Dave wrote:
On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:36:59 -0500, Marty said:

Golly, but you guys live in a wonderful country. On the one hand you
have those pinko libs trying to suppress every rednecks God given right
to spew whatever malicious insinuations and outright lies on the public
airwaves; on the other you have the Reps. trying to deny the vote to
minorities, (after all the po' are too stupid to judge who best to run
the country) and fighting like hell smear whoever they feel like,,, it's
all about Constitutional Rights!

I always appreciate your fair and balanced view of our country, Marty. Pinko
libs, rednecks....nothing like a little name calling to further rational
discussion.g

Just trying to keep within the parameters delineated by yourself for
this kind of discussion,,;-O

(Jeeze, that sounds like something H. Cosell would say)

BTW, I'm not that up on Canadian constitutional doctrine.


That's alright Dave, it's alway pleasant when one finds an American who
can at least find Canada on a map, but not really expected.

Do you follow the
English notion that a binding written constitution is a contradiction in
terms because the power of the Queen in Parliament assembled is inherently
not subject to limitation?

Apparently you're not that up on British Jurisprudence either. But you
are close....



FYI, Canada has a written constitution, if you really want to know more,
check out the British Canada Act of 1982

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:01:11 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:


"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 15:44:41 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

?? What does Palin speaking have to do with liberal talk radio? Are you
losing it?

It has nothing whatever to do with the conversation about the Dems'
having
wet dreams over the prospect of muzzling their opponents through use of
the
so-called "fairness doctrine." I can't understand why you tried to drag
her
into that conversation.


Dave, you must be losing it. I posted a url to Palin's claim that the
media
was threatening her free speech. Sheesh.

I understand that completely. I commented that the Dems are having wet
dreams over the prospect of having the guvmint muzzle their opponents on
talk radio via the fairness doctrine, and in (purported) response to my
comment you posted a link having nothing whatever to do with that topic
but
dealing instead with Palin's complaining that the MSM were criticizing her
for calling attention to Obama's buddies.

Oh, I've got it. You were trying to argue that Palin's criticism of the
MSM
was "bad behavior," and therefore justifies the Dems' efforts to muzzle
their opponents on talk radio.


I'm not sure what you've got. Why don't you tell us how you know what Dems
believe. Did you get that from Fox News?
http://www.freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=43

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:36:43 -0600, Lord Nigel Molesworth
wrote:

Hmm.. I didn't know that there are different criteria for that
appellation depending on where you are, viz UK it is necessary to have a
PhD and tenure to have the title 'Professor'.


Hmmm...In the UK system, it is not enough to have a PhD and tenure
to be appointed a professor.
On the other hand, there ARE folks with UK professorships without a
PhD.

How 'bout that!
:-)

Brian W

On Nov 3, 5:30*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:55:10 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

Really????? muzzeling every one with a fairness doctorine.
funny the most coherant site i found has both sides of the issue.
maybe you ought to actually read the docterine.
http://www.answers.com/topic/fairness-doctrine

only abuse i can see is the way kennidy used it

Not a bad discussion.

I actually wrote a paper on the topic several years before Red Lion reached
the USSC, concluding that application of the doctrine to television would
probably be unconstitutional once the number of channels increased
sufficiently via cable. That change of course occurred.

The argument that there hasn't been much abuse since Kennedy's carries
little weight since (i) the doctrine has been gone since 1987, and (ii) the
market is very different today. Kennedy's abuse does, however, illustrate
just why bringing back the doctrine would be a bad idea. Too much
opportunity to silence anyone expressing anything but the "official" view of
the world.

thats funny says 2000 for several sections IIRC. and uh kennedy died
well before 1987. so your entire argument was just made moot. i belive
there where one or two democrat and republican heads of state since
his death and 1987.

i took the liberty of looking up the most vehiment opposition to the
reinstatment of this doctrin. funny enough most of them are in the
pocket of that little ausse dweeb communications maven Murdoch.
perhaps he could stay out of our politics and go back to the island he
came from where they hate him.

god if there ever was someone who needs his brains beaten out of his
head its him. why do the cool guys die in airplane crashes and
jerkoffs like this guy live.

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:49:45 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I'm not sure what you've got. Why don't you tell us how you know what Dems
believe. Did you get that from Fox News?

Hell no. All one has to do is read any source covering the antics of
Pelosi,
Reid and crew in relation to the fairness doctrine, and then apply a small
amount of thought to the facts. Why, even you could figure it out if you
put
your mind to it


Ahh... I don't think Rush is part of the left-wing mainstream media.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On 2008-11-03 17:33:02 -0500, Dave said:

On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:42:00 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

Like this...

Anyone who has been following the news would, of course, realize that the
Dems have been having a wet dream over the prospect of being able to shut
down talk radio, which for some reason doesn't seem to favor their views.

Since liberal talk radio has been a complete non-starter, the Dems'
calculation is that if they can re-impose the "fairness doctrine" on all
media, radio will have to carry enough money-losing shows having a liberal
agenda so that they will decide to drop talk shows entirely, leaving
standing only their MSM friends.

This is even more of a side-track from the list's charter....

It's so amazing that not one liberal talk show has grown legs like the
conservative ones. I hear a few on NPR, but they are so unentertaining,
so serious, so full of themselves.

Rush at least is entertaining, good enough that his opponents may form
a significant portion of his audience, and his show survives quite
nicely without relying on tax-free donations and government hand-outs.

If he were only *against* something (which seems the Liberals' primary
thrust), his show would have died when a Republican congress was
elected, when Bush 1 was elected, when he went into rehab, when ...
many things happened. He's still the liberals' nightmare.

I don't even agree with him much of the time, but I have to point out
those things.

Liberals, for some reason, don't seem to consider that others' opinions
could possibly be correct.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On 2008-11-03 20:52:14 -0500, Two meter troll said:

i took the liberty of looking up the most vehiment opposition to the
reinstatment of this doctrin.

Troll...

Could you please spend a bit more time on your posts, perhaps spell-check them?

I suspect there may be a nugget of truth in some of your posts, but I
can't read very far before getting annoyed by your lack of care for
what can be a lyrical language.

At least engage spell-check and learn where the caps key is.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On 2008-11-03 21:52:26 -0500, "Capt. JG" said:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:49:45 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

I'm not sure what you've got. Why don't you tell us how you know what
Dems believe. Did you get that from Fox News?

Hell no. All one has to do is read any source covering the antics of
Pelosi, Reid and crew in relation to the fairness doctrine, and then
apply a small amount of thought to the facts. Why, even you could
figure it out if you put your mind to it

Ahh... I don't think Rush is part of the left-wing mainstream media.

Oh, that's hardly true. Mainstream media is still having conniptions
due to his success.

Whether or not that defines them as left-wing is a matter of opinion.

Personally, I see both "wings" as flip sides of a very small coin, only
minor differences in a trivial pool of subjects.

There's a far wider universe of issues out there than that little bit
of so-called reality.

--
Jere Lull
Xan-à-Deux -- Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD
Xan's pages: http://web.mac.com/jerelull/iWeb/Xan/
Our BVI trips & tips: http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

On Nov 3, 6:17*pm, Dave wrote:
On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 17:52:14 -0800 (PST), Two meter troll
said:

thats funny says 2000 for several sections IIRC.

You need to read more carefully. Maybe take notes.

and uh kennedy died
well before 1987. so your entire argument was just made moot. i belive
there where one or two democrat and republican heads of state since
his death and 1987.

Not at all. To show the potential for abuse it is not necessary to show that
every President was guilty of the same abuse as Kennedy.

i took the liberty of looking up the most vehiment opposition to the
reinstatment of this doctrin. funny enough most of them are in the
pocket of that little ausse *dweeb communications maven Murdoch.
perhaps he could stay out of our politics and go back to the island he
came from where they hate him.

I take it you have a problem with people whose political views differ from
your own. Deal with it.

Nope Dave i have a problem with little pricks that should have been
drowned at birth. No one has a right to dictate how others vote and Mr
Murdoch has over stepped that bound.

In article Xns9B49D8A4C3C2Enoonehomecom@
74.209.131.13, Larry said...

A little History is in order....

http://www.givemeliberty.org/feature...otratified.htm

That's your problem: you know only "a little" history.

Heed Pope's warning about taking only sips from the
spring of knowledge, and perhaps you will stop
gibbering like a madman.


--
-----------
Brian E. Clark