# Her Royal Fairness



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Madam Pelosi is at it again!

SALEM'S WITCH TRIAL
According to two members of the House Democrat Caucus, Reps. Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer have informed them that they will "aggressively pursue" reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine over the next six months. In January, Democrat presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich announced that he was going to pursue the Fairness Doctrine through his Government Reform subcommittee. That announcement was greeted with silence. But now, Pelosi has moved things to the front burner.

Much of the doctrine, regulated through the FCC, was largely dumped in 1987. Other parts of it, related to "personal attack" rule and the "political editorial" rule, remained in place until 2000. The personal attack rule required anyone "attacked" over the airwaves to be notified beforehand and given an opportunity to respond. A similar rule was followed for the political editorial, where a broadcaster endorsing one political candidate or issue had to give similar time for a response from those not endorsed or supported.

The decision to press for re-establishment of the Fairness Doctrine now seems to have developed for two reasons. "First, [Democrats] failed on the radio airwaves with Air America, no one wanted to listen," says a senior adviser to Pelosi. "Conservative radio is a huge threat and political advantage for Republicans and we have had to find a way to limit it. Second, it looks like the Republicans are going to have someone in the presidential race who has access to media in ways our folks don't want, so we want to make sure the GOP has no advantages going into 2008."

That last comment appeared to be a veiled reference to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who appears to be gearing up for a presidential run. Over the past year, he has built a following both over the AM airwaves through the ABC Radio network, as well as through almost daily appearances across cable TV on the TV show Law & Order, where he plays a tough-talking district attorney.

According to another Democrat leadership aide, Pelosi and her team are focused on several targets in the fight, including Rush Limbaugh and the Salem Radio Network. In fact, Kucinich's staff has begun investigating Salem, one of the fastest growing radio networks in the country, which features such popular -- and highly rated -- conservative hosts as Bill Bennett and Michael Medved, and Christian hosts such as Dr. Richard Land.

"They are identifying senior employees, their political activities and their political giving," says a Government Reform committee staffer. "Salem is a big target, but the big one is going to be Limbaugh. We know we can't shut him up, but we want to make life a bit more difficult for him."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

For a long time they have made the mistake of thinking the first amendment was only for liberals. You can spew the most distasteful crap you want and they will call it art, but God forbid you don't agree with them.

Most people don't know it, but they tried to take away the choice of radio broadcast to our soldiers in Iraq also. The most popular program there is Rush Limbaugh, and twice they have tried to limit it. Not only that they tried forcing their Air America BS down their throat also. Liberal talk radio can not make it. It never will.

The campaign reform that the liberals (and dumb McCain) supported somehow restricted our ability to criticize a candidate 60 days before an election. What was that again, does anyone remember? We need to be reminded of that attempt to circumvent the first amendment, so if anyone can help, what was that restriction?

In the past the liberals controlled the media. Now through talk radio the conservative voice is finally being heard. They can't stand that so hence the attempt to limit free speech. NBC, CBS, ABC , etc are in their pocket. They don't want anyone on the airwaves that they can't control. This new era of talk radio is a breath of fresh air.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

Rush Limbaugh is one of the many things that are wrong with the American political system. He and the other talk show hosts are good examples of how to divide our country politically. Their rhetoric wants to make me uke: sometimes and they think we are dumb enough to believe what they are saying. I've got better ways to spend my time than to listen to these blowhards!! New talk radio is a breath of fresh air???

Did you really say that, Plainsman????


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't have to agree with everything I hear on talk radio. It's just good to hear some of the people out there on the radio thinking the same thing I have for 40 years. The liberal agenda can not stand the light of day. To achieve their goals they must keep the public in the dark. Whether we agree with Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative is not the point, the point is finally we get to hear another opinion, and not just what the liberal media spoon feeds us. The internet that your friend Al Gore invented will come back to bite him.

Yes, it is a breath of fresh air. I thought we would have to spend money to set up a radio station in some other country to broadcast the truth to us. Remember radio free Europe, and how our government spent money to penetrate the Iron Curtain? Phrases some of you younger folks may not remember, but our government spent a lot of tax dollars supporting a radio network called radio free Europe. It's intention was to broadcast the truth to the Russian people. We also coined the phrase Iron Curtain to showcase the isolation that the Russian people were subjected to. Until talk radio America was fed a one view newscast, perhaps not as radical, but still comparable to Russia 30 years ago.

Rooster, for a man who wants both sides of the story, your sure are anxious to suppress one side. I always think that political opinions are like a reostat switch, and that opinions are not two sided but infinite.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

I don't try to suppress one side but it is obvious that the left dominates the discussion in the political forum. I love to hear what you have to say but your passion will prevent supression of you poor supressed people. You guys would get pretty bored if all you had to do was sit around and tell each other what great free thinkers you are and how great Rush Limbaugh is when he isn't on his meds and I wasn't around to call you on an issue every now and then!!


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

The Left dominates discussion here????Not from where I'm sitting. :eyeroll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

:ro :rollin: :rollin: :rollin: llin:

Ya, we talk about the left a lot. Rooster, I also don't mind your comments, as a matter of fact I look forward to your ideas. I know liberals here would be conservatives in Washington. That leaves me a little confused why we have any liberal hunters at all. Priorities, priorities, priorities. I guess I am a hunter first and foremost.

I would prefer to talk less about liberals and talk about more optimistic things. However, there are some liberals in Washington that would abolish the second amendment if they could. The current issue is their attempt to stop free speech. As a pro second amendment type of guy (and first amendment) this bothers me. It absolutely astounds me that they wouldn't let soldiers listen to what they want to listen to. This issue isn't Rush Limbaugh as you would like to make it, the issue is freedom of speech.

We also talk about liberals because we like giving to our church to give to the hungry. On the other hand we don't like liberal politicians taking our money from us to give to some woman on welfare having her third, fourth, or fifth abortion at taxpayers expense. People got out of the draft, in the past, by filing as a conscientious objectors, but I have to pay for abortion through taxes over my objection. That taxes my conscience not just my pocketbook. It's only their business if my money isn't used. On the other hand you can use my tax dollars to yank her ovaries when she comes in a second time. It bothers me when I make mistakes, because it usually costs me something. It bothers me even more when I have to pay for some other fools mistakes.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Rooster,
Your spin is a joke. :lame: 
Please cut amd paste anything you can find where someone supported Rush
I haven't listened to him in more than 10 years.
You must be one of the few on this site that listen to him :stirpot: 
You seem to always be referring to him. oke:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Guess I have to fess up. I think I listened to Rush twice..... maybe three times last year. Was caught making a trip to town and it was either listen to Rush or Dr. Laura, whom I can't stand so Rush won out. Don't have a clue what he said.... just needed some noise around me while driving.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know Rooster, as I was eating breakfast this morning I was wondering why I thought you were trying to stifle free speech. Where did I pick up on that. Then I remembered this quote.



> Rush Limbaugh is one of the many things that are wrong with the American political system. He and the other talk show hosts are good examples of how to divide our country politically.


The you said:



> I don't try to suppress one side but it is obvious that the left dominates the discussion in the political forum.


I don't agree with you Rooster. You may not be calling for the termination of the first amendment, but you attempt to stifle through ridicule. It's the first choice of a liberal in a debate. It's very hypocritical if you think about it. Your opinions are as divisive as Rush Limbaugh. What????? Of course they are, think about it. If A has an opinion and B has an opinion that is strongly different do they not divide people politically. Tell me why Nancy Palosi unites and George Bush divides. Both of them do both. As a matter of fact if Hillary gets the democratic nomination she will divide the nation more than anything since the Civil War.

It's an exercise in logic Rooster. This is good for everyone to think about. Those who say George Bush divides more than their favorite liberal have very inept minds, or are intentionally dishonest. I don't want to get stuck on Rush Limbaugh as a subject, but just as an example he divides the nation no more or no less than (fill in your favorite liberal).

I try to be more realistic about things. As a simple example of that Rooster go to your mirror and ask yourself do you divide or unite people politically, and does Plainsman divide or unite people politically. The answer is mute. We have different opinions, and some people agree others do not. We unit with those who agree and divide from us those who do not. The division rhetoric we hear from the left is just that, ill thought out rhetoric.

Don't get me wrong Rooster, I am not angry, I am just trying to make people think. Dissention divides, but if we all agreed we would just be a flock of dumb sheep. In that light please feel free to argue on.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If we are going to be sheep I will be the ram and you can be the ewe! :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

no, no, no :laugh: I don't want to be either, stop the earth I want to get off.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Oh No! I ran out off quarters but I do hope you two keep going. :stirpot:


----------



## Horsager (Aug 31, 2006)

DJRooster said:


> If we are going to be sheep I will be the ram and you can be the ewe! :lol:


I'll play the part of the Wolf, Sheep dog, or Shepherd. I don't want to be a sheep, ram, goat, or card carrying member of the party who's mascot is a jackass!


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Read this and then remember this woman is only two heartbeats away from The White House!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Nancy Pelosi: Insanity Personified

It is hard to believe there are American citizens who support her theories and can make any sense of what she spins. Take a good hard look at what she wants. Take special note of the last paragraph.

Nancy Pelosi - When questioned about recent stock market highs she responded:

"Only the rich benefit from these record highs. Working Americans, welfare recipients, the unemployed and minorities are not sharing in these obscene record highs". "There is no question these windfall profits and income created by the Bush administration need to be taxed at 100% rate and those dollars redistributed to the poor and working class".

When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied "We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long ways to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as "Americans"."


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Where is it she thinks she holds office ---- the old Soviet Union? Even they and China are not insane enough to give it to illegal immigrants. They would put them in labor camps in Siberia.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Where is it she thinks she holds office ---- the old Soviet Union? Even they and China are not insane enough to give it to illegal immigrants. They would put them in labor camps in Siberia.


*No! The NEW SOVIET UNION :******: *


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

zogman said:


> Read this and then remember this woman is only two heartbeats away from The White House!!!!!!!!!!!! !
> 
> Nancy Pelosi: Insanity Personified
> 
> ...


http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/pelosi.asp

Claim: E-mail reproduces proposal from Representative Nancy Pelosi to implement a 100% tax on "stock market windfall profits."

Status: False


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Is snopes reliable. I only ask, because it sounded just like something our gal pal Nancy would say. Come up with something stupid and credit it to a Washington radical liberal and it sounds plausible. 
Even the sites I respect goof up once in a while. One I can't even remember their name right now (factfind or something like that) appeared to be real unbiased. I only found three mistakes in a couple of months, but all three were so simple it would nearly have had to be intentional. I don't know, maybe they were honest mistakes.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

Plainsman said:


> Is snopes reliable.


Considerably more reliable than chain mail.



> Come up with something stupid and credit it to a Washington radical liberal and it sounds plausible.


I suppose the same could be said about "The Commander Guy". I think you would accuse someone quoting an unverified or falsified Bush statement of being intellectually dishonest, though.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

I don't know if Pelosi ever made the statement in question or not but at the same time I don't see where snopes was able to disprove the statement either. All snopes did was to say she didn't make the statement. Anyone can make that claim. How about snopes offering real proof like the origin of the original statement.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> intellectually dishonest


We had a guy on here I would classify as intellectually dishonest, except that he wasn't the intellectual he thought he was. Just an arrogant biased kid. He struck me as someone who couldn't wait to get out of high school and go on the welfare roles. He would have voted for Hitler if he was a democrat.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

Gohon said:


> I don't know if Pelosi ever made the statement in question or not but at the same time I don't see where snopes was able to disprove the statement either. All snopes did was to say she didn't make the statement. Anyone can make that claim. How about snopes offering real proof like the origin of the original statement.


The burden of proof is on the person accusing that said person made said statement. The system that you suggest is one of assumed guilt, and that isn't how we work here in the good old USA.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

steaprio said:


> The burden of proof is on the person accusing that said person made said statement. The system that you suggest is one of assumed guilt, and that isn't how we work here in the good old USA.


Nice try kid but once again you sound like a fool. First place, you're the one that offered up snopes as a rebuttal. If you can't stand behind them then that's your fault. I already said I didn't know if the statement was actually made or not but you are claiming the statement was never made so the burden of proof is on you. Personally I could care less about Pelosi except that now she is in a position to do great harm to this country. She is a liar, cheat, and would sell her own kids for a few more votes. But, the truth is you already know all that don't you........ thought so.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

> Nice try kid but once again you sound like a fool. First place, you're the one that offered up snopes as a rebuttal. If you can't stand behind them then that's your fault. I already said I didn't know if the statement was actually made or not but you are claiming the statement was never made so the burden of proof is on you. Personally I could care less about Pelosi except that now she is in a position to do great harm to this country. She is a liar, cheat, and would sell her own kids for a few more votes. But, the truth is you already know all that don't you........ thought so.


You seem very confused. You have claimed that the statement exists, or at least should be assumed to exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a claim. Snopes doesn't have proof of it _not_ being said, as such a thing would be impossible, assuming that every sentence ever uttered by Mrs. Pelosi hasn't been recorded. This fact is ancillary however, as nothing can be assumed to exist unless there is credible evidence to support its existence. A chain mail, i.e. hearsay, is not sufficient evidence to assume that said statement was ever uttered.

It seems as if you wish to paint her as the devil incarnate based on your presumptions about her. If she really is all that she is cracked up to be, certainly the statements that she has actually made will be sufficient to prove her to be such.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> You seem very confused. You have claimed that the statement exists, or at least should be assumed to exist, despite the fact that there is no evidence to support such a claim.


That is a lie............. I never made any such claim. Twice now I've stated I didn't know if she made the statement or not and I sure you read that. You wish to quote me saying the statement exists? If you can't than not only is it a lie but you are a liar.

I


> t seems as if you wish to paint her as the devil incarnate based on your presumptions about her.


Not only wish to paint her as such but am doing so. I'm assuming nothing on my part, her record speaks for itself.


----------



## steaprio (May 18, 2007)

> That is a lie............. I never made any such claim. Twice now I've stated I didn't know if she made the statement or not and I sure you read that. You wish to quote me saying the statement exists? If you can't than not only is it a lie but you are a liar.





> I already said I didn't know if the statement was actually made or not but you are claiming the statement was never made so the burden of proof is on you.


You claimed that you didn't know if she had said it, but that the burden was on me to prove that she had not. You asked me to prove a negative, and from that I inferred that you believed that there was sufficient proof of Mrs. Pelosi's statement to require evidence to the contrary to prove that it was never said.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

steaprio said:


> Gohon said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if Pelosi ever made the statement in question or not but at the same time I don't see where snopes was able to disprove the statement either. All snopes did was to say she didn't make the statement. Anyone can make that claim. How about snopes offering real proof like the origin of the original statement.
> ...


"said person, said statement" Yup it's they little fellow that thinks he is an attorney alright. 
Some people think the rules are fore everyone but them. Remember how many times MT came back under other names. Would anyone call that honest. I don't.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Well.........this screen name is going into the folder with the rest of his screen names, the ignore folder, better known as the MT puke tank.


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

This might clarify this:

Now that Democrats are in charge, the rent is going up! You see, someone has to pay for all of this, "most ethical congress ever." Greater (as in bigger I assume) government doesn't come cheap. Which is why Dennis Kucinich (D) thinks that a 100% tax increase would somehow benefit consumers of the 'evil elixir of capitalism' &#8230;Ahem, "Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea."

"when you start imposing some discipline, a 100-percent tax on excess profits, then the oil companies aren't going to be making $1,300 a second like Exxon Mobil is."


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

"*excess profits*" = Oxymoron term used by communist and socialist governments. When your brain is mushy enough to accept that term then you will hear excess wages, excess children and so on. :eyeroll:


----------



## Whistler31 (Feb 1, 2007)

Gohon said:


> "*excess profits*" = Oxymoron term used by communist and socialist governments. When your brain is mushy enough to accept that term then you will hear excess wages, excess children and so on. :eyeroll:


 And the current Democrat Party.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

How about excess taxes 8) now thats a phraze I would like to coin.


----------

