Jack wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.
Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?

--
Wafa free since 2009

In spite of the fact that there is no movement in Congress to re-
implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' that would silence conservative talk
radio, the Obama administration and Democrats on The Hill are working
behind the scenes to accomplish that very goal without the Doctrine.

With the appointment of Mark Loyd to the FCC as the nation's very
first 'Chief Diversity Officer,' Obama hopes to accomplish the very
things that the Fairness Doctrine would mandate.

The main focus would be to force commercial radio stations to offer a
'diversity of opinion,' meaning of course that liberals would get
equal time to promote their causes and concepts. Rather than get
mired in the swampland of rules and regulations concerning how to do
that, radio stations will simply cancel programs such as Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.

But this is not the only thing Loyd would do as Chief Diversity
Officer.

Loyd wants public broadcasting to be the dominant force in radio,
overshadowing commercial stations. And, as we have cited before, he
would do this by forcing commercial radio stations to pay a fee equal
to their entire operating cost to the government in order to directly
benefit NPR.

However, more danger lurks just under the surface with regard to Loyd.

Today, we discovered this:

Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton
administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the
tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of
Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the
course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply
convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We
understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent,
the commercial broadcasters ...."


In addition, Loyd makes it clear that the concepts pushed by extremist
Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals, would serve as the
inspiration for his war on commercial broadcasting:

"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a
guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the
campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-
conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we
drew inspiration and guidance."


In order to wrest control of broadcasting from private commercial
interests to place it under government control, Loyd outlines 6 goals,
which include vastly expanding NPR with money collected from
commercial radio stations, expanding the FCC by setting up powerful
regional hubs, and 'clear regulations over political commentary and
advertising.'

In other words, good-bye freedom of speech.

But Loyd has an answer to critics who cry foul over his plan to muzzle
First Amendment rights. He thinks that concern over the First
Amendment is 'exaggerated':

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech
or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an
exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech
or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of
other communications policies.”


These examples make it clear that Obama intends to wage all-out war on
conservative talk radio, free speech, free commerce through private
radio broadcasting corporations, and new government regulations that
control broadcast content. The First Amendment is simply an
exaggerated concern that gets in the way.

Yes, and all liberals want to kill your elderly, kick your dogs and eat
your babies.........

Can you guys get any more unhinged? I'm betting you can!

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.


That ship has sailed.

--
Nom=de=Plume

nom=de=plume wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.


That ship has sailed.

Not for some!

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:07:14 -0400, NotNow wrote:

Jack wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.
Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?

--
Wafa free since 2009

In spite of the fact that there is no movement in Congress to re-
implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' that would silence conservative talk
radio, the Obama administration and Democrats on The Hill are working
behind the scenes to accomplish that very goal without the Doctrine.

With the appointment of Mark Loyd to the FCC as the nation's very
first 'Chief Diversity Officer,' Obama hopes to accomplish the very
things that the Fairness Doctrine would mandate.

The main focus would be to force commercial radio stations to offer a
'diversity of opinion,' meaning of course that liberals would get
equal time to promote their causes and concepts. Rather than get
mired in the swampland of rules and regulations concerning how to do
that, radio stations will simply cancel programs such as Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.

But this is not the only thing Loyd would do as Chief Diversity
Officer.

Loyd wants public broadcasting to be the dominant force in radio,
overshadowing commercial stations. And, as we have cited before, he
would do this by forcing commercial radio stations to pay a fee equal
to their entire operating cost to the government in order to directly
benefit NPR.

However, more danger lurks just under the surface with regard to Loyd.

Today, we discovered this:

Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton
administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the
tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of
Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the
course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply
convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We
understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent,
the commercial broadcasters ...."


In addition, Loyd makes it clear that the concepts pushed by extremist
Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals, would serve as the
inspiration for his war on commercial broadcasting:

"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a
guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the
campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-
conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we
drew inspiration and guidance."


In order to wrest control of broadcasting from private commercial
interests to place it under government control, Loyd outlines 6 goals,
which include vastly expanding NPR with money collected from
commercial radio stations, expanding the FCC by setting up powerful
regional hubs, and 'clear regulations over political commentary and
advertising.'

In other words, good-bye freedom of speech.

But Loyd has an answer to critics who cry foul over his plan to muzzle
First Amendment rights. He thinks that concern over the First
Amendment is 'exaggerated':

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech
or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an
exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech
or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of
other communications policies.”


These examples make it clear that Obama intends to wage all-out war on
conservative talk radio, free speech, free commerce through private
radio broadcasting corporations, and new government regulations that
control broadcast content. The First Amendment is simply an
exaggerated concern that gets in the way.

Yes, and all liberals want to kill your elderly, kick your dogs and eat
your babies.........

Can you guys get any more unhinged? I'm betting you can!

What part of the post was erroneous, Loogy. You're showing that you
don't watch the news.
--
John H

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."
Thomas Jefferson

H the K wrote:
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons
at a voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry
will be considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.

Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?



If you weren't such a ****-for-brains, scotty, you'd know the chairman
of the fcc has already stated more than once that there will be no
rebirth of the "fairness doctrine," most recently to that idiot grassly.

So, your source of third-reich opinion will continue uninterrupted.

The Chairman of the FCC does not control Congress, idiot.

"NotNow" wrote in message
...
nom=de=plume wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.


That ship has sailed.

Not for some!


We have to do it again?

--
Nom=de=Plume

NotNow wrote:
Jack wrote:
On Aug 27, 12:31 pm, JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...



JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.
Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons
at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.
Can you refute either of the facts I noted above...?

--
Wafa free since 2009

In spite of the fact that there is no movement in Congress to re-
implement the 'Fairness Doctrine' that would silence conservative talk
radio, the Obama administration and Democrats on The Hill are working
behind the scenes to accomplish that very goal without the Doctrine.

With the appointment of Mark Loyd to the FCC as the nation's very
first 'Chief Diversity Officer,' Obama hopes to accomplish the very
things that the Fairness Doctrine would mandate.

The main focus would be to force commercial radio stations to offer a
'diversity of opinion,' meaning of course that liberals would get
equal time to promote their causes and concepts. Rather than get
mired in the swampland of rules and regulations concerning how to do
that, radio stations will simply cancel programs such as Rush
Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck.

But this is not the only thing Loyd would do as Chief Diversity
Officer.

Loyd wants public broadcasting to be the dominant force in radio,
overshadowing commercial stations. And, as we have cited before, he
would do this by forcing commercial radio stations to pay a fee equal
to their entire operating cost to the government in order to directly
benefit NPR.

However, more danger lurks just under the surface with regard to Loyd.

Today, we discovered this:

Lloyd draws on his experience lobbying the FCC during the Clinton
administration, counseling would-be revolutionaries to follow the
tactics used by other left-wing movements, such as the followers of
Saul Alinsky and the people who ran the campaign to block Republican
Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork.

"We understood at the beginning, and were certainly reminded in the
course of the campaign," wrote Lloyd, "that our work was not simply
convincing policy makers of the logic or morality of our arguments. We
understood that we were in a struggle for power against an opponent,
the commercial broadcasters ...."


In addition, Loyd makes it clear that the concepts pushed by extremist
Saul Alinsky in his book, Rules for Radicals, would serve as the
inspiration for his war on commercial broadcasting:

"We looked to successful political campaigns and organizers as a
guide, especially the civil rights movement, Saul Alinsky, and the
campaign to prevent the Supreme Court nomination of the ultra-
conservative jurist Robert Bork," wrote Lloyd. "From those sources we
drew inspiration and guidance."


In order to wrest control of broadcasting from private commercial
interests to place it under government control, Loyd outlines 6 goals,
which include vastly expanding NPR with money collected from
commercial radio stations, expanding the FCC by setting up powerful
regional hubs, and 'clear regulations over political commentary and
advertising.'

In other words, good-bye freedom of speech.

But Loyd has an answer to critics who cry foul over his plan to muzzle
First Amendment rights. He thinks that concern over the First
Amendment is 'exaggerated':

“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech
or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an
exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech
or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of
other communications policies.”


These examples make it clear that Obama intends to wage all-out war on
conservative talk radio, free speech, free commerce through private
radio broadcasting corporations, and new government regulations that
control broadcast content. The First Amendment is simply an
exaggerated concern that gets in the way.

Yes, and all liberals want to kill your elderly, kick your dogs and eat
your babies.........

Can you guys get any more unhinged? I'm betting you can!

Do you understand the concept of incremental change. Obama and his
minons in the House and Senate are idiots. They have decided that since
they have a majority in the House and Senate and a Democrat in the White
House they can move their big programs thorough faster and achieve
their goals in a shorter amount of time. They see this as a means of
cementing their legacy in the progressive movement and attaining
God-like status. But, they didn't count on the US citizens resisting the
Democrats desired changes.

nom=de=plume wrote:
"NotNow" wrote in message
...
Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.


That ship has sailed.


http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/petas-pet-slaughterhouse/

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:02:46 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.

Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..

Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.

I agree, that's pretty damn sick.

I am hoping I read down further and find the problem with the two
incidents I noted above. They are both facts, in the case of the ACLU,
the admit it freely on the website, and in the case of the New Black
Panther Party, the video is everywhere. But alas, even when faced with
video my friend Loogie can only avoid and deflect, and excuse bad
behavior blaming it on other perceived bad behavior... sad... Yup it's
all Bushes fault... Pfffttt...

--
Wafa free since 2009

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:02:46 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article 5c867d06-3ce7-4ff1-bfa5-
,
says...
HK is in trouble now. One of Bozoma's "czars" is proposing an
"Internet fairness doctrine" covering all speech on the internet.

Well, just like the ACLU outing 42 CIA agents to a known terrorist
group, and the New Black Panther party getting to brandish weapons at a
voting booth.. The "fairness" will be a bit one sided.. Harry will be
considered "mainstream", he will be fine..

Damned liberals. They want to kill your puppies, too.

I agree, that's pretty damn sick.

Yeah, and now the invstigation into Bill Richardson has been officially
killed in Washington.. Same old, same old.. Dems don't get investigated
and have no desire to know the truth when it comes to them. But **** if
Scooter Libby forgets a date.. He's a repub.. **** the double standard
and the leadership who allows it...
--
Wafa free since 2009