Bush and the FCC - it all amounts to a crock of s___

[quote name='camoor']Or we could look in the facts.[/quote]

He was a liability towards the end of last year, always talking about how he's going to move to Satellite. How Sirius is great, how the FCC sucks... blah blah blah. I think it's safe to say that if he hadn't have gotten the contract with Sirius, they would've pulled the plug. Especially with these new increased fines that this thread is talking about.

When a corporation gets it's lawyers to protect it from paying a fine by shifting the fine to an employee, do you think that they will act like "nice guys" and go ahead and just pony up the dough if a mistake is made?

Hint: It's a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...

No shit. I asked you to point out an example, which you obviously can't seeing as how you're trying to change the subject. Give me one big, or even moderately big, radio personality that was forced to pay these fines.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']No shit. I asked you to point out an example, which you obviously can't seeing as how you're trying to change the subject. Give me one big, or even moderately big, radio personality that was forced to pay these fines.[/quote]

So wait - you agree that when these fines do hit, Clear Channel will dodge them. Yet you want an example of the fines being paid when they were just instituted less then a year ago, and can be tied in litigation for years before a payment must be made?

I'd continue pointing out your misstatements, but I can't figure out why I should care.
 
[quote name='camoor']So wait - you agree that when these fines do hit, Clear Channel will dodge them. Yet you want an example of the fines being paid when they were just instituted less then a year ago, and can be tied in litigation for years before a payment must be made?

I'd continue pointing out your misstatements, but I can't figure out why I should care.[/quote]

It's not a misstatement when you can't read:

Do you have an example of them actually shifting the fine to the person rather than the corporation? The rules I know of at Clear Channel invoke firing the person instead.
Click to expand...

Any example, throughout the history of the earth. Local radio DJ pays the FCC x amount of dollars as per his contractual requirements. The way I've known it always worked is that the person just gets fired or suspended, and I can provide examples of that. I've never heard of the personality actually paying the fine, as you claim, and I would like to see if you can show me anyone who has. Can you or can you not do that?
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It's not the business, it's the type of music and format they push. They continue to throw shit music on the air, and try to buy up every single station they can. While I support business, I don't support an oligopoly. Especially one that pushes pop punk feces.

And on a personal note, they've destroyed one of my favorite stations in Atlanta (AM). Fired almost everyone, and I wouldn't put it past them to fire the one reason I have left to listen.[/QUOTE]

Well, them's the breaks in a free market, no? I do sympathize, but, hey, I'm a big ol' "break up the monopolies" liberal, so of course I sympathize.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Any example, throughout the history of the earth. Local radio DJ pays the FCC x amount of dollars as per his contractual requirements. The way I've known it always worked is that the person just gets fired or suspended, and I can provide examples of that. I've never heard of the personality actually paying the fine, as you claim, and I would like to see if you can show me anyone who has. Can you or can you not do that?[/quote]

This is (legally speaking) new legislation, the legalese by which corporations are leaving their broadcasters swinging in the wind in regards to these fines is even newer, and I know of no case (which would have to be started after the corporations protected themselves, mind you) in which all appeal attempts were exhausted and the accused obscenity speaker (or host of the show thereof) was forced to pay the fine. There will probably be one in 3 years, if the obscenity laws don't get striken because they are unconstitutional.

It's more complicated then you believe (or pretend to believe, anyway). I don't know of any way to simplify it any further so that you can understand.
 
[quote name='camoor']...I know of no case...[/quote]

This is really all you needed to say. Your first post is misleading because none of these "little people" have or will ever be fined ridiculous amounts. You'll never be able to find an example of some radio engineer in Hicksville, Mississippi who is fined 325K dollars when he makes around 22K a year. That's just empty rhetoric you dish out because you hate the President and everything he stands for. It's not as though you have much of a choice when Adrianna Huffington is your source for news. :roll:
 
All i can say is THANK GOD FOR PRESIDENT BUSH!! Him being president and having balls is the only reason we haven't been hit by another Terrorist attack here in the States. God help us if a democrat wins the next election.
 
I'd rather an Independent take the reins one day. I know I am in the minority in that regard, but Republicans and Democrats have had their shot and this country needs a breath of fresh air.

Regardless of the rhetoric the public takes part in, no President has satisfied everyone. Not one.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Regardless of the rhetoric the public takes part in, no President has satisfied everyone. Not one.[/QUOTE]

It's impossible anyway, since there are plenty of issues where people have directly contradicting views.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']This is really all you needed to say. Your first post is misleading because none of these "little people" have or will ever be fined ridiculous amounts. You'll never be able to find an example of some radio engineer in Hicksville, Mississippi who is fined 325K dollars when he makes around 22K a year. That's just empty rhetoric you dish out because you hate the President and everything he stands for. It's not as though you have much of a choice when Adrianna Huffington is your source for news. :roll:[/quote]

I knew I couldn't get you to understand. I don't possess the near-infinite patience to sit here and dumb down the legal system until you get it, and I don't have the time to simplify my points into a snappy youtube video with cartoon characters that sing the lesson in a way that even you can understand.

Stay the course, Ace, stay the course!
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Regardless of the rhetoric the public takes part in, no President has satisfied everyone. Not one.[/quote]

Who are you, Abe Lincoln? ;)
 
[quote name='camoor']I knew I couldn't get you to understand. I don't possess the near-infinite patience to sit here and dumb down the legal system until you get it, and I don't have the time to simplify my points into a snappy youtube video with cartoon characters that sing the lesson in a way that even you can understand.

Stay the course, Ace, stay the course![/QUOTE]

It's one thing to try and make a point. It's another to be arguementative. It's completely another thing to act like you're better than everyone else while doing both, then being ignored.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It's one thing to try and make a point. It's another to be arguementative. It's completely another thing to act like you're better than everyone else while doing both, then being ignored.[/quote]

Ace-of-war MichaelMoore'd my post with his selective quoting, so I had a little fun razzing him.

Calm down dude, that vein in your head is going to burst ;) .
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It's one thing to try and make a point. It's another to be arguementative. It's completely another thing to act like you're better than everyone else while doing both, then being ignored.[/quote]

I don't particularly care if he insults me, that's what liberals do. I just hope someone else who might have otherwise taken his post as truth would see his rant for what it really is: scare tactics. The FCC isn't a tool to put people in the poor house as camoor would suggest, it's just an entity to help defend the freedom of choice for millions of Americans. The V-Chip would be a better example, coupled with appropriate rating guides, people can choose what they want to watch based on the rating it gets. They don't have to follow it, but it's just a helpful tool that provides you with information about a particular show. You can keep it strictly familiy-oriented, or you can go the whole nine and pick up the Playboy channel. The point is that you should be the one who has the power over what you want to see.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I don't particularly care if he insults me, that's what liberals do. I just hope someone else who might have otherwise taken his post as truth would see his rant for what it really is: scare tactics. The FCC isn't a tool to put people in the poor house as camoor would suggest, it's just an entity to help defend the freedom of choice for millions of Americans. The V-Chip would be a better example, coupled with appropriate rating guides, people can choose what they want to watch based on the rating it gets. They don't have to follow it, but it's just a helpful tool that provides you with information about a particular show. You can keep it strictly familiy-oriented, or you can go the whole nine and pick up the Playboy channel. The point is that you should be the one who has the power over what you want to see.[/quote]

The hypocrisy in your first three sentences is mind-boggling, to say the least.

1. Insults are what "liberals do"? So you are saying that "conservatives" never deign to, say, issue legislative slaps in the face to religions other then christianity, or call into question the patriotic virtues of veterans when they dare to challenge leadership. Please tell me you were joking.
2. Scare tactics? From someone who supports war against an entire people because less then .1% decided to launch a terrorist act. Clean out the terrorist bogeyman hiding under your bed before accusing others of scare tactics.
3. FCC defending freedom. Is that why they bowed down in front of the parent groups and gave into pressure to limit free speech and ban the exploration of adult themes at an appropriate hour- while selling the farm to 2 multi-conglomerates who now run a virtual monopoly of the radio business? What if you can't afford the playboy channel, shouldn't the government stay out of regulating what you see on broadcast TV - oh yeah I forgot that freedom is now a pay-to-play business in the new Amerika.
 
[quote name='camoor']1. Insults are what "liberals do"? So you are saying that "conservatives" never deign to, say, issue legislative slaps in the face to religions other then christianity, or call into question the patriotic virtues of veterans when they dare to challenge leadership. Please tell me you were joking.[/quote]

No, I'm not joking. We could get into a little bitchfest quoting individuals who represent both sides of the aisle, but as is apparent from your hostility and overall elitism, I was just generalizing you and your kind.

2. Scare tactics? From someone who supports war against an entire people because less then .1% decided to launch a terrorist act. Clean out the terrorist bogeyman hiding under your bed before accusing others of scare tactics.
Click to expand...

Way to dodge the issue, it's what's called a red herring in the world of logical fallacies. If you want to debate terrorism, maybe you should be in a thread designed for that.

Scare tactics is an apt description because you're claiming that all of the "little people" are getting to get hurt by this legislation when you have nothing to back up these claims. You know damn well the government isn't going to enforce fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at people who will never make make that much money in a lifetime, but you ignore your own common sense to make a swipe at the President. Rest assured it's not the first time it's happened, but it's still intellectually dishonest nonetheless. Hence the term, scare tactics.

3. FCC defending freedom. Is that why they bowed down in front of the parent groups and gave into pressure to limit free speech and ban the exploration of adult themes at an appropriate hour- while selling the farm to 2 multi-conglomerates who now run a virtual monopoly of the radio business? What if you can't afford the playboy channel, shouldn't the government stay out of regulating what you see on broadcast TV - oh yeah I forgot that freedom is now a pay-to-play business in the new Amerika.
Click to expand...

Limit free speech? I want you to watch The Sopranos with me and tell me how much limitations they have. The problem is you aren't looking at this the right way. First of all, if you can't afford 15 dollars a month, porn shouldn't be your number one priority to begin with. Second of all, I love how you're this big supporter of the free market system when it comes to censorship of your precious pornography, but I'll bet if the FDA didn't step in to make sure companies were abiding by U.S. government regulations when selling you produce you'd be all in an uproar.

All the FCC does is let's you know what you're going to see/hear before you see/hear it. What's wrong with choice? What's wrong with being informed? Nothing, nothing is wrong about either of those. People have a right to know what they will and will not see, because after all, we still live in a free society, camoor.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']No, I'm not joking. We could get into a little bitchfest quoting individuals who represent both sides of the aisle, but as is apparent from your hostility and overall elitism, I was just generalizing you and your kind.
Way to dodge the issue, it's what's called a red herring in the world of logical fallacies. If you want to debate terrorism, maybe you should be in a thread designed for that.
Scare tactics is an apt description because you're claiming that all of the "little people" are getting to get hurt by this legislation when you have nothing to back up these claims. You know damn well the government isn't going to enforce fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars at people who will never make make that much money in a lifetime, but you ignore your own common sense to make a swipe at the President. Rest assured it's not the first time it's happened, but it's still intellectually dishonest nonetheless. Hence the term, scare tactics.
[/quote]

You read that into my posts. I was talking about people like Howard Stern or Bubba being hit by fines - millionares who can afford even the astronomical fines that the FCC are leveling at them. It limits free speech (who wants to be hit by huge fines - be they poor or rich) and it doesn't make it right even though they can pay.

[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Limit free speech? I want you to watch The Sopranos with me and tell me how much limitations they have. The problem is you aren't looking at this the right way. First of all, if you can't afford 15 dollars a month, porn shouldn't be your number one priority to begin with. Second of all, I love how you're this big supporter of the free market system when it comes to censorship of your precious pornography, but I'll bet if the FDA didn't step in to make sure companies were abiding by U.S. government regulations when selling you produce you'd be all in an uproar.

All the FCC does is let's you know what you're going to see/hear before you see/hear it. What's wrong with choice? What's wrong with being informed? Nothing, nothing is wrong about either of those. People have a right to know what they will and will not see, because after all, we still live in a free society, camoor.[/quote]

Wow - you can get the Sopranos for $15 a month - thats a great deal - in my area cable tv costs 60 a month and the premium channels like HBO are on top of that - you may be rich but that's alot of money for the average American.

The porn comparison to produce - where does that come from - you're looking at cucumbers and melons a bit too closely - seriously though, bad produce can kill you, but the most that bad porn can do is waste the time it takes to eject it from your VCR. Of course there is some porn which is downright inhumane for the participants, but I'm talking about your garden-variety bowchicawowow porn. Porn is protected as free speech, produce is not. Thomas Paine never said "Give me poisoned apples or give me death!"

Can I watch a serious and tasteful exploration of sexual themes late at night on network TV in the privacy of my own home without having the language and visual content edited down to a bunch of innane innuendo, bleeps, and fade-outs? Maybe if I'm in Europe, but not in the land of the "free". Informed is one thing, even V-chip (with all it's big brother trappings) is not yet being used in an overly abusive way, but censorship without regard to the hour (kids shouldn't be up so late) or the type of content (IE serious treatment vs complete exploitation) is indefensible. I'd like to see the government stay out of it entirely, but I'm willing to make a reasonable compromise for the "think of the children" crowd.
 
[quote name='camoor']You read that into my posts. I was talking about people like Howard Stern or Bubba being hit by fines - millionares who can afford even the astronomical fines that the FCC are leveling at them. It limits free speech (who wants to be hit by huge fines - be they poor or rich) and it doesn't make it right even though they can pay.[/quote]

At least tell it like it is. Howard Stern isn't "little people," and no one should assume such from the term.

Wow - you can get the Sopranos for $15 a month - thats a great deal - in my area cable tv costs 60 a month and the premium channels like HBO are on top of that - you may be rich but that's alot of money for the average American.

The porn comparison to produce - where does that come from - you're looking at cucumbers and melons a bit too closely - seriously though, bad produce can kill you, but the most that bad porn can do is waste the time it takes to eject it from your VCR. Of course there is some porn which is downright inhumane for the participants, but I'm talking about your garden-variety bowchicawowow porn. Porn is protected as free speech, produce is not. Thomas Paine never said "Give me poisoned apples or give me death!"

Can I watch a serious and tasteful exploration of sexual themes late at night on network TV in the privacy of my own home without having the language and visual content edited down to a bunch of innane innuendo, bleeps, and fade-outs? Maybe if I'm in Europe, but not in the land of the "free". Informed is one thing, even V-chip (with all it's big brother trappings) is not yet being used in an overly abusive way, but censorship without regard to the hour (kids shouldn't be up so late) or the type of content (IE serious treatment vs complete exploitation) is indefensible. I'd like to see the government stay out of it entirely, but I'm willing to make a reasonable compromise for the "think of the children" crowd.
Click to expand...

I didn't include the fees associated with a cable box or a satellite dish service because those aren't affilated with the Playboy channel, but the Playboy channel costs 15 dollars a month. So if 15 dollars a month is rich in your neck of the woods, I'd imagine you were the one who's out of touch. Even still, you can find just about any kind of pornography you want on the internet, which is of course free in just about every spot on the planet now with the technology that wireless provides us.

I was simply pointing out here that while you deem it fit for "the government to stay out of it entirely," refering to cable companies and network television, you'd be up in arms if they weren't pushing FDA regulations, or perhaps if they did away with a minimum wage.

Finally, yes, you have every right to watch smut in your own home, but you don't have the right for it to be provided. The fact of the matter is, you have every resource at your fingertips to access this kind of entertainment, and should you choose to use them then that's your choice. You can't choose, however, to take away the controls that the public has over television to the degree that they can regulate it, individually. Although you yourself might prefer to watch pornography and violent videos often, everyone is different and others might not enjoy that same programming. When we establish a firm guideline we have a level of control so that we may choose what we want to see based on the content that we can expect to be on the show.

You do not have the right to take away knowledge, freedom, and choice from the American public because you're too lazy to pick up the Playboy Channel, get on the internet, or go buy a magazine.
 
Hmmm, Using the word "Elitism" (which doesnt really mean much of anything) and the phrase "Your Kind" in one go?

Where can one start at that level of idiocy?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']I was simply pointing out here that while you deem it fit for "the government to stay out of it entirely," refering to cable companies and network television, you'd be up in arms if they weren't pushing FDA regulations, or perhaps if they did away with a minimum wage.[/quote]

In terms of the FDA - bad produce or meat can kill you. The minimum wage affects someone's entire livelihood, and IMO paying a fair wage is the humane thing to do.

If someone hears an f-word or sees a woman's breast late at night - can you really say that is as serious or as in need of government regulation as denying someone a fair wage or eliminating the government regulated impediments against roadside diners dumping salmonella-infested chicken on an unsuspecting public?
 
[quote name='camoor']In terms of the FDA - bad produce or meat can kill you. The minimum wage affects someone's entire livelihood, and IMO paying a fair wage is the humane thing to do.

If someone hears an f-word or sees a woman's breast late at night - can you really say that is as serious or as in need of government regulation as denying someone a fair wage or eliminating the government regulated impediments against roadside diners dumping salmonella-infested chicken on an unsuspecting public?[/QUOTE]

Thought I'd let you know the FDA doesn't have anything to do with meat. DoA handles all meats and poultry, and local health departments are the sole provider and regulator of food safety in restuarants and groceries.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']Thought I'd let you know the FDA doesn't have anything to do with meat. DoA handles all meats and poultry, and local health departments are the sole provider and regulator of food safety in restuarants and groceries.[/quote]

Good call. It's ironic that Ace mentions the FDA because I'm a big proponent of greatly limiting the FDA's power to dictate which non-pharmaceutical drugs people can and can't take. We've all seen that the conservatives who speak loudest on this topic don't have any credibility (take Rush Limbaugh, for example...)
 
All I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to advocate ignorance for the American public just because you don't hear enough f-bombs on network television. I value knowledge and understanding more than seeing some televised boobs.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']All I'm saying is I don't think it's fair to advocate ignorance for the American public just because you don't hear enough f-bombs on network television. I value knowledge and understanding more than seeing some televised boobs.[/QUOTE]


I think we can add knowledge and comprehension (along with honesty) to the list of things you dont value.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I think we can add knowledge and comprehension (along with honesty) to the list of things you dont value.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm not sure what he's talking about. Ratings are fine - I totally agree with telling the consumer what is going to be shown and what age it's appropriate for (even as determined by some detatched out-of-touch government body) - what I don't agree with is flat out censorship to the point that a gritty war movie about American sacrifice for freedom such as "Saving Private Ryan" needs to censor out the f word, or a late-night show such as ER can't show an educational medical diagnosis featuring a visual of a 60 year old woman's saggy breast.
 
But you're the adult, camoor, the millions of children that watch television everyday in America are not. You have every resource at your disposal to easily watch any form of entertainment without corrupting network television. You can rent a DVD, use the digital cable/movie package, order a movie channel, go to the theater, go to a friend's house, etc etc... you can do a number of different things to satisfy your lust for pornography or cursing. Why is it that you want to bring down network television to those same depths? Is it too much to ask to have one small bastion of moderation and control in this country? I don't think so, I think it's fair, just, and it helps this entire country function a little easier knowing they can turn on a television and not have to watch "Horny Potter."

I honestly don't get your agenda. You have literally hundreds upon hundreds of channels on cable or satellite, that's not enough. You have adult megaplexes littering our streets, many open 24/7/365, that's not enough. You have a thriving, which would be an understatement, pornography industry online, where you can basically order or download just about any XXX movie ever made, that's not enough. You have violent and adult films being packaged into DVDs faster than ever before, that's not enough. Let me guess, you won't rest until every conceivable electronic media has some sort of boob on it?
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']But you're the adult, camoor, the millions of children that watch television everyday in America are not. You have every resource at your disposal to easily watch any form of entertainment without corrupting network television. You can rent a DVD, use the digital cable/movie package, order a movie channel, go to the theater, go to a friend's house, etc etc... you can do a number of different things to satisfy your lust for pornography or cursing. Why is it that you want to bring down network television to those same depths? Is it too much to ask to have one small bastion of moderation and control in this country? I don't think so, I think it's fair, just, and it helps this entire country function a little easier knowing they can turn on a television and not have to watch "Horny Potter."

I honestly don't get your agenda. You have literally hundreds upon hundreds of channels on cable or satellite, that's not enough. You have adult megaplexes littering our streets, many open 24/7/365, that's not enough. You have a thriving, which would be an understatement, pornography industry online, where you can basically order or download just about any XXX movie ever made, that's not enough. You have violent and adult films being packaged into DVDs faster than ever before, that's not enough. Let me guess, you won't rest until every conceivable electronic media has some sort of boob on it?[/quote]

Oh the horror! Oh the vile curse of a woman's breast - that it is so round and fat - oh the children just couldn't take it! We must be ever vigilant - not even in the daytime - but late into the night as well - for children who aren't parented well may sneak out past an early bedtime to watch TV, and think of the scarring when they see a female's naked breast - O the humanity - please save us oh wise and noble government with sanctions and regulations that will defy the evil and lustful nature of the will of the common people and restore our network television back up upon the pedestal of morality and family values where it rightfully belongs. Down with the common denominator, up with the bastions of morality, the select group of public servants that speak out against the evil liberals who exist simply to insult and infuriate conservatives.
 
[quote name='camoor']Oh the horror! Oh the vile curse of a woman's breast - that it is so round and fat - oh the children just couldn't take it! We must be ever vigilant - not even in the daytime - but late into the night as well - for children who aren't parented well may sneak out past an early bedtime to watch TV, and think of the scarring when they see a female's naked breast - O the humanity - please save us oh wise and noble government with sanctions and regulations that will defy the evil and lustful nature of the will of the common people and restore our network television back up upon the pedestal of morality and family values where it rightfully belongs. Down with the common denominator, up with the bastions of morality, the select group of public servants that speak out against the evil liberals who exist simply to insult and infuriate conservatives.[/quote]

Such elitist bullshit, there's no need for any of it.

It's unbelievable that you are so unwilling to compromise, that you feel as though the only way to live is the way you live. The only way to raise children is how you would do it. Let me clue you in, we live in a free society, and that means we don't have to bow before yours, or anyone elses, way of living. That's why it's necessary to start from a completely neutral point that encourages safeguards and promotes knowledge rather than indoctrinate people into a submission of accepting a culture of naked women, extensive drug use, extremely brutal violence, and disgusting language. No, I'm glad we have barriers to keep people like you at bay. People like you who are too lazy to get there own porn that they would rather force it to come into the living rooms of tens of millions of American families across the country.

No, I will not live by the same parameters you do because I choose not to. No one else has to live like you either, that's what makes this country so great. We can choose not to accept that lifestyle and we can choose to make our own. With a little help, it gives us all a nice starting point to map our own lives rather than just everyone conform to your lifestyle.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Such elitist bullshit, there's no need for any of it.

It's unbelievable that you are so unwilling to compromise, that you feel as though the only way to live is the way you live. The only way to raise children is how you would do it. Let me clue you in, we live in a free society, and that means we don't have to bow before yours, or anyone elses, way of living. That's why it's necessary to start from a completely neutral point that encourages safeguards and promotes knowledge rather than indoctrinate people into a submission of accepting a culture of naked women, extensive drug use, extremely brutal violence, and disgusting language. No, I'm glad we have barriers to keep people like you at bay. People like you who are too lazy to get there own porn that they would rather force it to come into the living rooms of tens of millions of American families across the country.

No, I will not live by the same parameters you do because I choose not to. No one else has to live like you either, that's what makes this country so great. We can choose not to accept that lifestyle and we can choose to make our own. With a little help, it gives us all a nice starting point to map our own lives rather than just everyone conform to your lifestyle.[/quote]

Keep thinking that you and the christian right are going to win the culture wars.

As long as America isn't hijacked by a Fascist Militaristic Regime, time is on our side.
 
Stop using the word elitist Ace, it is for own good.

All it does expose you to the world as the mindless soulless drone you know yourself to be.
 
[quote name='camoor']Keep thinking that you and the christian right are going to win the culture wars.[/quote]

Oh brother you know we are. Look at the Supreme Court and tell me how long do you think it's going to take before Roe v. Wade is overturned? Look at that flag burning amendment that was just one vote shy of passing. You think you've seent he last of gay marriage banning too?

You better get used to it buddy, because the conservatives are just getting started. What are you going to do when you wake up that fine Novemeber morning to hear that Newt Gingrich is our next President? :D

Liberals are dead, at least for the forseeable future. Hell, ya'll will be lucky to get Ned Lamont into the Senate, much less change the direction of this country.

We can have all the arguments we want, but in your heart you know which side is winning. That's what really counts.
 
[quote name='Ace-Of-War']Oh brother you know we are. Look at the Supreme Court and tell me how long do you think it's going to take before Roe v. Wade is overturned? Look at that flag burning amendment that was just one vote shy of passing. You think you've seent he last of gay marriage banning too?

You better get used to it buddy, because the conservatives are just getting started. What are you going to do when you wake up that fine Novemeber morning to hear that Newt Gingrich is our next President? :D

Liberals are dead, at least for the forseeable future. Hell, ya'll will be lucky to get Ned Lamont into the Senate, much less change the direction of this country.

We can have all the arguments we want, but in your heart you know which side is winning. That's what really counts.[/QUOTE]


Not to Godwin but this is Nazi style talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top