0

Censorship is censorship is communism. She may be a great mom, a great wife, a great hunter, but anyone who advocates censorship of any book doesn't belong in the white house. My wife is a great mom and wife too, but I wouldn't vote for her either :)

Good line - too bad you had to stick 'communism' in there when all political forces try for censorship at one time or another in their histories.

What do we really know about Sarah Palin other than "loving mother, apple pie, articulate thinker all rolled into one". Answer: Not a damed thing. But I'm sure we will find out in the next couple months.

I will buy into 'loving mother', 'apple pie' and 'articulate' but so far there is not proof for 'thinker'. She spent the time since McCain introduced her to the nation closeted with Bush's speech-writer. We know she can read a teleprompter well - we will have to wait until she is in a more 'free' and open arena to see if she is a thinker.

0

I think the long list of bad books was issued by the church she is a member of. She had no choice but to follow her Christian edicts.

0

I think the long list of bad books was issued by the church she is a member of. She had no choice but to follow her Christian edicts.

That is a pretty scary thought!!

0

This should come as no surprise - I am fully behind the concept of The Fairness Doctrine wrt broadcast media.

Really? I can't imagine leftymedia giving up a 70% market share.

0

Really? I can't imagine leftymedia giving up a 70% market share.

I didn't know there were that many left handed people in the media. This is simply amazing.

0

The Fairness Doctrine is confusing to me. Does it mean that if you have a guest on CNN for 15 minutes who thinks that the Earth is round, you also must invite someone from the Flat Earth Society to give the "opposing viewpoint" for fifteen minutes? At what point is a viewpoint officially decreed to be too dumb to merit equal time?

0

The Fairness Doctrine is confusing to me. Does it mean that if you have a guest on CNN for 15 minutes who thinks that the Earth is round, you also must invite someone from the Flat Earth Society to give the "opposing viewpoint" for fifteen minutes? At what point is a viewpoint officially decreed to be too dumb to merit equal time?

VD - did you follow the link and read it as far as "It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.I find the bolded phrase pretty self-explanitory

0

The really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway. So why all that political fuzz?

Yeah, let's concentrate on important issues like abortion, school prayers and the right to carry a gun.

0

VD - did you follow the link and read it as far as "It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.I find the bolded phrase pretty self-explanitory

You're right. I didn't read the link very closely and I missed this: It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. So they are not required to give the Flat Earth Society 15 minutes of "equal time". That still leaves my larger point that it is going to be extremely hard to decide what is "controversial" and has "contrasting viewpoints" and which viewpoints are so fringe and ridiculous as to no longer be "controversial", as well as whether a radio/TV station is truly trying to present both sides of an issue. It's an extremely subjective opinion. I sort of like the idea, but I don't think it really worked the last time and it seems like a nightmare to enforce and I can imagine it opening up the doors for millions of lawsuits from loonies who want their air-time for opinions that only twelve people in the world share.

0

You're right. I didn't read the link very closely and I missed this: It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. So they are not required to give the Flat Earth Society 15 minutes of "equal time". That still leaves my larger point that it is going to be extremely hard to decide what is "controversial" and has "contrasting viewpoints" and which viewpoints are so fringe and ridiculous as to no longer be "controversial", as well as whether a radio/TV station is truly trying to present both sides of an issue. It's an extremely subjective opinion. I sort of like the idea, but I don't think it really worked the last time and it seems like a nightmare to enforce and I can imagine it opening up the doors for millions of lawsuits from loonies who want their air-time for opinions that only twelve people in the world share.

I think you are setting up a straw man argument here. It was not extremely difficult to decide while it was place; there were not 'millions' of lawsuits. Doing the right thing should not be limited by perceived difficulties. I agree with you on the difficulty in determining the difference between "which viewpoints are so fringe and ridiculous as to no longer be "controversial"" - just look at the silly attempt to get Intelligent Design considered a scientific theory on par with Evolution. The Fairness Doctrine should be considered a work-in-progress - to be honest, I do not worry that the Flat Earth Society will corrupt the minds of America's youth and might even be a chance for them to learn some critical thinking.

0

I think you are setting up a straw man argument here. It was not extremely difficult to decide while it was place; there were not 'millions' of lawsuits. Doing the right thing should not be limited by perceived difficulties. I agree with you on the difficulty in determining the difference between "which viewpoints are so fringe and ridiculous as to no longer be "controversial"" - just look at the silly attempt to get Intelligent Design considered a scientific theory on par with Evolution. The Fairness Doctrine should be considered a work-in-progress - to be honest, I do not worry that the Flat Earth Society will corrupt the minds of America's youth and might even be a chance for them to learn some critical thinking.

It wasn't my intent to set up a Straw-Man argument, though I can see how it could be interpreted as such. I intentionally picked a completely way-out view that I figured everyone on Daniweb would agree was absurd, but in fact I was really thinking about Intelligent Design, as you were. I didn't bring up Intelligent Design because I figured it WAS controversial and lots of people DO believe it's on par with evolution, though I don't. I probably should have skipped the whole "Flat Earth" and gone straight to Intelligent Design, but I figured that might get the thread off track so I didn't (I guess it's already off track, but that's OK. Long threads tend to do that). As for a real fringe element (I agree that the Flat Earthers aren't much of a threat) that I was thinking of and who I feel might sue, I was thinking in particular of the Holocaust Deniers, but maybe the best thing to do with them is give them some air-time and hope that the viewers see how absurd they are.

0

Heh,heh - I was not sure - thanks for clearing that up. On the other hand, I purposely brought ID to tweak "them". The problem that the Holocaust Deniers face is that the Nazis were so darned detail oriented, they tracked everything in triplicate.

0

Proposed Average Income Tax Changes for 2009

Income            Obama       McCain
< $18,981         -$567       -$65
Up to $37,595     -$892       -$259
Up to $66,354     -$1,118     -$608
Up to $111,645    -$1,264     -$1,487
Up to $160,972    -$2,135     -$3,736
Up to $226,918    -$2,796     -$6,322
Up to $603,402    +$942      -$15,877
Up to $2,871,682  +$121,689  -$109,214
Above that ...    +$699,872  -$577,148

Source: Tax Policy Institute 8/14/08

0

Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007, when the annual summer cruise organised by the right-of-centre Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, Alaska:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Palin-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html

The American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, sums up Palin: "She's bright and she's a blank page."

0

Palin was identified as a potential future leader of the neoconservative cause in June 2007, when the annual summer cruise organised by the right-of-centre Weekly Standard magazine docked in Juneau, Alaska:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/2827217/Neoconservatives-plan-Project-Sarah-Palin-to-shape-future-American-foreign-policy.html

The American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, sums up Palin: "She's bright and she's a blank page."

Interesting, they also called George Bush 'a blank page' in 2000 and gave him full support. It worked for a while!

0

So what if John McCain graduated 894th out 899 cadets from the US Naval Academy in 1958? He did get up to the rank of captain in the navy, that's just below Rear Admiral!

0

At least McCain knows how to interrogate prisoners...

I don't think he was directly involved with Abu Ghraib. A number of his friends may have been there.

0

So what if John McCain graduated 894th out 899 cadets from the US Naval Academy in 1958? He did get up to the rank of captain in the navy, that's just below Rear Admiral!

It is the equivalent of colonel in the army (heh,heh - he said rear admiral, heh,heh)

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.