|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/1/2008 4:28:21 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2126
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: online
|
Lawmakers have a knack for naming dangerous legislation to make it sound benign. After all, who is NOT for 'Fairness'. But, the so-called Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with actual fairness. It didn't 35 years ago and it will not in the future. It has to do with CONTROL and CENSORSHIP.
Here is an excellent, short Google Book that explains both past Fairness Dosctrine cases and the reasons why is is bad public policy.
Regulating Broadcast Television
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
cow451,
Again, I probably should recheck some things I have already read, and heard about this new "Fairness Doctrine" before I say anything, but for the sake of arguement let's say that part of this new "Fairness Doctrine" is also designed to apply to the Internet.
Like I said before From my scant understanding of this new "Fairness Doctrine" it is not only designed to insist all sides of an issue have an equal say on specific media, but it is also aimed at combating corporate ownership of media oulets like the Chicago Tribune which not only owns the Chicago Tribune, but WGN radio and WGN television here in the Chicago area.
Also the fact that many media outlets also have internet versions, it seems to me that anyone crafting a "Fairness Doctrine" today would, in some way, include the internet in its proposed regulations, if only as a first step to further regulation.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/1/2008 4:44:56 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2126
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: online
|
Wow! Would YOU be broke!
Let's start here where it NAMES the democrats who are actively pushing for a new Fairness Doctrine.
Do names like Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., and Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y mean anything to you? And, what if I told you that BILL 501, "The Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act" was introduced in Feb of 2005. Take a look at the sponsors of her bill in the following link.
Here is the Bill
Any of the provisions of that bill would CLEARLY be able to be used to silence Christian broadcasting. Christian broadcasting is not designed to "meet the needs of the community" in terms that the community might define it. For instance, in a heavily Muslim area, a Christian Boradcasting station could never "meet the Muslim needs" of the community.
The potential that it would be revived under a democrat president is much greater than that it would be revived under a republican president.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
You know, I'd be willing to bet a sizable sum of money (if I did bet, that is) that after eight years of total Democratic government control, the Fairness Doctrine will be as moribund as it is today. Really, of all the things that excite the left (and there are many) bringing back the Fairness Doctrine is close to bottom of a very long list. The *only* people talking about it seriously are the right-wingers like Dobson and his pals who want to scare up more votes for the Republicans. It simply isn't an issue the Democrats are pushing at all.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/1/2008 4:50:36 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
quote:
ORIGINAL: MyCatSmokey2006
I attended a Christian function where we were discussing the upcoming election. During the discussion, someone mentioned that Obama wants to get rid of ALL Christian media, including radio and TV stations, because they feature programs against homosexuality and abortion, among other reasons. Has anyone else ever heard of this? If so, please cite a reliable source. Thank you.
No reason to worry. I guarantee you Obama would do nothing of the kind.
You've been a victim of the oldest trick in the conservative leaders handbook: the quickest way to drum up evangelical support for something they want is to tell evangelicals they are being persucuted.
The actions of Mr. Obama in Missouri regarding the "truth police" says your guarantee is worthless...
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/1/2008 4:53:15 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2126
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: online
|
History separates this particular discussion from paranoia and conspiracy.
The fact that (1) The first Fairness Doctrine WAS used to silence a Christian Broadcasting station, as I've already reported. And, (2) A substantial number of democrats DID introduce Bill 501 in 2005 that shows they are serious about it. And, (3) the general vitriol against Christianity by a VAST number supporters of Obama is undeniable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Since there is no actual "Fairness Doctrine" on the table, the discussion does have limits. Media, like every industry, is driven by money. There are too many choices now. And, remember that Rupert Murdoch owns quite a bit of media (including FOX). Any effort toward a fairness doctrine is liberal whining  .
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/1/2008 5:02:04 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2126
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: online
|
The only way that you could even pretend to offer a guarantee of that kind is if you were so intimately inside his organization that you know his plans for the future in detail.
If you are, then that is troubling. And, if you aren't then you have absolutely NO basis on which to stake your guarantee. As someone has already pointed out, his campaign has already demonstrated their propensity to using the courts and law to silence their critics.
In fact, that isn't the only suspect thing that you said in this post when you imply that Evangelicals are easily duped out of fear. Actually, if you want to drum up support from Evangelicals give them TRUTH... for lies come from Satan and the pit of hell. I see a lot of his handiwork coming from more than a few of Obama's ardent supporters.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
quote:
ORIGINAL: MyCatSmokey2006
I attended a Christian function where we were discussing the upcoming election. During the discussion, someone mentioned that Obama wants to get rid of ALL Christian media, including radio and TV stations, because they feature programs against homosexuality and abortion, among other reasons. Has anyone else ever heard of this? If so, please cite a reliable source. Thank you.
No reason to worry. I guarantee you Obama would do nothing of the kind.
You've been a victim of the oldest trick in the conservative leaders handbook: the quickest way to drum up evangelical support for something they want is to tell evangelicals they are being persucuted.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/1/2008 6:21:50 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 343
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
cow451,
I know we have our disagreements, but I believe I have usually given you more credit for delivering better responses than the kind of response that you gave my last post.
Yes, it may be a touch paranoid to think that an individua;, or a political party might engage in the type of stuff that this thread is about, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
I believe that no matter what yout political persuasion we can all agree that America, and our form of government is based on the fundemental ideals that individuals have basic rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms must continuously be protected because though our form of government appears strong it can easily be taken over by a government that will limit or even abolish those freedoms.
< Message edited by leonfigg3 -- 10/1/2008 8:19:17 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/1/2008 7:32:27 PM
|
|
|
ayani
Posts: 194
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
History separates this particular discussion from paranoia and conspiracy.
The fact that (1) The first Fairness Doctrine WAS used to silence a Christian Broadcasting station, as I've already reported. And, (2) A substantial number of democrats DID introduce Bill 501 in 2005 that shows they are serious about it. And, (3) the general vitriol against Christianity by a VAST number supporters of Obama is undeniable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Since there is no actual "Fairness Doctrine" on the table, the discussion does have limits. Media, like every industry, is driven by money. There are too many choices now. And, remember that Rupert Murdoch owns quite a bit of media (including FOX). Any effort toward a fairness doctrine is liberal whining .
The reasons I brave a quarantee that an Obama administration wouldn't seek to shut-down Christian radio and TV:
1) Many Democrats (like Obama) are Christians, and many listen to Christian radio at least sometimes. I listen to Christian radio sometimes, and the selection of Christian TV is dismal (with apologies to a few programs on EWTN).
2) There is no substantive push to do it (Dennis Kucinich pushing it doesn't count as substantive). Occasional complaining doesn't constitute a real effort.
3) It would be political suicide for anyone pushing it.
4) Something like 70% of the population at least considers itself Christian, so if we forced radio stations to program based on the interestes of the local populace, it would probably increase the amount of Christian programming on stations.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/1/2008 7:53:03 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
The reasons I brave a quarantee that an Obama administration wouldn't seek to shut-down Christian radio and TV:
1) Many Democrats (like Obama) are Christians,
Obama isn't a Christian....
quote:
3) It would be political suicide for anyone pushing it.
Yes during an election cycle...
quote:
4) Something like 70% of the population at least considers itself Christian,
Sure they do, since being a Christian these days amounts to mentioned the "Big Guy" and pointing upwards...
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/1/2008 9:35:53 PM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 343
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
This may be a bit off topic, but I believe that this may explain why there is so much division, suspicion, and outright fear during this election. It also tends to explain why some may believe that a political party may target specific media outlets to silence, even in a country like America where freedom of speech is supposed to be assured and is often taken for granted.
"I have already intimitated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally."
"This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its roots in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popoular form, it is seen its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy."
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrtated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevaiing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this despotism to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty."
Since no one has asked about this quote. It is from George Washungton's farewell address delivered September 17, 1796
Consider:
1. A Democratic president-Clinton- was seriously threatened with impeachment. Many people have strong feelings that the grounds for impeachment were unjust and unfounded and pushed along largely by "Right-wing Conservatives" in the media.
2. Many of these same people would like to see a Republican president-Bush- threatened with impeachment on what they see are more serious grounds but feeel thery can't because the administration is being protected by "Right-wing Conservatives" in the media.
3. The Bush administration has largely been seen as unpopular, and even illegitimate. They see every Republican being of the same mindset of President Bush.
4. The Democrats launch a program to revise and reinterprete the "Fairness Doctrine" in order to combat a perceived inability to match the media strength of "Right-Wing Conservatives"
5. The Democrats find a very charismatic and likeable canidate for president with a message of change and advantages that one might expect to assure him of a win, not to mention the historic pattern that after eight years, the country is ready for a new political party in the White House.
6. This very same canidate and his supporters tend to deal harshly with any degree or form of criticism instead of taking the traditional course of action and confront it and address it.
< Message edited by leonfigg3 -- 10/2/2008 4:27:32 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/2/2008 10:54:09 AM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2126
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: online
|
While ANYONE can make claims about being a Christian, someone that can so blatantly and actively work against Biblical principles is suspect. I will say it again and again. If one is a true Christian then that person IS INDWELT BY THE SPIRIT OF THE LIVING GOD. That Spirit CANNOT war against itself. So, when you see a person that CAN war against the clearest principles of the Bible, then beware. For, that person's spirit is anything but the Spirit of the One True God.
As for the Fairness Doctrine, it wasn't political suicide the first time. You see, as another has pointed out, it would be political suicide as an election platform issue for a president. However, every one of the members that proposed it in 2005 are still around. So, it can't be all that suicidal among their supporters.
Moreover, if a president IMMEDIATELY had it passed in the first few month of his taking office they would have at least FOUR YEARS to silence the opposition. The first to go would not be the Christian stations. It would be national radio talk hosts. Once they were silenced, they would be able to move after Christian stations since they would have silenced those that could rally the public. In four years, with media's compliance, you would essentially have one single leftist voice masquerading as 'balanced'. That is because the media left hates talk radio and they hate real Christian values.
quote:
ORIGINAL: ayani
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
History separates this particular discussion from paranoia and conspiracy.
The fact that (1) The first Fairness Doctrine WAS used to silence a Christian Broadcasting station, as I've already reported. And, (2) A substantial number of democrats DID introduce Bill 501 in 2005 that shows they are serious about it. And, (3) the general vitriol against Christianity by a VAST number supporters of Obama is undeniable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Since there is no actual "Fairness Doctrine" on the table, the discussion does have limits. Media, like every industry, is driven by money. There are too many choices now. And, remember that Rupert Murdoch owns quite a bit of media (including FOX). Any effort toward a fairness doctrine is liberal whining .
The reasons I brave a quarantee that an Obama administration wouldn't seek to shut-down Christian radio and TV:
1) Many Democrats (like Obama) are Christians, and many listen to Christian radio at least sometimes. I listen to Christian radio sometimes, and the selection of Christian TV is dismal (with apologies to a few programs on EWTN).
2) There is no substantive push to do it (Dennis Kucinich pushing it doesn't count as substantive). Occasional complaining doesn't constitute a real effort.
3) It would be political suicide for anyone pushing it.
4) Something like 70% of the population at least considers itself Christian, so if we forced radio stations to program based on the interestes of the local populace, it would probably increase the amount of Christian programming on stations.
< Message edited by TMeeks -- 10/2/2008 11:00:32 AM >
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/2/2008 2:12:39 PM
|
|
|
womaninchrist
Posts: 456
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: offline
|
True, but someone's political party or stand on just a select issue or two isn't enough to make such a decision about them. Our political parties aren't even mentioned in the Bible and one would need to know the person's stand on a lot of OTHER issues too before you'd even begin to have an inkling about their stand as a Christian.
Plus, with all fairness and honesty there's room to debate the Biblical standing of the party stances on the issues. Logically, there's a HUGE leap between refusing to outlaw something and "endorsing it" or even baring responsibility for it (as some have stated can be deduced from one's stance on an issue). After all, there does come a point where despite both human laws and God's laws, people will choose to do whatever they so desire no matter who (including God himself) thinks what about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/2/2008 2:23:53 PM
|
|
|
SovereignIsHe
Posts: 5511
Joined: 4/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: womaninchrist
True, but someone's political party or stand on just a select issue or two isn't enough to make such a decision about them. Our political parties aren't even mentioned in the Bible and one would need to know the person's stand on a lot of OTHER issues too before you'd even begin to have an inkling about their stand as a Christian.
Which means you can have chapters of Pedophiles for Christ, right? Since just a select issue isn't an enough...
quote:
Plus, with all fairness and honesty there's room to debate the Biblical standing of the party stances on the issues.
Please point out the wiggle room on murder and the homosexual agenda...
quote:
Logically, there's a HUGE leap between refusing to outlaw something and "endorsing it" or even baring responsibility for it (as some have stated can be deduced from one's stance on an issue).
Supporting what is clearly wrong according to God's word from a position of authority ordained by God to deal with evil not to sanction is endorsing it and to add to the mix that one believes in Christ only bring that much more condemnation upon themselves, as does Mr. Obama....
quote:
After all, there does come a point where despite both human laws and God's laws, people will choose to do whatever they so desire no matter who (including God himself) thinks what about it.
And with that action comes consequences...
_____________________________
John
Proverbs 29:12 If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: It's been done before! - 10/2/2008 3:29:15 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
History separates this particular discussion from paranoia and conspiracy.
The fact that (1) The first Fairness Doctrine WAS used to silence a Christian Broadcasting station, as I've already reported. And, (2) A substantial number of democrats DID introduce Bill 501 in 2005 that shows they are serious about it. And, (3) the general vitriol against Christianity by a VAST number supporters of Obama is undeniable.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Since there is no actual "Fairness Doctrine" on the table, the discussion does have limits. Media, like every industry, is driven by money. There are too many choices now. And, remember that Rupert Murdoch owns quite a bit of media (including FOX). Any effort toward a fairness doctrine is liberal whining .
2005?????????????? That is not my definition of current.  Oh, yes, Focus on the Republican Family, one notch above WorldNutDaily. Dennis Kucinich????????? When's the last time he was on the leading edge of anything that mattered? Oh, please update us on the "current status" of this legislation.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/2/2008 3:34:10 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
cow451,
I know we have our disagreements, but I believe I have usually given you more credit for delivering better responses than the kind of response that you gave my last post.
Yes, it may be a touch paranoid to think that an individua;, or a political party might engage in the type of stuff that this thread is about, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
I believe that no matter what yout political persuasion we can all agree that America, and our form of government is based on the fundemental ideals that individuals have basic rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms must continuously be protected because though our form of government appears strong it can easily be taken over by a government that will limit or even abolish those freedoms.
I do apologize for the tone of my response as you deserve better.
Nonetheless, the puveyors of this fear campaign are not credible. The small number of dems behind the effort in the congress are also not credible.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/2/2008 3:42:00 PM
|
|
|
TMeeks
Posts: 2126
Joined: 1/27/2007
Status: online
|
Will you be back tp apologize after we have both a democrat president and a democrat congress... that suddently see the need for a 'Fairness' Doctrine again?
You don't REALLY think that people who want to destroy freeedoms advertise it that way, do you? Keep your head in the sand and I'll let you know just before they come to chop it off. In the meantime, I'll be looking around for you and others like you that think this candidate is a fine Christian man.
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: leonfigg3
cow451,
I know we have our disagreements, but I believe I have usually given you more credit for delivering better responses than the kind of response that you gave my last post.
Yes, it may be a touch paranoid to think that an individua;, or a political party might engage in the type of stuff that this thread is about, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.
I believe that no matter what yout political persuasion we can all agree that America, and our form of government is based on the fundemental ideals that individuals have basic rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms must continuously be protected because though our form of government appears strong it can easily be taken over by a government that will limit or even abolish those freedoms.
I do apologize for the tone of my response as you deserve better.
Nonetheless, the puveyors of this fear campaign are not credible. The small number of dems behind the effort in the congress are also not credible.
_____________________________
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8 The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/2/2008 4:01:58 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TMeeks
Will you be back tp apologize after we have both a democrat president and a democrat congress... that suddently see the need for a 'Fairness' Doctrine again?
You don't REALLY think that people who want to destroy freeedoms advertise it that way, do you? Keep your head in the sand and I'll let you know just before they come to chop it off. In the meantime, I'll be looking around for you and others like you that think this candidate is a fine Christian man.
Please let me know when that happens and I will humbly apologize. And, nowhere did I state that I thought Obummer was a "fine Christian man".
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/3/2008 6:27:46 AM
|
|
|
buckifn
Posts: 1786
Joined: 5/23/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Seriously, how do you suppose any President can ban specific religious programing?
the same way they banned prayer from public schools
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/3/2008 6:55:30 AM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1314
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
And, nowhere did I state that I thought Obummer was a "fine Christian man".
It seems some here think that if you're not calling Obama the Antichrist then you must think he's the second coming of Jesus. There is no middle ground. They can't grasp the nuance that while Obama might be a bad choice for Christians & Americans he also might not be guilty of every evil that is attributed to him. And that he has accomplished some things in his life.
What's funny is that these people think Obama is so pathetic but yet will take away our freedoms and establish his dictatorship. The Liberals have the same sort of irrationality with President Bush.
And whether this is true or not Christians have definitely been alarmists about such things in the past and tend to make hyperbolic statements.
I'm sure I've just become the president of the Obama fan club, my post history irrelevant.
quote:
the same way they banned prayer from public schools
Two totally separate issues and the process for accomplishing the Fairness Doctrine would be different (legislation, then maybe court challenges) than the ban on public prayer in schools (judicial, a suit brought on constitutional grounds).
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/3/2008 9:29:22 AM
|
|
|
stonek
Posts: 142
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: buckifn
quote:
Seriously, how do you suppose any President can ban specific religious programing?
the same way they banned prayer from public schools
Exactly.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/3/2008 10:05:07 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3983
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: stonek
quote:
ORIGINAL: buckifn
quote:
Seriously, how do you suppose any President can ban specific religious programing?
the same way they banned prayer from public schools
Exactly.
No President banned prayer. It was the Supreme Court.
Then, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), the Court established the so-called "Lemon test," which set forth three conditions that had to be met for a challenged govern-mental action to be constitutional. First, the government, whether federal or state, may not sponsor or aid in the establishment of a state religion; second, the action must be secular in purpose and in its impact; and lastly, the action could not excessively entangle government with religion. This, in effect, made it difficult to introduce prayer into schools.
_____________________________
Wenn Sie so intelligent sind, warum Sie hier sind?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/3/2008 11:30:30 AM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1314
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
No President banned prayer. It was the Supreme Court.
Thank you for the reality check. Though I imagine that the Obama bashers will point out that Obama will be able to appoint Supreme Court Justices and then the "Fairness Doctrine" will be able to survive the inevitable court challenge.
But there is many assumptions there. Supreme Court vacancies may not come up, if they do Republicans may contest and defeat the nominees. And there is the whole matter of whether Obama supports the "Fairness Doctrine". I suspect he does but will he be willing to spend political capital on it? And would such a bill pass? I'm not so sure about it, especially if he is as inconsequential as many of the Obama bashers claim he is.
I think we give Obama too much credit for personality strength and influence. And he doesn't have Dick Cheney and a competent party behind him to be a "power behind the throne". These are the same dunderheads that found John Kerry and ran him for president.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/6/2008 12:30:45 AM
|
|
|
leonfigg3
Posts: 343
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
|
Obama does have Ted Kennedy and his allies in his corner.
From what I understand the Kennedys and the Clinntons were not not exactly on the best of terms. They may have been in the same political party but had different agendas. After Bill left the presidentcy, his protege John Kerry failed to win the White House, and Hillary took refuge in Congress, Ted Kennedy and his allies took the opportunty to turn the party, or at least the power behind the party back to their side.
I could be wrong.
In any event, as far as this "Obama-basher" is concerned, I have always been more concerned with those propelling him forward, than in Obama himself.
As a resident of the Chicago area, and having had a number of relatives involved in Chicago politics and the Democratic Party machine here, I believe I have a healthy skepticism as far as policis-in general- and the Democratic Party-in particular- is concerned. I am sorry, but there just is something not right with Obama's rather sudden rise to national prominece.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/6/2008 4:38:26 PM
|
|
|
Rufas2000
Posts: 1314
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
You raise some interesting possibilities. Although I suspect Ted Kennedy's influence won't count for much soon (sorry to be so crass, I have no malice toward him but reality is what it is).
I'm not sure if the Chicago machine will be able to help Obama much once he becomes president, I suspect he'll be a rather ineffective president who ends up making things a little worse on the economy & foreign policy but it will appear that things are getting better. Those other guys in Washington DC aren't cream puffs, I'm sure many of them on both sides have ruthless organizations backing them also.
Of course I could be wrong too. I won't vote for Obama anyway so for me its all academic. So hopefully we'll never find out.
_____________________________
Be my friend!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: I Heard That Obama Wants No More Christian Media! - 10/8/2008 4:35:52 PM
|
|
|
Longfingers1
Posts: 444
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline
|
Come on now, of course that's not true. It's nothing more than hear say and more false things being said about him to discourage people to not vote for him. People will throw in anything that's dealing with God and use it in a way against him and believe it. Think about it, if he did that, do you know how many other outlets he would have to shut down that cater to others of different religious backgrounds or nationalities?... don't think so, he and anyone else who if elected into office, would be a fool to go against that amendment that protects such rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
