great Presidential speech

[heinsite]

man this is good stuff you ALL--first, billy g, i think by that try at the emergency room facts i was trying and quickly outlining was TRYING to say that there is a HUGE HOLE in the system, and the local level has to fill it--or the local govs die trying--and so do us humans....so we agree,and i said up earlier my disappointment at the friggin BackAss guys bill, which i find absolutely NOt enough...this guy is a democrat? crap, an insult in my eyes.i sometimes really don't have time on here, and sometimes type too fast...but think it's clear where i stand. thanks for re-it-erating it my friend.and Mojo, again, you are one smart sommamabitch as old doc (where is he anyway?) used to say. ditto again.but the only diminshing returns i see actually is ANYONE who can work, should be able to work. we have able bodied friends and relatives who are bonifide RETARDED, that find HOPE (literally), so for christ's sake--whoops, don't won't to bring religion into this--for those that are train-able in damn near ANYTHING should be given the opportunity to find, keep, and contribute work to our society--and taxes back to the gov as well!!! we have many plans like this now, and some of you guys may be a bit "ascared" that this may be called socialism, or some other nasty word. i won't go that far, but i will say it's "right.", as in correct--not left or right politically. just the right thing to do..wh

[drew]

I just LOVE Pelosi:Pelosi (D-umba$$) implies protestors of health care reform will attempt assassination of top political leaders, suggests people take responsibility for what they say. No word on how she will take responsibility for her "swastika" comment which STARTED all the nazi/Hitler name callinghttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_angry_rhetorichttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....d=moreheadlines

[billg]

Sept 21, 2009, 6:15am, drew wrote:I just LOVE Pelosi:Pelosi (D-umba$$) implies protestors of health care reform will attempt assassination of top political leaders, suggests people take responsibility for what they say. No word on how she will take responsibility for her "swastika" comment which STARTED all the nazi/Hitler name callinghttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_angry_rhetorichttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con....d=moreheadlinesI don't think the current hysteria has anything to do with anything Nancy Pelosi said. The last few times I tuned into Rush Limbaugh's show I thought he was way out of line.I came home six weeks ago and told my wife this crap was going to happen because Limbaugh was spending all of his airtime trying his best to incite problems.Personally I think he's trying to see how far he can push his "freedom of speech" before someone yanks him off the air. I think it could be looked as a homeland security issue if people are incited to attend these demonstrations armed, and in that case it's fair game for Rush to be yanked.Of course that will only make him a martyr in the eyse of dangerous loonies.

[drew]

Amazing You don' think it's Pelosi, I don't think it's Limbaugh. Who woulda thunk it? I do know that Pelosi started the nazi name calling, it's on youtube. But I never heard a report of your quote of Limbaugh anywhere. If he is saying bring guns I think it would be all over the news. Do me a favor next time, everything he says is archived on his website so let me know either on the day or date he does something like that. I'll copy and paste it right onto this board.As I reported to you folks a week or two ago Obama has hired Mark Lloyd as FCC czar. He is as much of a radical, conspiracy follower as Van Jones was, he says "affirmative action was to benefit white women" , what a maroon. This should end well, who do you imagine he's going to try to get off the air? Bill Clinton tried removing conservatives with the Fairness Doctrine, he just couldn't decide who he wanted to be fair to.

[mojobone]

People don't seem to realize the Fairness Doctrine was initially promoted by conservatives, back when both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by the Democrats, maybe before that, I'd have to look it up, but we had the Fairness Doctrine for something like thirty years, don't recall if it was Reagan or Bush senior that threw it out. In any case, the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with restricting speech; it promoted more speech, requiring broadcasters that use the public airwaves to tell both sides of any political story. (reputable news agencies still do just that) If we brought it back, any station that ran the Limbaugh show would be required to follow it with three hours of rebuttal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

[drew]

In congress, back in Clinton days, it was called the Hush Rush BillThe Bamster started his own campaign in January call the Crush Rush Mission

[jjktunes]

Sept 21, 2009, 2:51pm, mojobone wrote:People don't seem to realize the Fairness Doctrine was initially promoted by conservatives, back when both houses of Congress and the White House were controlled by the Democrats, maybe before that, I'd have to look it up, but we had the Fairness Doctrine for something like thirty years, don't recall if it was Reagan or Bush senior that threw it out. In any case, the Fairness Doctrine had nothing to do with restricting speech; it promoted more speech, requiring broadcasters that use the public airwaves to tell both sides of any political story. (reputable news agencies still do just that) If we brought it back, any station that ran the Limbaugh show would be required to follow it with three hours of rebuttal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_DoctrineDid some research Mojo and you are 100% right, equal time on the airwaves.

[drew]

Clinton's plan was that he could force radio stations to take Rush off the air by requiring equal time. It would be such a money loser to air the opposite view that it wouldn't make it profitable to air Rush, that's why is was called the Hush Rush Bill. But America wanted it to include all airwaves, ABC, NCB, CBS, CNN, etc.. who said they weren't political, and were moderate any way Even they couldn't keep a straight face when saying it.So eventually a group backed an Al Franken radio broadcast. It couldn't make money, no one listened to that idiot, therefore advertisers quit buying time (that's what they wanted to put Rush out of business). Finally, the Franken group got caught stealing money from another source, which included the GIRL SCOUTS OF AMERICA. I didn't find it hard to believe either .The Fairness Doctrine kind of disappeared after that but Obama said during his campaign that he would implement it under a better plan. The just want to make sure it's only fair to liberals... solution: CZAR, the more radical, the more better.

[billg]

Sept 21, 2009, 1:49pm, drew wrote:Amazing You don' think it's Pelosi, I don't think it's Limbaugh. Who woulda thunk it? I do know that Pelosi started the nazi name calling, it's on youtube. But I never heard a report of your quote of Limbaugh anywhere. If he is saying bring guns I think it would be all over the news. Do me a favor next time, everything he says is archived on his website so let me know either on the day or date he does something like that. I'll copy and paste it right onto this board.As I reported to you folks a week or two ago Obama has hired Mark Lloyd as FCC czar. He is as much of a radical, conspiracy follower as Van Jones was, he says "affirmative action was to benefit white women" , what a maroon. This should end well, who do you imagine he's going to try to get off the air? Bill Clinton tried removing conservatives with the Fairness Doctrine, he just couldn't decide who he wanted to be fair to.I never said Rush said "bring your guns". But it he is inciteful and knows how to rouse his base of nutjobs and whip them into a frenzy.And (thanks mojo) the fairness doctrine predates Clinton and I had always heard it was championed by conservatives to offset what they perceived as liberal bias in the media.Look, Rush has taken one too many painkillers and blown a gasket. He's beside himself because Obama is the president and he's losing his $h*t because of it. I usually have a good time listening to him freak out but his rhetoric has started sounding inciteful dangerous. I know there are always those who will say he's jut an entertainer etc., but there are far too many unhinged people who take him seriously. Hannity is right behind him on the loon train. I'm afraid they're gonna keep it up until something bad happens . . . then of course blame someone else.

[ggalen]

Actually, I think the way things have now gone with the conservatives in America is a disaster for the Republicans. These people may get news coverage, but then again, so do all sorts of "interesting" and extreme characters.But the more sane and solid majority shakes their heads, moves on, and will never elect someone to the presidency who is put up for election by these folks.I think the Southern Republican, conservative coalition of the 8-year Bush era is over now. Their day was around 2003-2004 or so. Now the US demographics have changed. And Bush/Cheney pretty much blew it by letting the economy crash and burn, and spending us into oblivion with Bush's War Against Saddam (the guy who tried to assassinate his Dad, as you may recall).