Author Topic: Leadership to be proud of.... (Read 1539 times)

john9001 · « **Reply #60 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:13:26 PM »

nash's hysterical rants are mildly amusing and expected.

lukster · « **Reply #61 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:14:42 PM »

Can't say I've ever heard a republican of any prominence spew forth the verbal diarrhea like your "drifty". Ya know, just because ya have freedom of speech in this country doesn't necessarily mean ya should share every thought that passes through your lower intestine.

Hangtime · « **Reply #62 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:19:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Oh, horsepuckey Hang.

He's spewed out exactly the same kind of baloney he accuses teh Eveeil Repubs of doing.

He's the mirror image, if anything.

Well, thats a definition that's fair.

And, fer once... balanced. Of course, it's just some neo-lib shouting up a well at Nash.

Still, it's more entertaining than fox news. And, the only talking head i've seen on any news channel worth actually listening to is Lou Dobbs. ...and I suppose he's barking mad - nuts too, cause even CNN thinks he needs to lay off the caffine.

Hey Nash.. aside from the entertaining wordsmithing, has the guy actually made a constuctive suggestion yet?

Nash · « **Reply #63 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:26:27 PM »

What's a neo-lib?

john9001 · « **Reply #64 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:28:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
What's a neo-lib?

like a neo-con only different.

Nash · « **Reply #65 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:29:39 PM »

right.

Hangtime · « **Reply #66 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:32:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
What's a neo-lib?

Well, honestly; i thought it sounded like the opposite of a neo-con.

Imagine my surprise when i just punched it into google:

Neo-Lib

Toad · « **Reply #67 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:40:37 PM »

Ya know, the idea that the Dems can lay off all of the blame for their own losses on Rush, O'Reilly, FoxNews et al sorta explains why they lost two in a row.

It wasn't THEIR fault... oh, no... the losses were beyond their control. It wasn't anything they did or said or the candidates they offered.

"20 million listen to Limbaugh"..... but ~120 million votes were cast.

They better cowboy up or they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next time around. Again.

midnight Target · « **Reply #68 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:45:55 PM »

So the destruction of the fairness doctrine and the rise of the hatemongering right wing pundits is just ignored cause the guy used the term "free press"?

Kinda like saying a car isn't fast cause the upholstery is ripped.

Hangtime · « **Reply #69 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:48:28 PM »

crap. and all this time, i figured the split in the seat was why the turn indicators wouldn't work.

Hangtime · « **Reply #70 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:50:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Ya know, the idea that the Dems can lay off all of the blame for their own losses on Rush, O'Reilly, FoxNews et al sorta explains why they lost two in a row.

It wasn't THEIR fault... oh, no... the losses were beyond their control. It wasn't anything they did or said or the candidates they offered.

"20 million listen to Limbaugh"..... but ~120 million votes were cast.

They better cowboy up or they'll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory next time around. Again.

LOL.. they'll tank.

of course.. if it looks like they might win and haven't shot themselves in the ass, there prolly won't be an election.

Mr Big · « **Reply #71 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:50:26 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
So the destruction of the fairness doctrine and the rise of the hatemongering right wing pundits is just ignored cause the guy used the term "free press"?

Kinda like saying a car isn't fast cause the upholstery is ripped.

The fairness doctrine never happened. Is that what the guy tried to get across in his rant?

midnight Target · « **Reply #72 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:55:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mr Big
The fairness doctrine never happened. Is that what the guy tried to get across in his rant?

No, he said it was repealed under the Reagan administration...

Quote

The Doctrine was enforced throughout the entire history of the FCC (and its precursor, the Federal Radio Commission) until 1987, when the FCC repealed it in the Syracuse Peace Conference decision in 1987. The Republican-controlled commission claimed the doctrine had grown to inhibit rather than enhance debate and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace at the time, the doctrine was probably unconstitutional. Others, noting the subsequent rise of right-wing radio hosts like Rush Limbaugh, suggest the repeal was more likely motivated by a desire to get partisans on the air.

The two corollary rules, the personal attack rule and the political editorial rule, remained in practice even after the repeal of the fairness doctrine. The personal attack rule is pertinent whenever a person or small group is subject to a character attack during a broadcast. Stations must notify such persons or groups within a week of the attack, send them transcripts of what was said, and offer the opportunity to respond on the air. The political editorial rule applies when a station broadcasts editorials endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, and stipulates that the candidates not endorsed be notified and allowed a reasonable opportunity to respond.

The Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. ordered the FCC to justify these corollary rules in light of the decision to axe the fairness doctrine. The commission did not do so promptly, and in 2000 it ordered their repeal. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules had significant political effects. One liberal Pennsylvania political leader, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said "The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today."

Nash · « **Reply #73 on:** May 15, 2006, 10:55:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Ya know, the idea that the Dems can lay off all of the blame for their own losses on Rush, O'Reilly, FoxNews et al sorta explains why they lost two in a row....

Dems aren't laying "all" the blame for their losses on that. It's one component. But the thread started to discuss the tone of the discourse, and now you've got it in your mind that we're supposed to be talking about the scapegoating of the Democrat's election failures.

And someone else is wondering about the Democrat's suggestions... which is novel, because if these last 6 years have taught us anything, it's that nobody is ever interested in hearing them. Certainly not the powers that be. And certainly not until now. Curious, that.

Me? I've been disapointed in Obama more than once. I still have high hopes for him. But he's a rookie Senator trying to hum a tune which everyone else has long stopped singing. On any other day I'd admire that, but nowadays, I actually think that things are so serious that you aren't doing the job you were elected to do unless you start shouting uncomfortable **** from the roofs of tall buildings.

Mr Big · « **Reply #74 on:** May 15, 2006, 11:00:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target
No, he said it was repealed under the Reagan administration...

So, if he had just used a rational, logical series of sentences and thoughts based on facts, he could have actually given a "history" lesson about something?