Whats up with the dems attack on freedom of speach?

Chapdog said:
the clear goal here is to remove or prevent him/her from saying something.

dont hide behind the new method of doing this. aka using enough false rage and money to create a negative campaign that ends up forcing the privet entity to shut that voice down out of fear of loosing money.

we all know what the dems are trying to do.. lol they telegraphed it. declared war on right wing radio.

its not a positive thing for this country.
Click to expand...

correct, right wing radio is not a positive thing for our country.
 
Right wing radio is bad for this country because it spreads lies as if they were true, but soap operas are also bad for this country. Neither should be banned. But feel free to condem them!
 
right. but condemning them does not belong on the floors of congress when we have so many other real issues to deal with.
 
Chapdog said:
right. but condemning them does not belong on the floors of congress when we have so many other real issues to deal with.
Click to expand...

I agree, just like condeming "move on" for the same thing does not belong on the floor of congress.
 
Jarod said:
I agree, just like condeming "move on" for the same thing does not belong on the floor of congress.
Click to expand...
Then we have one big agree-fest. Now contact your representative, I'll contact mine and we'll tell them that we think they are idiots for doing this instead of working on what they are supposed to.
 
As far as I am aware Move On doesn't receive any federal funds whereas Rush, a daily staple of armed forces radio, does. Rush is free to say whatever the hell he wants, just like Move On. But the federal government doesn't have to pay him to do so.
 
Dungheap said:
As far as I am aware Move On doesn't receive any federal funds whereas Rush, a daily staple of armed forces radio, does. Rush is free to say whatever the hell he wants, just like Move On. But the federal government doesn't have to pay him to do so.
Click to expand...

I agree, and building on that we need to privatize NPR and PBS so that we also are not FORCED to pay for any media.
 
TheDanold said:
I agree, and building on that we need to privatize NPR and PBS so that we also are not FORCED to pay for any media.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. Put a tax on commercial broadcasters to pay for NPR and PBS.
News used to be a public service, a requirement of broadcast liscences. Now it is a cash cow.
 
uscitizen said:
I sort of agree. Put a tax on commercial broadcasters to pay for NPR and PBS.
News used to be a public service, a requirement of broadcast liscences. Now it is a cash cow.
Click to expand...

You sort of agree, but still believe we should be forced to pay for state-o-centric media? where's the 'sort of'?
 
Chap, let me be the umpteenth person to ridicule your original premise on this thread.

This is exactly what freedom of speech is. Someone freely expressing their opinion (for example, saying soldiers who oppose Iraq are "phony"), and someone else criticizing them for it.

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that opinions go unchallenged (happily)...
 
Onceler said:
Chap, let me be the umpteenth person to ridicule your original premise on this thread.

This is exactly what freedom of speech is. Someone freely expressing their opinion (for example, saying soldiers who oppose Iraq are "phony"), and someone else criticizing them for it.

Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee that opinions go unchallenged (happily)...
Click to expand...

But does this belong in congress?
 
Onceler said:
Frankly, the idea of Congress wasting time on this is something I can't stand.

However, it has nothing at all to do with free speech.
Click to expand...

It probably wouldn't be in Congress if Republicans hadn't brought the moveon censure there last week.

Hopefully, with this, they got the point and won't do it again. But I kind of doubt it.
 
Darla said:
It probably wouldn't be in Congress if Republicans hadn't brought the moveon censure there last week.
.
Click to expand...


I was thinking the exact same thing. It's a "payback" thing. The Petraeus/moveon resolution was ridiculous; political grandstanding at its worst.

I noticed that O'Reilly, Gibson & other elements of FoxNews are jumping to Limbaugh's defense on this one, though, which is kind of a neat double-standard to witness such a short time after they lost their minds about the moveon ad...
 
AssHatZombie said:
You sort of agree, but still believe we should be forced to pay for state-o-centric media? where's the 'sort of'?
Click to expand...

Umm lately commercial media ie FOX, rush, talk radio pundits have been far more state o centric than PBS has. Actually it has always pretty much been that way. that is why the Republicans hate PBS and NPR.
 
Onceler said:
I was thinking the exact same thing. It's a "payback" thing. The Petraeus/moveon resolution was ridiculous; political grandstanding at its worst.

I noticed that O'Reilly, Gibson & other elements of FoxNews are jumping to Limbaugh's defense on this one, though, which is kind of a neat double-standard to witness such a short time after they lost their minds about the moveon ad...
Click to expand...

Well, Chap hadn't heard about the moveon resolution, which I would find funny, but since I discovered yesterday that Cawacko slept through an entire decade (the 1990's), sleeping through one week doesn't seem bad at all.

I saw some of what O'Reilly has been saying on this, and it's just really too funny. I don't know how they don't feel any shame to get on tv with absolutely zero intellectual honesty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top