Texas has highest wind gen energy

Of course everyone knows Texicans are windy and it would work :)

like I said a closet Bushie, is the door creaking open a bit ?
 
no just baiting the far lefties, and pointing out some positives.

he's done for me, though I did get rich under his watch
the war trumps the many good things he's done
 
I'll bet many of his buddies got pockets full f money on the wind generation project as well. Cronyism and graft seems prominent among Bush supporters.
 
Didn't you guys know that is why it is so windy in Oklahoma......and mostly from the south. Texas blows.

Sorry, that's a little off color but I had to type it.
 
Texicans deserve it Leaning. A few relocated ones I have met had recovered though. Is there rehab for getting over being a Texican ?
 
Topspin said:
no just baiting the far lefties, and pointing out some positives.

he's done for me, though I did get rich under his watch
the war trumps the many good things he's done
Click to expand...

Well, we're all anxiously awaiting you're 'intellectual' attack us on us far lefties seeing as how clever you are and how we "pail" (heh heh) in comparison to the political genuis that is Top spinner.
 
uscitizen said:
Now that did not censor anything did it Damo ?
Click to expand...
It would if, by law, they believed Texas to be the opposite of Oklahoma. The unFairness Doctrine would mandate that the opinion of Texas be expressed to answer that of Oklahoma. Thus shutting out any other options. Often people would avoid expressing the opinion of Oklahoma because the Texas opinion would then be necessary to "Fair" it up in that oh-so-special Government Approved way.

Face it, uscit, it limits discussion and often does the opposite of what it was proposed to do. Thankfully we realized that and got rid of such restrictive censorship and now have many more options to us. Now we can hear the opinion of Colorado too, and even sometimes Kansas even though they have far less representation by numbers.
 
uscitizen said:
How did we make it so well during all those years the fairness doectine was in place I wonder......
Click to expand...
It depends on what you believe is "well". If you are a Libertarian and your opinion is shuffled to the side and never expressed because it is not a Government approved "opposite" of the other then you would find your definition of "fine" might be a little jaundiced.

We got along "fine" with the idiotic price-fixing of Nixon's but that doesn't mean the policy was right or even beneficial.

I see how much better it is now than before, I like it that way. I like choice in my network news. I like to be able to change channels and get an entirely different viewpoint. I like to be able to listen to the Libertarian on our talk raadio at night and the Democrat in the morning.

In my opinion it has gotten far better than before, choice is better than government homogenization at any moment of any day. If I like I can, and do, change over to the Liberal Talk station to listen to the diatribe of the day. I enjoy having these choices that I would not have otherwise when their unFairness Doctrine specifies the "opposite" of each opinion and we end up limited to the opinions of the major two again.

Your rationalization for returning to such censorship fails to be convincing in any way and all I have to do is remember the past. Playing "See the Same Story on all Three News Shows" while flipping through the channels....

I will continue to prefer my choices over a standardization and homogenization of Government-Approved "news" and opinion.
 
uscitizen said:
Need more examples of how the media cover the iraq war like they did during nam.
Click to expand...
I need you to show how a Fairness Doctrine would change how they are reporting the war. So far all the stories I regularly see on the news are negative, therefore we'd get the government approved "positives" as an "opposition" viewpoint?

The idea that the Fairness Doctrine was what caused them to print pictures of gore is rubbish. Negative stories on the war abound. You haven't yet shown how a law requiring that oh-so-special stamp of government approval would give us such pictures to begin with.

It wasn't the unFairness Doctrine that gave you those photos.
 
yeah the govt gave the stamp of approval for reporting the Mei Lai massacre didn't they ? showing all the dead and maimed troops in nam ? Yeah tell be something that makes sense.
 
uscitizen said:
yeah the govt gave the stamp of approval for reporting the Mei Lai massacre didn't they ? showing all the dead and maimed troops in nam ? Yeah tell be something that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Once again, the Fairness Doctrine didn't cover reporting. It covered Editorial portions of the shows. You have failed to prove how the cancellation of the (un)Fairness Doctrine has had the effect you principally "support" it for.

It wasn't the (un)Fairness Doctrine that changed what pictures they now show. It simply allowed shows like Rush, or Peter Boyles (That libertarian I spoke) without requiring the "opposing" government approved viewpoint to follow.

Once again, it wouldn't even change how they are reporting only negative stories right now. Unless it was presented as editorializing the "opposing" viewpoint wouldn't be shown regardless.

You are representing that this law would present us with those pictures. It doesn't follow at all that it would. All it would do is once again limit editorial shows the the government pre-approved "opposing" viewpoints, ergo it would once again limit the opinions we hear to the major two parties.

I don't want to return to that. I like my choices.
 
I find little of redeeming value in President Bush's tenure. However I can fairly say that Bush seems to have been a fairly good governor. He couldn't have rose to run for President if he had been a terrible one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top