Only if it's a Portio Di Rossi type...and she marries someone other than an Ellen type (say, how about a Jenna Jameson type?) But if it's a Rosie O'Donnell type...well, let's film that and force the Gitmo detainees to watch. Way more tortuous than waterboarding.
But Bill Ayers would have a fit. Don't you see -- in the great Maoist-Chavez transformation of the schools into good little indoctrination cells, all were told there would be no math -- just the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Bo please tell me how the fairness doctrine is fair or right at all? It isn't. It's disgusting and if the democrats push it thru it will completely go against the unity that Obama is pushing.
The Fairness Doctrine was more relevant in the days before the internet, cable television, podcasts, and satellite radio. At one point, it was necessary simply because (a) the airwaves are public, with licenses given to private companies; and (b) there were a limited number of channels available. But at this point, I think it's largely a relic of a past or passing era. But "disgusting"? Spare me. Furthermore, Obama opposes reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. You could have learned this on your own with your trusty friend Google.
No, it would simply suppress conservative talk radio by taking away an economic incentive. Of course, that's the non-secret agenda of the liberals who want to restore it. They want government to regulate the quantity of speech. That's their rationalization, of course -- "we're not preventing, we're just providing balance." But "balance" in their view winds up invariably "crowding out" and that is suppression of speech. Speech should be free. See constitution.
However, plenty of conservatives, it's worth noting, want the Fairness Doctrine in the classroom. It's the only way they can force kids to learn about their supernatural, anti-scientific alternative to evolution.
Jesus Christ, the guy has been president elect for less than a week and hasn't even appointed 90% of his key positions, let alone do anything to abridge your freedoms. Give the poor oppressed martyr act a rest until the guy actually makes his first decision as president.
Once again, as if on cue, the lefty comes in and accuses the other side of doing the same thing, only worse. No one is suppressing creationists views by limiting their ability to teach their doctrine in a science classroom. They have plenty of opportunity to make their case. The media fairness doctrine, in contrast, is designed to limit and constrain political opinion. I know someone as smart as you, liberal though you may be, can understand this distinction. Yes?
I'm basically just screwing with you all. But there is a point buried in there somewhere. The Fairness Doctrine mandates the allotment of air time to opposing views. That's exactly what the Intelligent Design advocates wanted a few years ago, before they were shot down. In neither case is anyone's general ability to air their views being challenged; it's only being challenged with regard to certain arenas (the radio vs. the classroom). But you'll note that, as I wrote above, I'm not in favor of reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. For one thing, it's a concept that no longer reflects the media landscape. For another, considering the the genuinely pressing issues we're facing right now, it's a wasteful use of our energy and time. Besides, we now have a situation wherein organizations like Media Matters listen to talk radio and catalog the idiotic and untrue things that drip out of Limbaugh et al's mouths . . . and it absolutely drives talk radio people bonkers! The marketplace is doing a perfectly adequate job limiting the influence of Bill O'Reilly.
As worried as you should always be. I just wish more people cared when habeus corpus was thrown in the garbage bin. You should always keep a watchful eye on your government when it comes to your freedoms regardless of which party is in power. My guess is that you will see Obama right many of the constitutional wrongs that have cropped up over the last eight years. If he tries to restrict your rights to buy guns, sure, stand up for yourself. If your rights of association or speech or the ability to practice your religion (whatever that is) are threatened, stand up.
Citizens are not waiting... Gun sales surge after Obama's election Kevin Bohn CNN Senior Producer http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/11/11/obama.gun.sales/index.html WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Bernie Conatser has never seen business this good. The owner of a gun shop in the Washington suburb of Manassas, Virginia, Conatser said sales have doubled or tripled since this time last year. On Saturday, he said, he did as much business as he would normally do in a week. "I have been in business for 12 years, and I was here for Y2K, September 11, Katrina," Conatser said, as a steady stream of customers browsed what remained of his stock. "And all of those were big events, and we did notice a spike in business, but nothing on the order of what we are seeing right now." Weapons dealers in much of the United States are reporting sharply higher sales since Barack Obama won the presidency a week ago. Buyers and sellers attribute the surge to worries that Obama and a Democratic-controlled Congress will move to restrict firearm ownership, despite the insistence of campaign aides that the president-elect supports gun rights and considers the issue a low priority.
Ive been listening to reactionary radio all week. I cant decide. Is he a Marxist or a Fascist? P.S. Can anyone point me to where Obama claimed a desire to take away guns?
Pssst.....come close....I have a little historical perspective for you...ya ready? They called it the National SOCIALIST Party...
L-E-F-T-Y: Y-O-U H-A-V-E T-O R-E-A-D B-E-Y-O-N-D B-O T-A-L-K-I-N-G P-O-I-N-T-S On the Second Amendment, Don’t Believe Obama NRA-ILA "... his real record, based on votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows that Barack Obama is a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties. Don’t listen to his campaign rhetoric! Look instead to what he has said and done during his entire political career..." FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia. FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.(18) FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.(1) FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.(15) FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.(3) FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.(9) FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.(2) FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.(4) FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people who use firearms in self-defense.(5) FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.(6) FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.(7) FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.(7) FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”(8) FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.(9) FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.(10) FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.(11) FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.(12) FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.(13) FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.(2) FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.(14) FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.(16) FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.(9) FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.(9) FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.(9) References/Citations
Well, as a volunteer, I wouldn't think you'd get to "teach" anything, but help the teacher with the class. And I would think elemetary schools would be more in need than high schools. And what's wrong with requiring it, say, of college graduates? Or even high school graduates? How about part of a drivers license? All of these people (us) take advantage of federal investments...giving back seems fair to me.
What's wrong with REQUIRING it, you ask?? That you have to ask the question is such a rhetorical fashion speaks volumes. "Getting through the thick skull" takes on new meaning. And the Federal government "invests" very very little. The government SPENDS...YOUR tax dollars (assuming you even pay taxes, which would put you in elite 50% of this country seeing as how the other half pays nothing).
Then it's not volunteering or charity, then it's mandatory service or taxation. I'll be good cop to Karl's bad, what you're asking really is all of us to do government work for no pay. Want to require this of people who get federal education grants? Fine, but at least then people who don't like the term of that loan (having to shore up our crappy public schools with free labor) can look elsewhere for college funding. That is choice, which seems kind of American to me. What you're proposing involves the strong serving the weak, which philosophicaly I'm opposed to, and I don't think is how this country got to be what it is. Sure people are willing to help one another, but not with a gun to their head. What would be the punishment for not getting involved in this national service-type thingie? Jail? Higher taxes? Season tickets to the Oakland Raiders? (which the people who's schools need help would probably like, at least here in SoCal).
I wish everyone admitted this and understood this. The strong servicing the weak is not how this country got to be what it is. Shunning laissez faire capitalism is not how this country got to be what it is. Taxing people at high rates is not how this country got to be what it is. Socialism is not how this country got to be what it is. Only when we have deviated from the basic principles of the framers of the constitution have we gotten ourselves into trouble.