might become of our children, should we not work diligently to shake this country from its slumber! Many a nation has lost its freedom at the end of a gun barrel, but here in America, we just decided to hand it over voluntarily. Worse yet, we paid for the tyranny and usurpation out of our own pockets with "voluntary" tax contributions and the use of a debt-laden fiat currency!"   

 

[jbs49238]

They don't have to. The have the wonderous device known as the Executive Order which becomes law simply by being entered into the Federal Register.

I understand that SMASH, I was hoping to elicit a response from CK as to when Bush tried to push though the "fairness doctrine".  My point was that he didn't and I hoped that CK would clarify his statement.

Sadly, he read the posts following his drivle, and didn't see it necessary to respond with any type of factual information, just skipped it and moved onto other threads and continued posting away.   

I guess I'll remember that when he begs an answer out of me in the future.

[SMASH]

I understand that SMASH, I was hoping to elicit a response from CK as to when Bush tried to push though the "fairness doctrine".  My point was that he didn't and I hoped that CK would clarify his statement.

Sadly, he read the posts following his drivle, and didn't see it necessary to respond with any type of factual information, just skipped it and moved onto other threads and continued posting away.   

I guess I'll remember that when he begs an answer out of me in the future.

OK.

[Collegekid]

I understand that SMASH, I was hoping to elicit a response from CK as to when Bush tried to push though the "fairness doctrine".  My point was that he didn't and I hoped that CK would clarify his statement.

Sadly, he read the posts following his drivle, and didn't see it necessary to respond with any type of factual information, just skipped it and moved onto other threads and continued posting away.   

I guess I'll remember that when he begs an answer out of me in the future.

There was no need to respond. I'm taking a page out of your book. When you make a point, and someone asks for clarification you rarely if ever do it and tell them to 'look it up' so if you want to know follow your own advice.

Otherwise I would flush out the research, and give you the information on the bill that George Bush pushed to have written that included language about the fairness doctrine.

[Collegekid]

Last I checked Presidents don't make it a policy to introduce legislation,

Ok then, yet you all want to claim that the 'bad' stimulus bill in Obama's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim stuff congress did under Bush was autonomous and that the stuff they are now doing under Obama is all his fault.

[jbs49238]

There was no need to respond. I'm taking a page out of your book. When you make a point, and someone asks for clarification you rarely if ever do it and tell them to 'look it up' so if you want to know follow your own advice.

Otherwise I would flush out the research, and give you the information on the bill that George Bush pushed to have written that included language about the fairness doctrine.

Wow I think you have me woefully confused with someone else.

Funny the last time I pinned a someone like you into a corner trying to make them back up what they said they pulled the same strategy........... "I'm taking a page out of your book"!  That person was a Rep., so I guess my sword cuts both ways.

"I'm taking a page out of your book"!  What a cop out.  In other words you cannot backup what you said and are now crying uncle.

BTW its Obamas budget that I don't like, last I looked the stimulus bill after his election was introduced by Nancy Pelosi was it not?  BTW if you were to actually go back into my posts I believe you will not find where I have blamed Obama for anything, and have been highly critical of the previous administration.  Just because someone calls you out on a post you made, does not mean you get to lump them in with your political enemies.

Back to the original question though................

Can you show me some documentation where Bush introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" as legislation as you claim?  I am not going to do your work for you, be a big boy college student and back up your "facts".

Also while you are trying to back up your first claim, maybe you can back up the claim that I have told people "look it up" when someone asks me for clarification.  That will be two things you have said that you cannot back up.  Care to go for 3?

[jbs49238]

Ok then, yet you all want to claim that the 'bad' stimulus bill in Obama's fault. You can't have it both ways. You can't claim stuff congress did under Bush was autonomous and that the stuff they are now doing under Obama is all his fault.

See my previous post for the included reply to this.

[SidecarFlip]

'Freedom' in this country has become a direct ratio to your 'Freedom' is gaged by the amount of legal tender you possess.  No money, no freedom.  Lots of money, lots of freedom.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

Your "rights" were checked at the door along with the Constitution in 1933.

It's prior to, and worse than that, but precious few can, or are courageous enough, to see it for what it is:
The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the US Constitution: http://tinyurl.com/c2ktz6

The American Revolution was based on individual rights. The US Constitution is based on the tyranny of the majority, and by its very nature strangles individual rights.

[Collegekid]

"I'm taking a page out of your book"!  What a cop out.  In other words you cannot backup what you said and are now crying uncle.

Not a cop out at all, I'm just not doing the research for both sides.

BTW its Obamas budget that I don't like,

Obama does not yet have a budget. Bush's final budget, while passed after Obama took office was still made up by the Bush administration.

last I looked the stimulus bill after his election was introduced by Nancy Pelosi was it not?

Yes it was, but by your logic she did it, not the president because he can't introduce legislation. Again, you can't argue it both ways.

Can you show me some documentation where Bush introduced the "Fairness Doctrine" as legislation as you claim? 

As I have already answered you at least once already, I can not specifically since as you say, the president doesn't introduce legislation.  However it was first introduced during his administration.

[jbs49238]

Not a cop out at all, I'm just not doing the research for both sides.

I'm not asking you for research from both sides, just the research you did to come up with your facts.  You made the statement not anyone else, you own it.  Why won't you clue us in on where you got the information?

Obama does not yet have a budget. Bush's final budget, while passed after Obama took office was still made up by the Bush administration.

Huh?  Obama doesn't have a budget?  Are you kidding?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/motoringAutoNews/idUKTRE53S8ZS20090429

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/us.house.senate.budget.passes/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/



Yes it was, but by your logic she did it, not the president because he can't introduce legislation. Again, you can't argue it both ways.

That is a nice hack job you did on my post to make it look as if I was double speaking, why not copy and paste the entire statement?

"BTW its Obamas budget that I don't like, last I looked the stimulus bill after his election was introduced by Nancy Pelosi was it not?  BTW if you were to actually go back into my posts I believe you will not find where I have blamed Obama for anything, and have been highly critical of the previous administration"

As you can see I did not anywhere in that statement say that Obama presented the bill as legislation as you are trying to make it sound.  Nice trick though, but it didn't work.

As I have already answered you at least once already, I can not specifically since as you say, the president doesn't introduce legislation.  However it was first introduced during his administration.

So you answered me?  Oh but it wasn't a specific answer?  You seemed to be very specific about saying it.  And exactly which post in this thread is your "unspecific answer" to my specific question about your very specific statement?

If it was introduced then you have to know by who.  You said it was Bush, stated it as a fact.  Now you are again stating as fact that it was introduced.  By who?  When?  Was there a vote, was it in committee?  Is this a golden nugget of wisdom or another turd to be flushed away?

[Pax]

     Now I personally am no fan of watching other people play with their balls - even though I'll play with my own occasionally - but there is a rather large proportion of the populace whose lives are so mundane and uncomplicated that sporty entertainment satisfies all their worldly needs beyond food and shelter.  One could speculate that such people's IQs are disproportionately in the barely-above-cognizant double-digits but some people just get all out of sorts when something interferes with their sports-fetishes.  Like if Heidi were to interrupt their spectating - or POTUS crying crocodile tears.  Like what happened recently in North Alabama and the District of Cabalists (D.C.)  It appears there was a purebred football player there in Alabama - whose knowledge of current events probably only consists of sports rankings -  was none to pleased to see his favorite past-time of playing with his balls interrupted by the crossbreed POTUS and felt the need to share his displeasure via Twitter.  Perhaps he doesn't know how to spell President of the United States or the official title is just too many buttons to push, but either way he just resurrected an old-time expression evolved from the Latin word for someone of POTUS' dermal pigmentation.  Writing is kinda like "speech," or falls under the same legal category anyway, but in this particular instance he was severely punished - by taking away his hobby of playing with his balls in front of the public - for exercising a former right. 

North Alabama walk-on football player dismissed after racist tweet about Barack Obama <- link

vs.

"Take that (expletive) off the tv, we wanna watch football!" Patterson posted on Twitter.

Hodges says coaches acted after being informed of a message that refers to Obama by a racial epithet. The tweet complained that Obama's speech about the Connecticut school massacre pre-empted an NFL game Sunday night.

   Even if it's done in poor taste and bad timing so-called "Free Speech" is as dead as the rest of the American Constitution. If you hurt someone's feelings! you're now considered a low-life criminal unfit for participation in our wondrous Multicultural Imperial Empire.  Especially, Oh My Gosh! if the insulting verbiage contains a Racial Epithet! and the target of it just so happens to be POTUS.

[SidecarFlip]

Come on Pax....

There ain't noth'in free except the air and Obama would like to tax you on that too.