i'm not as cynical as you, amlf. if every decision were easy, there wouldn't be judges. respect the fact that they respect and care for their job.

never implied I didn't. I just don't respect those judges who take broad liberties with interpreting the consitution with implications (penumbras and emanations for example) that do not exist in it aka activist judges

it does give us something to discuss while we deliver pizzas or think about our boyfriend during the day though.

don't anybody even suggest that there is no value to pizza delivery. Deep philosophical ponderings do take place while en route.

By the way Ron, one of the hallmarks of the Constitution and check and balances is that the Founders were in fact quite cynical and distrusting of government, like I am.

Just look at the horrendous push by Pelosi to enact the "Fairness Doctrine." If that is not a push to overstep congressional authority and debase the Right to Free Speech, then simply nothing is.

who is truly being hurt here? the rest of the constitution is protecting the people.

"who is truly being hurt here?" the rest of the constitution is protecting the people. Quote from Ron Mexico in #999461 at 12:44 pm.

Hamilton believed in a strong central government, but not this argument, since this notion was created by the Supreme Court during the Depression. But nice try.

Well fortunately, the framers were extremely skeptical of human nature, power and corruption. They built a system to limit the majority and any one branch from exerting too much power, which eventually corrupts.

They also set up a federal system to prevent tyranny from the central government, which has been lost thanks to you and your ilk.

But at least you are not cynical.

Sorry AML, didn't see your post until after I posted this.

What do the big supporters of the Fairness Doctrine have to say about Oprah refusing to have Sarah Palin on her show???








What do you mean they haven't said anything about it?!?!?!?

she is down for the cause Bimmer!!!

LOL I think a "horrendous push" would have to include at least a bill being introduced to do that, wouldn't it? The only "horrendous push" has been from right-wing talk radio to convince listeners that such a thing is before Congress.

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe ignited a hullabaloo by noting he'd overheard Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer discussing a 'legislative fix' for talk radio. The two senators denied it but Feinstein quickly weighed in, saying on Fox News that talk radio was too 'explosive,' pushing people, as she put it, to 'extreme views without a lot of information.'

Feinstein added that she was going to look closely at restoring the Fairness Doctrine. John Kerry had no hesitation: "I think the Fairness Doctrine ought to be there," he said bluntly.

Al Gore is another leading Democrat who thinks we need to regulate the airwaves.

If filibusters and vetoes can be overcome, the fairness doctrine will return...................

No need to filibuster or veto a bill that isn't introduced! This is just a ploy to scare people.

they scare me!

So let's get it on record, Yoss - are you confident that there will be no effort to implement a "fairness doctrine" if a Democrat sits in the White House with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate? (This is your credibility on the line.)

Side question - if there was to be such a bill introduced, would you support or oppose it?

is you or is you not my constituents!?!?!?!!!!

who-hoo!!

who cares.

oil is under $105/barrel. Now when will gas prices reflect the drop??? Cause they sure as heck are higher than the last time oil was under $105...

Don't hold your breath for a response, and for that matter, one that does not parse words like "implement or enact, you wrote implement not enact, so ..."

yeah...prices are getting way too low...now they're (OPEC) talkin' about cutting back on production

So, I'm supposed to foretell the future. The problem with your question is that the dittoheads ALREADY believe that there has been such an "effort" even without a bill being introduced! Sorry, I know a set-up when I see one. By the way, I don't consider you to be a fit judge of my credibility or anyone else's.

As far as whether I would support a hypothetical bill, I don't see the need for one, because even though there are abuses that occur, the marketplace of ideas stil works pretty well.

Yes, it's obvious you're not a big fan of accuracy.

As Bill Ayers might say, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. A LOT of PROMINENT DEMOCRATS have been quoted as very interested in re-implementing the fairness doctrine. Pelosi refuses to allow a vote on a bill to stop any re-implementation. So, talk all you want about there not being an "official" effort. We can see where this is going as soon as Pelosi doesn't have a veto to contend with.


No, what you know is the truth and you're unwilling to admit it.


Fair enough - but you're the one unwilling to answer questions.


I'll eagerly await your opposition when the effort becomes official.

"the marketplace of ideas"

hmmmmmmmmm

that is a pet phrase of someone on the radio from 10 to 1 eastern, just sayin.............

Hey isn't Dittoheads a Rush term? I didn't realize you listened to Rush, Yoss.

Also known as refusing to go along with the GOP election year ploy to upset the sheep.



I do answer fair questions. I even respons to your setup questions, although you may not like the answer.

It is a Limbaugh term for those that don't think for themselves. And, no, I don't listen to him for the same reason I don't read the National Enquirer.