I, for one, Welcome Our New Banana Overlords One of the first things President Obama did was to tell all federal agencies to reverse the Bush era rule that all Freedom of Information Acts should be rejected if at all possible. This led to more secrecy than ever seen since the Nixon days.
Obama changed the rule to be the information should be released unless there was an issue with security.
Rush Limbaugh said the move makes us more like a Banana Republic. WTF??? More transparency makes us worse off? Give me a break.
I say, "Let the light of democracy shine until there are no cockroaches left in the dark corners of Washington". They've had 8 years to feed, it's time they left.
I wonder if Rachael Maddow or Keith Olberman should also be "put away". How about Maureen Dowd?
Another great idea for Obama would be to kick off the plane all of the newspapers who didnt endorse him...oh wait, he already did that.
Another great idea would be to make a list of all the reporters that you will be calling on and hand it out beforehand at press conferences. If you ask a tough question though you might not be on the list next time.....oh wait, he already does that.
Talk about trampling our constitution.
Yes, Rush does go overboard on occasion but I certainly wouldnt want someone to say that he cannot say the things he does just because they disagree with him.
I am willing to give obama a chance but did the dems give Bush a chance 8 years ago?
Good riddance for sure!
I saw a clip of Rush last night and a couple clips from Fox news. It's all very entertaining. I'm not really bothered by the criticism...it is to be expected. Not everyone is going to agree with Obama's moves during his presidency and I'm sure he will he piss me off at some point. I don't see any point in comparing him to Bush at this point either. Let's look forward and not backwards.
He got a chance with most of them after 9/11, but then declared war on Iraq on bad intel.
Rush is right about half the time. When he's right, he's really right, and it makes people mad because it gets in the way of their agendas. But when he's wrong, he's a raving lunatic.
Obviously you have much to learn about how liberals think. It is perfectly acceptable and encouraged to degrade conservatives. However, make one comment that is not 100% flattering of a liberal or refuse to bow down to The Obama and you are labeled a hater and a racist. That is just the way the world goes around. You are up one day and the next your down, its a half an inch of water and you think you are going to drown.
I think the democrats ought to get down to the republican level a little more often. I remember a certain democratic president who was impeached over a bj and lying about the same.
The democrats had plenty of time to investigate and impeach bush over a war, wmd and lying about the same. I don't know why they didn't. They seem afraid of their own shadows a lot of the time.
And RickMonday, as far as the fairness doctrine goes, it has nothing to do with curtailing free speech. It's about hearing both sides. On the PUBLIC airwaves. Perhaps you aren't aware, but I own the airwaves, and so do you and everyone else, that's why I don't have an issue with the fairness doctrine. No one is going to stop Rush or anyone else from spewing their drug and falafel addled crap around, we'll just get to hear crap from people who think differently as well; not sure why that scares the conservatives so much.
I'm all for Rush being on the air, I have no reason to want him removed. . I wish more people listened to his drivel, he would probably drive a lot of people to the Democratic party. A large part of his current listeners are the kind of people who are going to vote Republican anyway, if more middle of the road people listened, they would realize just how far out there the conservatives really are.
I've heard good arguments as to why other countries are being labeled 'banana republic' today, Glasnost isn't one of the reasons. To compound matters I bet he was esposing the notion that "I have nothing to hide" over the past 8 years.
Leet's not forget that Operation Chaos, where Rush asked his followers to go and vote for Hillary in the primaries, well guess what those votes helped keep her in the Dem nomination race long enough for her to be chosen as Sec. of State.
Coming up on the NBC, a new show, "America Held Hostage", presented by , you guessed it.
now, where's me falafel?
So question for you Good News: A couple of weeks ago, I was watching 'ER' (a show on NBC for those who don't watch) and there was a 'sex scene'. Not really a sex scene since the only thing we saw was their heads and arms nude. Would you have an issue if that scene would have been a full-on hard-core scene that showed absolutely everything? How about soap operas, could they show full nudity sex scenes? Do you have any issues with that?
First, you forget to mention that Clintons lie was during an investigation of sexual harassment. So it is significant
2nd, The real reason for the fairness doctrine is that liberal stations cannot compete. Hell, Air America had to steal funds from a boys and girls club in New York to stay on the air....and I am probably one of the few people who listen to air america.
I wonder if the fairness doctrine would force the New York Times to write 50% of their editorials with a conservative slant.
The fairness doctrine is nothing but a curtailment of free speech.
Thanks for the explanation on the airwaves. That's the way I thought it worked. In answer to your questions about hardcore sex scenes (porn), yes, of course I would have a problem with that. There are certain moral standards that apply and must be regulated and enforced. When radio stations (or announcers) cross the line, they should be punished, and if they do too often, shut down. The free market does this in a sense too. Don Imus was fired for crossing the line. I don't think the FCC stepped in on that one, but the station owners fired him (rightfully so) among the public outcry.
If you really think about it. If this "fairness doctrine" is passed and stations who target their conservative audience have to start having to offer "liberal programming", then the listeners will simply change the station and find another source during that time period. I love technology, because I can sign up for automatic mp3 downloads for what I want to listen to. (And by the way, that does not include Rush) I listen mainly to Christian radio which includes great teaching and music that you don't have to worry if your children overhear. Unless of course you are Christopher Hitchins, who believes Christian teaching should be considered "child abuse".
It's either let the markets decide in a true free market where ANYTHING goes, or the government gets to decide what gets regulated. And ANYTHING is fair game.
So since the democrats are in charge, why shouldn't they be able to simply say that conservative talk radio equates to IMMORAL hate speech and regulate it directly, fairness doctrine aside? I mean, they control the government. Who gets to say that porn is more immoral than anything else? The majority right?