I hope the Republcians will learn from the last election to go back to Reagan conservatism. This is what the people wantOriginally Posted by Dilloduck
Senior Member
I hope the Republcians will learn from the last election to go back to Reagan conservatism. This is what the people want
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
How do you know that?
Senior Member
You lok at the new Dems in the House, they could have run as Republicans. The minimum wage bill was passed with TAX CUTS to off set the expense to corporations
The Dems could not run kook libs like Dennis the Menace, Pelosi, Rangal, or Frank in those areas
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
I doubt seriously that any of the "new" Dems were elected because of thier stance on the minimum wage issue.
Senior Member
Their stance on taxes, no impeachment, not cutting and running from Iraq
Of cousre, Pelosi said one thing to get elected but once in power, did the opposite on several things
These moderate Dems have banded together (like the Gang of 14 in the Senate last year) and will be a pain to old guard libs
Kennedy was having a stroke over the tax cuts. It was fun to watch
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Exilarch
This.
Of course now the discussion will be derided and shut down, the thread closed or moved. The truth hurts too much.
http://www.threeworldwars.com/new-world-order.htm
"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (February 17, 1950, as he testified before the US Senate).
Their intention is to effect complete and total control over every human being on the planet and to dramatically reduce the world's population by two thirds. While the name New World Order is the term most frequently used today to loosely refer to anyone involved in this conspiracy, the study of exactly who makes up this group is a complex and intricate one. For further research sources, please see the side bar on the left.
In 1992, Dr John Coleman published Conspirators Hierarchy: The Story of the Committee of 300. With laudable scholarship and meticulous research, Dr Coleman identifies the players and carefully details the New World Order agenda of worldwide domination and control. On page 161 of the Conspirators Hierarchy, Dr Coleman accurately summarizes the intent and purpose of the Committee of 300 as follows:
"A One World Government and one-unit monetary system, under permanent non-elected hereditary oligarchists who self-select from among their numbers in the form of a feudal system as it was in the Middle Ages. In this One World entity, population will be limited by restrictions on the number of children per family, diseases, wars, famines, until 1 billion people who are useful to the ruling class, in areas which will be strictly and clearly defined, remain as the total world population.
There will be no middle class, only rulers and the servants. All laws will be uniform under a legal system of world courts practicing the same unified code of laws, backed up by a One World Government police force and a One World unified military to enforce laws in all former countries where no national boundaries shall exist. The system will be on the basis of a welfare state; those who are obedient and subservient to the One World Government will be rewarded with the means to live; those who are rebellious will simply be starved to death or be declared outlaws, thus a target for anyone who wishes to kill them. Privately owned firearms or weapons of any kind will be prohibited."
Senior Member
Your tin foil hat is on way to tight
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Point of Order !!!!
The dems want the same thing !!
Senior Member
Back to the topic at hand.............
The Un-Fairness Doctrine: Unevening the Playing Field, by Law
By David Limbaugh
Friday, January 19, 2007
Beware of liberals using such words as "fairness." In resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine," liberals are trying to kill conservative talk radio and restore their media monopoly. Period. The doctrine would selectively stifle free political discourse, which is essential for our representative government.
The Fairness Doctrine, an FCC regulation in force from 1949 to 1987, required broadcasters to present "both sides" of controversial issues. During that time, liberals had a virtual monopoly on the media.
Since the rule was repealed, conservative talk radio has exploded -- Rush Limbaugh launched his syndicated radio show in 1988 -- and other media outlets multiplied: the Internet, including blogs, cable and satellite TV and satellite radio, among others. The conservative viewpoint has fared quite well in the new media.
This is not to say that the government's elimination of the regulation discriminated against the liberal message. The liberal viewpoint still dominates the mainstream media, cable TV, except for Fox News, and the overwhelming number of major print media outlets. Liberals also have equal access to new media outlets, though they've had enormous difficulty competing in the marketplace of ideas.
It's instructive to remember that while conservatives grew hoarse complaining about the monolithic liberal message, they didn't advocate suppression of liberal speech. Their remedy, instituted -- fittingly -- in the Reagan years, was to open up, not constrict or regulate the media market.
The results have been dramatic, with conservatives finally having a significant voice in the media, albeit mostly in the new media, though a singular liberal message still prevails in the old media, not to mention public broadcasting.
Liberals can't stand the competition. Democratic Congressman Maurice Hinchey is sponsoring the "Media Ownership Reform Act," whose proposed reforms include the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Hinchey denies wanting to muzzle conservative hosts. But, "This will ensure that different views will also be heard. People are being prevented from getting the right information." Really? Latest polls show 60 percent of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war. Will Hinchey not be satisfied until it's 90 percent?
This is nothing but abject sophistry. Different views are already heard -- and not just in the mainstream media. There have never been more media choices. Nothing -- except consumer resistance -- precludes liberal entry into the talk radio market. But the First Amendment doesn't require people to listen to and support your message.
Liberals had no interest in balance before the advent of conservative talk radio. They don't have any interest in balance now; indeed we're finally approaching a balance: new media versus old media. But to them "balance" means dominance, just like "bipartisanship" means Republican capitulation.
With the Fairness Doctrine liberals would use government to micromanage the content of talk radio, realizing that they simply can't compete on an equal playing field in that medium. Notably, they aren't advocating balancing the messages of the major print or broadcast media giants.
The reason liberals can't compete in talk radio, besides their hosts being boring, oppressively cynical and pessimistic, is that their would-be audience is already fed through the mainstream media.
Conversely, conservative talk has been successful, not just because it is more entertaining, professional and optimistic, but because conservative audiences were starved for a likeminded message.
The liberals' goal is not balance, but to destroy conservative talk radio by requiring that each nano-segment of every show contain the counterbalancing liberal viewpoint, instead of relying on other shows or other media to deliver that viewpoint. What will they demand next: that political candidates present both sides of every issue to ensure balance?
Such draconian hyper-monitoring would destroy those programs. Besides, there is no fair, sensible or practicable way to regulate content. Objectivity is impossible over such subjective matters.
What do the paternalistic proponents of the regulations mean by the representation of "all sides?" Would the terrorist viewpoint deserve equal time? Don't laugh, many believe that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter and liberals routinely sympathize with tyrannical dictators like Fidel Castro and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
What is truly scary is that liberals believe that media outlets predominately presenting their viewpoint are not biased. To them, the liberal viewpoint is objectively correct -- the only proper way to view the world -- and the conservative one, aberrant and reality-challenged, not even deserving of First Amendment protection. Perhaps a slight exaggeration, but not much.
This arrogant mindset is what has troubled conservatives for years. It's not just that the mainstream media has presented a monolithic liberal message; it's that they denied their bias and purported to be completely objective in their selection and reporting of the news and commentary. At least with conservative talk, the hosts admit their bias and are honest about when they are editorializing.
The Fairness Doctrine must be stopped again, dead in its tracks.
David Limbaugh, brother of radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, is an expert in law and politics and author of Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/c...19/2007&page=2
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
Apparently the Fairness Doctrine has as many teeth as my grandma if the liberals can run the media without a peep out of conservatives. It's silly , unenforceabe and doesn't stand a chance of getting past a supreme court challenge.
Last edited by Dilloduck; 02-02-2007 at 08:02 AM.
Senior Member
But it shows how the left fears an open debate. Talk radio shows the insanity of the left. That is why I say, if Republicans get back to the principals of Reagan, they will sweep the elections in 08
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Banned
oh really?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...lup-poll_x.htm
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Poli...TroopSurge.htm
http://www.pewtrusts.com/ideas/ideas...rvey%20Results
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...m/itemID/14350
http://www.pollster.com/mystery_poll...nd_diverge.php
it would appear that polls do not show what you suggest they do.
Senior Member
Most Americans want to succeed in Iraq (except the kook left) and war is not run by polls
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
The War in Iraq
Guidance for Lawmakers
Most Americans support the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, but there is only limited support for an immediate withdrawal (there is also only limited support for increased troop levels).
Americans are divided on whether the United States should institute a timetable for withdrawal, or stay until it has achieved all its goals. When asked, Americans seem to prefer keeping troops for only about another year, but they expect troops to be there longer than that.
In general, public support for the war is generally divided; however, since the summer of 2005, opponents have tended to outnumber supporters.
Fine Print
Opinions on the war have been sensitive to the news out of Iraq. Opinions grew more positive after Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003 and after the first elections in Iraq in late January 2005. They grew more negative when George W. Bush asked for more money to fight the war in September 2003, after insurgents killed U.S. troops in Fallujah, and when U.S. troops were found to have abused Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib in the spring of 2004.
Context
Most Americans believe the United States can win the war in Iraq, but less than half believe it will. That could be an indictment of Bush's handling of the war; his approval ratings on the Iraq issue have been in the 40% range for the better part of the past year.
Though overall support for the war is divided, most Americans believe the war is not going well for the United States and believe the United States is not winning. This has been the view since September 2003, though there have been a few exceptions following positive news out of Iraq.
Urgency: Overall Importance as Political Issue
Iraq typically ranks at or near the top of the list when Americans are asked to assess the importance of various issues to their votes.
Along with the economy, Iraq consistently ranks at the top of Gallup's open-ended "most important problem" question.
Impact on 2006 Vote
Given its high salience with the public, there is reason to believe Iraq will be a dominant issue in the 2006 midterm elections.
Democrats are now seen as better on the issue, which is notable because Republicans typically have an edge on international issues, and had been seen as better on the issue at the beginning of the war.
Key Subgroup Differences
Views of the Iraq war are extremely partisan. Republicans overwhelmingly support the war; Democrats overwhelmingly oppose it. Independents tend to be more opposed than in favor of the war.
Support for past U.S. wars -- including Vietnam -- was not as polarized along party lines as the current war.
The Bottom Line
The war is an extremely high-priority issue for Americans and is likely to be one of the top issues in this year's elections. Americans are divided on the war, largely along partisan lines. Despite sentiment that the war is not going well for the United States, only about one in five favors an immediate withdrawal of troops. Most do support a gradual withdrawal of troops, preferably within a year, but close to half may be willing to keep troops there longer to achieve U.S. goals.
http://www.galluppoll.com/content/default.aspx?ci=1633
How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan
Senior Member
and this has something to do with supporting a return to Reagan policy ?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote