herkyp
Prostate Massager
Posts: 134
|
Post by herkyp on Feb 17, 2009 11:47:34 GMT -6
I get it, you hate hannity and rush. But do you think it's fair to try to silence people who have different views? More importantly do you think that with all the problems we are facing as a society the federal government should even be spending time on this?
I also understand that liberals don't like religion. But doesn't it seem odd to you that the party that is so pro-evolution is so anti-survival of the fitest?
|
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 17, 2009 11:57:31 GMT -6
I get it, you hate hannity and rush. But do you think it's fair to try to silence people who have different views? More importantly do you think that with all the problems we are facing as a society the federal government should even be spending time on this? I also understand that liberals don't like religion. But doesn't it seem odd to you that the party that is so pro-evolution is so anti-survival of the fitest? I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, you cocksucker. I even saw the pope in person last year. Tell me, sparky...what does it say about YOU and your ilk that your most prominent spokesperson is a thrice-divorced drug addicted failed TV personality who takes Viagra trips to the Dominican Republic? Case fucking closed. You lose. For the record, asshole, if you haven't figured it out yet...I am the fittest, and my kind will rule the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Feb 17, 2009 12:25:56 GMT -6
I get it, you hate hannity and rush. But do you think it's fair to try to silence people who have different views? More importantly do you think that with all the problems we are facing as a society the federal government should even be spending time on this? I also understand that liberals don't like religion. But doesn't it seem odd to you that the party that is so pro-evolution is so anti-survival of the fitest? I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, you cocksucker. I even saw the pope in person last year. Tell me, sparky...what does it say about YOU and your ilk that your most prominent spokesperson is a thrice-divorced drug addicted failed TV personality who takes Viagra trips to the Dominican Republic? Case fucking closed. You lose. For the record, asshole, if you haven't figured it out yet...I am the fittest, and my kind will rule the world. You are comical if nothing else. Have you ever met anyone that buys your "bad ass" garbage? As the old saying goes, "Those that talk loudest get dropped hardest". |
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 17, 2009 12:40:30 GMT -6
I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, you cocksucker. I even saw the pope in person last year. Tell me, sparky...what does it say about YOU and your ilk that your most prominent spokesperson is a thrice-divorced drug addicted failed TV personality who takes Viagra trips to the Dominican Republic? Case fucking closed. You lose. For the record, asshole, if you haven't figured it out yet...I am the fittest, and my kind will rule the world. You are comical if nothing else. Have you ever met anyone that buys your "bad ass" garbage? As the old saying goes, "Those that talk loudest get dropped hardest". Comedy would be you trying to drop me. But I digress. Hey, look...some Republicans who aren't fucking retards! www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/politics/17repubs.html?_r=1 |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 17, 2009 12:43:03 GMT -6
You are comical if nothing else. Have you ever met anyone that buys your "bad ass" garbage? As the old saying goes, "Those that talk loudest get dropped hardest". That doesn't bode well for the ones effected by the fairness doctrine... ps - should we count you & herky among those that buy the bad-ass garbage? |
|
|
|
Post by twinegarden on Feb 17, 2009 12:49:29 GMT -6
You are comical if nothing else. Have you ever met anyone that buys your "bad ass" garbage? As the old saying goes, "Those that talk loudest get dropped hardest". Comedy would be you trying to drop me. But I digress. Hey, look...some Republicans who aren't fucking retards! www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/politics/17repubs.html?_r=1Well, it is no suprise the Terminator would support the bailout, California's state budget is completely fucked right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Feb 17, 2009 12:49:51 GMT -6
You are comical if nothing else. Have you ever met anyone that buys your "bad ass" garbage? As the old saying goes, "Those that talk loudest get dropped hardest". Comedy would be you trying to drop me. But I digress. Hey, look...some Republicans who aren't fucking retards! www.nytimes.com/2009/02/17/us/politics/17repubs.html?_r=1Pirate, I'm a 47 year old out of shape fat guy, but I'd be willing to give it a go. |
|
herkyp
Prostate Massager
Posts: 134
|
Post by herkyp on Feb 17, 2009 13:13:55 GMT -6
Well, it is no suprise the Terminator would support the bailout, California's state budget is completely fucked right now. I read yesterday (sorry can't find a link) that Cali is thinking about legalizing weed to help the state money problems. |
|
|
|
Post by Saggitariutt Jefferspin (ith) on Feb 18, 2009 16:23:12 GMT -6
I get it, you hate hannity and rush. But do you think it's fair to try to silence people who have different views? More importantly do you think that with all the problems we are facing as a society the federal government should even be spending time on this? I also understand that liberals don't like religion. But doesn't it seem odd to you that the party that is so pro-evolution is so anti-survival of the fitest? I'm a practicing Roman Catholic, you cocksucker. . Am I the only one that found that last sentence goddamn hilarious???  |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 19, 2009 7:15:22 GMT -6
Kind of sad. And here I was hoping for more misspelled spit-laden "W ALVERINES!!!" rants... tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/02/the-fairness-doctrine-rip.phpLet's do a quick tally... 1. Evildoers... Nope 2. Terri Schiavo... Nope 3. Dixie Chicks... Nope 4. Valerie Plame... Nope ..... 98. ACORN... Nope 99. Fairness Doctrine... Nope Number 100 ought to be a doozy. |
|
herkyp
Prostate Massager
Posts: 134
|
Post by herkyp on Feb 19, 2009 7:22:36 GMT -6
Moore takling abuot miss-speeling??? U kan't bee cerious??
|
|
|
|
Post by mattahawk on Feb 19, 2009 13:39:40 GMT -6
I agree, good job on the letter. It may or may not have been said better, but not by me. I will tell you exactly why they are putting our tax dollars into Acorn, not that you probably don't know. Acorn registers mostly democrats in the poorer parts of cities. Help Acorn grow, keep registering new democrats, keep the democrats in office. Keep democrats in office and they keep increasing the amount of money that goes towards welfare etc. Keep the poor happy and they in effect buy their vote for the next generation. It sounds pretty simple to me. So you're confirming that you are not unlike those that are pro "fairness doctrine", willing to subvert the rights of US citizens to have their voice heard through elections? Makes sense in the mind of a Republican. PS - Did you ever read what happened with your ACORN paranoia? news.cincinnati.com/article/20090127/NEWS01/301270059So you are in fact denying that there are some librals out there that want to institute the fairness doctine? Because that would be prettty stupid if you are. Only like 4 librul politicians, including Harkin, have come out and said it would be a good idea. Acorn isn't paranoia if it is factual. By the way, nice how when bush was in office you and your librul' brethren were all paranoid about Bush and now a librul' is in office the crap he has pulled in just signing this stimulus bill is a-ok. But hey, in your mind it's whatever works right? |
|
|
|
Post by Iowafan1 on Feb 20, 2009 6:38:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 20, 2009 7:40:05 GMT -6
Are you frickin kidding me??? The GOP needs to have a non-binding bill so they can not worry about a bill that isn't even in the pipeline & wouldn't be signed by Obama? What a bunch of pussies. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Feb 20, 2009 7:50:30 GMT -6
Acorn isn't paranoia if it is factual. By the way, nice how when bush was in office you and your librul' brethren were all paranoid about Bush and now a librul' is in office the crap he has pulled in just signing this stimulus bill is a-ok. But hey, in your mind it's whatever works right? Exactly what - about ACORN is factual? Other than the handful of employees that stole from ACORN by creating registrations for profit - with the names of people that never voted... even the uber-Wingnut DA in Cincinnati was on the record a few weeks ago saying all his paranoid accusations prior to the election (and quoted by you) were unfounded. As far as the level of paranoia... As soon as Obama does something along the lines of invoking "Mushroom Clouds" and lies us into a war, has congress pass legislation with 3 members on the floor, allows his policy to be dictated by lobbyists/donors... I'll not feel a bit paranoid about him. Until then, I'll just laugh at whatever points you transfer directly from the minds of Rush/Hannity, etc. and post here. |
|
herkyp
Prostate Massager
Posts: 134
|
Post by herkyp on Mar 7, 2009 15:21:29 GMT -6
Got a reply, can't fucking believe it. Thank you for contacting me about the Fairness Doctrine. I always appreciate hearing from you. As you may know, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) first instituted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 as a way to promote diverse viewpoints on broadcast airwaves. The Doctrine required broadcasters, who received their licenses from the federal government, to spend a portion of their air time discussing topics of public interest and to ensure alternative viewpoints were aired. The Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine, citing the public's ownership of the airwaves and the right of viewers and listeners to hear diverse opinions. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Doctrine. I believe we need to explore ways to open up the airwaves - which are publicly owned - to diverse viewpoints. Sadly, American media outlets have become increasingly one-sided. In fact, one recent study found that 91% of all weekday talk radio is conservative. This is troubling not because I may disagree with opinions being expressed. Rather, I believe in a democracy it is crucial that our citizens are exposed to diverse viewpoints before making up their minds on a given issue. That is why I am committed to ensuring competition, diversity, and local content flourish on the airwaves. We need to examine media-ownership caps, ways to increase minority and women media ownership, and we need to make sure we have a meaningful license renewal process that ensures those companies that own valuable spectrum are reminded of their public interest duties. That is why I supported an amendment offered by Senator Durbin to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S.160) that requires the FCC to continue to promote diversity on the airwaves and make sure broadcast station licenses are used to promote the public interest. It is also why I voted against an amendment offered by Senator DeMint which not only prohibits the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but also prohibits the FCC from enacting any regulations regarding broadcasters' obligations concerning issues of public interest. Both of these amendments were adopted by the Senate and included in the final bill that passed the Senate on February 26, 2009. The bill must now be considered by the House of Representatives. In addition, last year, I opposed the efforts by former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to abolish limits on how many newspapers and broadcast outlets one company can own in a single media market. Chairman Martin's efforts would have resulted in more imbalanced reporting in many markets throughout the country. I was pleased Congress prevented Mr. Martin from removing these limits. Currently, no bill exists in the United States Senate or in the House of Representatives to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, a current provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 specifically prohibits the FCC from using any money appropriated by Congress to reinstate the Doctrine. Additionally, as noted above, the Senate adopted the DeMint Amendment to S. 160 prohibiting the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Thanks again for contacting me to share your views about the Fairness Doctrine. I can assure you I will take your views into consideration as the Senate continues to debate this issue. Sincerely, Tom HarkinUnited States Senator TH/DES Please do not reply to this email. To contact me, please log on to my website at harkin.senate.gov/. |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 7, 2009 16:07:33 GMT -6
No thunder, you fucking waste of skin, I didn't spell it wrong in the email. I was at work when I sent this, and was working on another computer. I actually had my assistant post the email on this board for me because the computer I was on didn't have the web address for the wasteland saved and I couldn't remember it. I will let him know that you are willing to give him some spelling lessons. When should I tell him the biggest internet tough guy of all time will be meeting with him?? Your stupid ass has an assistant? I already know Harkin. He's 100 times the man you'll ever be. Guys there is no reason to fight over shit like this. And I know for a fact Thunder, you have given me free passes on spelling. I love ya man, but seriously, with the plethora of "shit faced drunk" posts that I produce... I don't remember you calling me out on spelling. |
|
|
|
Post by socal on Mar 8, 2009 8:36:59 GMT -6
Got a reply, can't fucking believe it. Thank you for contacting me about the Fairness Doctrine. I always appreciate hearing from you. As you may know, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) first instituted the Fairness Doctrine in 1949 as a way to promote diverse viewpoints on broadcast airwaves. The Doctrine required broadcasters, who received their licenses from the federal government, to spend a portion of their air time discussing topics of public interest and to ensure alternative viewpoints were aired. The Supreme Court upheld the Doctrine, citing the public's ownership of the airwaves and the right of viewers and listeners to hear diverse opinions. In 1987, the FCC abolished the Doctrine. I believe we need to explore ways to open up the airwaves - which are publicly owned - to diverse viewpoints. Sadly, American media outlets have become increasingly one-sided. In fact, one recent study found that 91% of all weekday talk radio is conservative. This is troubling not because I may disagree with opinions being expressed. Rather, I believe in a democracy it is crucial that our citizens are exposed to diverse viewpoints before making up their minds on a given issue. That is why I am committed to ensuring competition, diversity, and local content flourish on the airwaves. We need to examine media-ownership caps, ways to increase minority and women media ownership, and we need to make sure we have a meaningful license renewal process that ensures those companies that own valuable spectrum are reminded of their public interest duties. That is why I supported an amendment offered by Senator Durbin to the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 (S.160) that requires the FCC to continue to promote diversity on the airwaves and make sure broadcast station licenses are used to promote the public interest. It is also why I voted against an amendment offered by Senator DeMint which not only prohibits the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, but also prohibits the FCC from enacting any regulations regarding broadcasters' obligations concerning issues of public interest. Both of these amendments were adopted by the Senate and included in the final bill that passed the Senate on February 26, 2009. The bill must now be considered by the House of Representatives. In addition, last year, I opposed the efforts by former FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to abolish limits on how many newspapers and broadcast outlets one company can own in a single media market. Chairman Martin's efforts would have resulted in more imbalanced reporting in many markets throughout the country. I was pleased Congress prevented Mr. Martin from removing these limits. Currently, no bill exists in the United States Senate or in the House of Representatives to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. Furthermore, a current provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008 specifically prohibits the FCC from using any money appropriated by Congress to reinstate the Doctrine. Additionally, as noted above, the Senate adopted the DeMint Amendment to S. 160 prohibiting the FCC from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Thanks again for contacting me to share your views about the Fairness Doctrine. I can assure you I will take your views into consideration as the Senate continues to debate this issue. Sincerely, Tom HarkinUnited States Senator TH/DES Please do not reply to this email. To contact me, please log on to my website at harkin.senate.gov/. So............ are you slightly less paranoid than you were before you received it? |
|
|
|
Post by HawksStock on Mar 8, 2009 16:09:54 GMT -6
The fairness doctrine is wrong. Period, their is no defending it.(if you claim to be a decent human being)
|
|
