"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008110322192950073-jerelull@maccom...
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.


Except that Dave continually uses the term left-wing media to assert that
the media is skewed in favor of the left. He conveniently leaves out Fox,
Rush, and others, and seems happy to point out how Air America failed. I
find nothing whatever enjoyable about listening or watching vitriol from
either side. Well, I do like listening to Olbermann. LOL

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

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
news:2008110322022216807-jerelull@maccom...
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.

Perhaps because true liberals aren't really interested in destruction
politics.


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.

Don't know about his audience. I do know from my small amount of listening
is that he's a racist assh*le, with very little actual knowledge.

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.

No. He's disgusting. Anyone who listens to him regularly, who swallows his
garbage can't really claim to be thinking.

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

Do tell. Even a maniac can say "right" things from time to time.

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

?? An opinion is an opinion. Take it or leave it. I certainly don't speak
for all liberals, but the line for me is when there's hate-mongering and
lying.

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

"Brian Whatcott" wrote in message
news
On 2 Nov 2008 18:46:01 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 08:08:36 -0500, Brian Whatcott
said:

idjits who
don't know that Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law at Chicago
(fer Criss sake!)

...
Obama was never a professor. He was an instructor, but he never wrote
anything of significance....

Google 'Obama professorial posts'. Not all his students raved
about Prof Obama. Perhaps you are unsure of the difference between
an instructor (often a graduate student in the American system), and a
"lecturer", the label for a professor, as titled in e.g the British
system. States with Vo-techs often have academics titled
professor, let alone first tier professional schools.

Brian W

Why Google, just go to the University of Chicago for info:

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html

He was a senior lecturer and was invited to a tenure track leading to
professor. U of C says so.

Dave,

Note in the U of C article "Senior Lecturer" is capitalized and "professor"
with regard to Obama or the position isn't.

"Professors" have tenure, not all "professors" do.

One is a title, the other is a noun.

But the wording of the Amendment was different in several of the states.


"DoctorD" wrote in message
...
According to the United States Government Printing Office, the
following states ratified the amendment:

Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911), after having previously rejected the
amendment
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
New Mexico (February 3, 1913)
Ratification (by the requisite thirty-six states) was completed on
February 3, 1913 with the ratification by New Mexico. The amendment
was subsequently ratified by the following states, bringing the total
number of ratifying states to forty-two of the forty-eight then
existing:

37. Delaware (February 3, 1913)
38. Wyoming (February 3, 1913)
39. New Jersey (February 4, 1913)
40. Vermont (February 19, 1913)
41. Massachusetts (March 4, 1913)
42. New Hampshire (March 7, 1913), after rejecting the amendment on
March 2, 1911
The following states rejected the amendment without ever subsequently
ratifying it:

Connecticut
Florida (rejected the amendment after it had already been ratified by
three-fourths of the states)
Rhode Island
Utah
The following states never took up the proposed amendment:

Pennsylvania
Virginia

"Charles Momsen" wrote in news:2ammq7.a8o.17.1
@news.alt.net:

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the
following states ratified the amendment:


See, there's the little problem. The states that DID ratify the amendment
ratified a CHANGED amendment, not the original one the banker class wrote.

But, when they got back to Washington, it was "certified" that they
ratified the original document, which simply ISN'T, and never was, true.

As the ratification was fraudulent, so was the Amendment.