I thought Conservatives just LOVED the Constitution?

[Mott the Hoople]

That pretty much describes most people who call themselves conservatives today...the Rush Limbaugh clones.

And today's GOP has exorcised 'conserve' from conservatism and replaced it with 'authoritarian'...

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the Republican party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
Barry Goldwater

Agreed. There is virtually no political left in our nation. Obama and his policies, by the standards of 1975, would have been a moderate Republican.

 

[DamnYankee]

Agreed. There is virtually no political left in our nation. Obama and his policies, by the standards of 1975, would have been a moderate Republican.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, so far what I have gleaned is libertarians views in this context are in direct opposition to our founding fathers.


I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Thomas Jefferson

Moron.... libertarians are the one group that is CLOSEST to the beliefs of the founders. They believe the power DOES lie with the people. Not the government.

It is the LIBERALS/Democrats who believe the government should be involved more and more and more every year. It is they who think the government should manage our health care, rather than the people. It is they who think the government should dictate what we listen to by moronic 'fairness doctrine' legislation. It is they who think the government with more power is a good thing.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is still America and he's allowed to have whatever views and opinions he likes.

Changing what he posts on order to belittle him only marginalizes whatever REAL points YDM was trying to make.

He can choose to believe in the tooth fairy if he wishes. It doesn't mean the rest of us can't mock him for doing so.

Also... his post wasn't changed. His words were crossed off and the alternate was put in place to mock him for his ignorance. His post remains unaltered as he posted it. It was the quotation that was modified and most of us are intelligent enough to know that he didn't really write it. It in no way marginalizes the fact that he is an idiot when it comes to understanding what libertarians stand for.

Now if you wish to continue with your panties in a bunch over that, then you have that right. But we will mock you for your ignorance in doing so.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You're right. But let me ask you this, wouldn't hearing 'all' sides give citizens the best knowledge base to make more informed decisions? I suspect what the 'libertarians' are not revealing is their desire to limit or silence views that they disagree with, and their fear of the truth.

Truth, like gold, is to be obtained not by its growth, but by washing away from it all that is not gold.
Leo Tolstoy

IF we were back in the 1950's and only had access to three TV stations and a few radio stations, you might have a chance to fight legitimately for the fairness doctrine due to a limited amount of ways to communicate with the public.

But today we have hundreds, if not thousands, of radio and TV stations at our disposal. In addition we have access to the internet, which connects us to not only local and national news sources, but international as well.

To pretend we are incapable of finding all views on a topic via the above is ridiculous. We can. We do. There is NO reason for the government to force all of these stations to present 'both' or 'all' sides.

YOU want the power to lie with the government.

The rest of us want it where it belongs.... with the people. We have the power to choose what we listen to and what we read. We have the power to NOT listen to morons like Rush, Hannity, Olbermann etc... should we choose.

 

[Bonestorm]

Moron.... libertarians are the one group that is CLOSEST to the beliefs of the founders. They believe the power DOES lie with the people. Not the government.

It is the LIBERALS/Democrats who believe the government should be involved more and more and more every year. It is they who think the government should manage our health care, rather than the people. It is they who think the government should dictate what we listen to by moronic 'fairness doctrine' legislation. It is they who think the government with more power is a good thing.

The idea that the founders were "libertarians" is total horseshit.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The idea that the founders were "libertarians" is total horseshit.

I did not say the founders were libertarians you fucking hack.

Why must you always come in with your moronic straw men in an attempt to derail a conversation?

What I stated is that Libertarians (to be clear... OF TODAY) are closest to the views of the founders than any other party (again, since you are dense... talking about the parties as they exist TODAY).

 

[Bonestorm]

I did not say the founders were libertarians you fucking hack.

Why must you always come in with your moronic straw men in an attempt to derail a conversation?

What I stated is that Libertarians (to be clear... OF TODAY) are closest to the views of the founders than any other party (again, since you are dense... talking about the parties as they exist TODAY).

Slow down, chief. I didn't mean to misconstrue what you said. I was simply making a statement of my own which was inspired by your claim.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Slow down, chief. I didn't mean to misconstrue what you said. I was simply making a statement of my own which was inspired by your claim.

whatever douche bag.

 

[Bonestorm]

whatever douche bag.

Tough couple of days at the track or something?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Tough couple of days at the track or something?

Not at all... just that you are full of shit. You pretend that you were just making an innocent comment? That is laughable at best. Hence, you are a douche bag.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

The idea that the founders were "libertarians" is total horseshit.

No doubt! Particularly Washington.

 

[Bfgrn]

Moron.... libertarians are the one group that is CLOSEST to the beliefs of the founders. They believe the power DOES lie with the people. Not the government.

It is the LIBERALS/Democrats who believe the government should be involved more and more and more every year. It is they who think the government should manage our health care, rather than the people. It is they who think the government should dictate what we listen to by moronic 'fairness doctrine' legislation. It is they who think the government with more power is a good thing.

Liberals are the closest to most of our founders beliefs. What most libertarians and almost all 'conservatives' ignore is how our founding fathers governed. They believed in a government where power lies in the people, but not in corporations at ALL. The Boston Tea Party was as much or more of a rebellion against the power of multinational corporations as it was against the king. The 'tax' issue that ignited the rebellion was a corporate tax break to the British East India Company, the largest multinational corporation then in existence. It would create a monopoly on tea that would desimate small Colonial businesses.

Liberals have always been at the forefront of civil liberties for all human beings. Some civil libertarians share those beliefs. Conservatives throughout the history of mankind have tried to create some form of an aristocracy. Today's 'aristocrats' in the conservative mind are the CEO's, captains of industry and Wall Street. Too many libertarians share that same belief.

If you really believe 'the people' have control of health care, and government is taking that away, then you are in that ignorant category. Health care is firmly under the control of Wall Street.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Hey Yurt...isn't it AMAZING when the federal government is in the hands of right wing extremists who favor the corporation over the citizen at every turn, you right wing morons LOVE government intervention. Even though the Supreme Court ruled the Fairness Doctrine constitutional, a fucking corporate lawyer appointed FCC head says it isn't?

The doctrine’s demise

From the 1920s through the ’70s, the history of the Fairness Doctrine paints a picture of public servants wrestling with how to maintain some public interest standards in the operation of publicly owned—but corporate-dominated—airwaves. Things were about to change.

The 1980s brought the Reagan Revolution, with its army of anti-regulatory extremists; not least among these was Reagan’s new FCC chair, Mark S. Fowler. Formerly a broadcast industry lawyer, Fowler earned his reputation as “the James Watt of the FCC” by sneering at the notion that broadcasters had a unique role or bore special responsibilities to ensure democratic discourse (California Lawyer, 8/88). It was all nonsense, said Fowler (L.A. Times, 5/1/03): “The perception of broadcasters as community trustees should be replaced by a view of broadcasters as marketplace participants.” To Fowler, television was “just another appliance—it’s a toaster with pictures,” and he seemed to endorse total deregulation (Washington Post, 2/6/83): “We’ve got to look beyond the conventional wisdom that we must somehow regulate this box.”

Of course, Fowler and associates didn’t favor total deregulation: Without licensing, the airwaves would descend into chaos as many broadcasters competed for the same frequencies, a situation that would mean ruin for the traditional corporate broadcasters they were so close to. But regulation for the public good rather than corporate convenience was deemed suspect.

Fowler vowed to see the Fairness Doctrine repealed, and though he would depart the commission a few months before the goal was realized, he worked assiduously at setting the stage for the doctrine’s demise.

He and his like-minded commissioners, a majority of whom had been appointed by President Ronald Reagan, argued that the doctrine violated broadcasters’ First Amendment free speech rights by giving government a measure of editorial control over stations. Moreover, rather than increase debate and discussion of controversial issues, they argued, the doctrine actually chilled debate, because stations feared demands for response time and possible challenges to broadcast licenses (though only one license was ever revoked in a dispute involving the Fairness Doctrine—California Lawyer, 8/88).

The FCC stopped enforcing the doctrine in the mid-’80s, well before it formally revoked it. As much as the commission majority wanted to repeal the doctrine outright, there was one hurdle that stood between them and their goal: Congress’ 1959 amendment to the Communications Act had made the doctrine law.

Help would come in the form of a controversial 1986 legal decision by Judge Robert Bork and then-Judge Antonin Scalia, both Reagan appointees on the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals. Their 2–1 opinion avoided the constitutional issue altogether, and simply declared that Congress had not actually made the doctrine into a law. Wrote Bork: “We do not believe that language adopted in 1959 made the Fairness Doctrine a binding statutory obligation,” because, he said, the doctrine was imposed “under,” not “by” the Communications Act of 1934 (California Lawyer, 8/88). Bork held that the 1959 amendment established that the FCC could apply the doctrine, but was not obliged to do so—that keeping the rule or scuttling it was simply a matter of FCC discretion.

“The decision contravened 25 years of FCC holdings that the doctrine had been put into law in 1959,” according to MAP. But it signaled the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which was repealed in 1987 by the FCC under new chair Dennis R. Patrick, a lawyer and Reagan White House aide.

A year after the doctrine’s repeal, writing in California Lawyer(8/88), former FCC commissioner Johnson summed up the fight to bring back the Fairness Doctrine as “a struggle for nothing less than possession of the First Amendment: Who gets to have and express opinions in America.” Though a bill before Congress to reinstate the doctrine passed overwhelmingly later that year, it failed to override Reagan’s veto. Another attempt to resurrect the doctrine in 1991 ran out of steam when President George H.W. Bush threatened another veto.

government intervention? LOL....the government CREATED the document, the government can decide the document is no longer necessary. there was zero intervention.

further, i see you actually failed to read my link or my quotes from that link as you would not have spouted the remaining garbage. you keep using that scotus case as if it claimed the FD was solidly and always constitutional. that was NOT the case. you're just blindly plodding through the snow without any knowledge of where you are. the ruling did not give the FG carte blanche protection.

i gave you the chance to educate yourself and its clear you have no desire to do so for it would cause your world view to crumble. the doctrine, IMO, would absolutely FAIL constitutional scrutiny due to the plethora of media available to citizens to make an informed opinion.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Liberals are the closest to most of our founders beliefs.

Liberals have always been at the forefront of civil liberties for all human beings.

really? how do you feel about the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Bfgrn]

government intervention? LOL....the government CREATED the document, the government can decide the document is no longer necessary. there was zero intervention.

further, i see you actually failed to read my link or my quotes from that link as you would not have spouted the remaining garbage. you keep using that scotus case as if it claimed the FD was solidly and always constitutional. that was NOT the case. you're just blindly plodding through the snow without any knowledge of where you are. the ruling did not give the FG carte blanche protection.

i gave you the chance to educate yourself and its clear you have no desire to do so for it would cause your world view to crumble. the doctrine, IMO, would absolutely FAIL constitutional scrutiny due to the plethora of media available to citizens to make an informed opinion.

Yurt, maybe you need to re-read your opinion piece written by a lawyer who was first licensed to practice law in PA in 2007. The right wing FCC under Reagan made 'constitutionality' opinions to justify their repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. From your lawyer: No reviewing court has examined the validity of the agency’s findings on the constitutional issue. Therefore, whether a newly instituted Fairness Doctrine would survive constitutional scrutiny remains an open question.

This is not opinion, it is from the REAL Supreme Court ruling:

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Liberals are the closest to most of our founders beliefs. What most libertarians and almost all 'conservatives' ignore is how our founding fathers governed. They believed in a government where power lies in the people, but not in corporations at ALL. The Boston Tea Party was as much or more of a rebellion against the power of multinational corporations as it was against the king. The 'tax' issue that ignited the rebellion was a corporate tax break to the British East India Company, the largest multinational corporation then in existence. It would create a monopoly on tea that would desimate small Colonial businesses.

Again moron.... Libertarians are the ones that want the people to have the most power. Not liberals.

Liberals are the ones, as I stated and you ignored, that want the GOVERNMENT to control more and the people to control less. Hence the attempted take over of Health care, past creations such as medicare, medicaid, social security, department of education, department of transportation etc.... while some of these are good endeavors, they are ALL examples of the GOVERNMENT controlling more and the people LESS. That is NOT how the founders governed.

You yourself are suggesting the government take more power and dictate what is said over the airwaves. HOW is that leaving it up to the people?

Liberals have always been at the forefront of civil liberties for all human beings. Some civil libertarians share those beliefs. Conservatives throughout the history of mankind have tried to create some form of an aristocracy. Today's 'aristocrats' in the conservative mind are the CEO's, captains of industry and Wall Street. Too many libertarians share that same belief.

Show us where you are getting the notion that libertarians share that belief system. Show us an example of a libertarian stating anything of the sort. You have to be getting your beliefs regarding libertarians from some source given your adamant 'knowledge' of libertarians. Share with us where you are getting your information on libertarians.

If you really believe 'the people' have control of health care, and government is taking that away, then you are in that ignorant category. Health care is firmly under the control of Wall Street.

No the government intervened long ago in health care, pushing for HMO's etc. Pushing for CORPORATE plans that guaranteed coverage. In the 1950's and early 60's, people paid for their own insurance. It was relatively cheap because it just covered catastrophic care. They then paid out of pocket for annual checkups and routine care.

Side note moron.... Wall Street does not control health care. Though I would be interested to see where you got that information as well.

 

[Phantasmal]

Again moron.... Libertarians are the ones that want the people to have the most power. Not liberals.

Liberals are the ones, as I stated and you ignored, that want the GOVERNMENT to control more and the people to control less. Hence the attempted take over of Health care, past creations such as medicare, medicaid, social security, department of education, department of transportation etc.... while some of these are good endeavors, they are ALL examples of the GOVERNMENT controlling more and the people LESS. That is NOT how the founders governed.

You yourself are suggesting the government take more power and dictate what is said over the airwaves. HOW is that leaving it up to the people?



Show us where you are getting the notion that libertarians share that belief system. Show us an example of a libertarian stating anything of the sort. You have to be getting your beliefs regarding libertarians from some source given your adamant 'knowledge' of libertarians. Share with us where you are getting your information on libertarians.



No the government intervened long ago in health care, pushing for HMO's etc. Pushing for CORPORATE plans that guaranteed coverage. In the 1950's and early 60's, people paid for their own insurance. It was relatively cheap because it just covered catastrophic care. They then paid out of pocket for annual checkups and routine care.

Side note moron.... Wall Street does not control health care. Though I would be interested to see where you got that information as well.

So what would Libertarians do with the poor and the sick? the elderly with no incomes? the disabled, if they would not have implemented SS, medicare and the others, how do you propose taking care of these issues? back to the good old days of the ice bergs? ghettos like India's? how would a Libertarian handle these social issues?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So what would Libertarians do with the poor and the sick? the elderly with no incomes? the disabled, if they would not have implemented SS, medicare and the others, how do you propose taking care of these issues? back to the good old days of the ice bergs? ghettos like India's? how would a Libertarian handle these social issues?

this is what families are for. the elderly live with their children when they can't care for themselves. as a last resort, there would be private charities and organizations to help.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So what would Libertarians do with the poor and the sick? the elderly with no incomes? the disabled, if they would not have implemented SS, medicare and the others, how do you propose taking care of these issues? back to the good old days of the ice bergs? ghettos like India's? how would a Libertarian handle these social issues?

Is there a problem? If so, is government the only option? If so what is the MINIMAL amount of government regulation/intervention needed to correct the problem?

The above is a simple view of the libertarian mindset.