Given your support and endorsement of outright illegal campaign financing, Levi, you haven’t a leg on which to stand on this one.

You smear all corporations as bribing politicians, but support and endorse the proven illegal campaign financing activities of Barack Obama. That shows clearly that you have ZERO respect for the law, and that the only reason for your whining is that this ruling neatly removes the gags that you and your fellow liberals placed on others while illegally obtaining millions of dollars yourself.

Well at least Levi doesn’t talk to himself…

Harry Reid and President Obama are both useless assholes that shouldn’t be anywhere near the leadership of the liberal party.

And, good joke? I guess? What do you want me to say to that, exactly?

Also
This decision by the supremes is all about free speech. Not limited speech. The more speech the better. God forbid we expect the people to listen to all opinions and then discriminate. God forbide we ask the fifth estate to help in that process. With out this current supreme court decision, the incumbents had way too much power…a 98% re elect rate. How’s that working out for ya? The supremes simply said, this is about speech. How can you say too much free speech is TOO MUCH? Only liberal leftist Democrats.

Wake up brainiac, that 98% incumbency rate is only going to get higher, if anything. Campaign finance laws don’t prevent anybody from saying anything – USING MONEY IS NOT A FORM OF SPEECH. How can it be that a person seemingly capable of using a computer and the internet need to have such an obvious and mundane fact spelled out for them? Should bribery and extortion be illegal?

Failures and welfare addicts like yourself tend to be jealous of successful people. Indeed, the entire Obama Party and liberal ideology that you worship is based on convincing infantile individuals like yourself that anyone who has more money than they do doesn’t deserve it and should be destroyed.

You’ve got to be kidding me; there is no way that reasonable person can interpret the first amendment to mean that there ought to be absolutely no laws regarding campaign finance. Freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom to bribe/own elected officials. One of these things is not like the other.

ANY infringement on the First Amendment is fundamentally anti-American.

Here we go; more vague platitudes that incorrectly frame the issue as one of free speech infringement. This can be easily handled – the Bill of Rights does not apply to corporations. Done, your argument is beaten.

In addition, to justify more money flooding into the system by saying that money is already flooding the system is fairly cowardly. You’re not going to make a judgment on whether or not that’s a good or a bad thing? Of course not – you’ll just go right ahead pretending the first amendment’s been under attack for the past century by laws and decisions that were restricting this kind of thing. Yeah, oh boy, to think where the United States could have gone in the 20th century if only we hadn’t been infringing on corporations right to flood political campaigns with bribes… it’s not like we saved the world a couple times over and triggered a new technological age or anything.

The Supreme Court’s job is to rule on whether or not something is constitutional.

You seem to be under the delusion that the Court should refuse to uphold what is clearly written in our Constitution because it would interfere with your vision for social engineering and it benefits a class of things that you insanely hate.

Failures and welfare addicts like yourself tend to be jealous of successful people. Indeed, the entire Obama Party and liberal ideology that you worship is based on convincing infantile individuals like yourself that anyone who has more money than they do doesn’t deserve it and should be destroyed.

ANY infringement on the First Amendment is fundamentally anti-American.

In all honesty, I couldn’t have said it better myself. No one is ‘still swinging the Fairness Doctrine noose’ at this point in time, and no one ever really was swinging it. A lot has changed since last year, and even if a lot hadn’t changed, nothing would have ever happened with this.

Don’t worry, Levi. I didn’t expect you to be rational, intellectually honest, or acknowledge any of the facts that make the story “relevant and timely.” All of the Leftist Democrats that are quoted in the story unapologetically praising the virtues of the Fairness Doctrine and expressing their support for its revival are still members of Congress. Their party has significant majorities in both the House and Senate. Obama is in the White House–a President who is on the record attacking Rush Limbaugh and telling Americans not to listen to his radio program. The head of the FCC was appointed by Obama.

Who cares, who cares, who cares? Obama is hardly the radical leftist ya’ll are pretending his and these Democratic majorities mean little for implementing their ideas. Was there ever a bill introduced? Was there ever a bill even written? We aren’t even remotely close to having a ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ nor have we been at any point in the past year, and it doesn’t look like the Democrats are going to be able to do much for the short time they’re still wielding majority powers anyway, does it?

By the way, Levi, your comment was limited to shrieking that only Republicans are talking about the Fairness Doctrine. Since it appears that you and I are suddenly talking about it, are you willing to go on the record and state truthfully whether you would support a revival of the doctrine? I’m genuinely curious–for or against, Levi?

We’re only talking about because I’m calling Republicans a bunch of paranoid liars for talking about it – that doesn’t mean it’s on the cusp of being the law of the land. And for what it’s worth, I don’t support it, nor do I even understand what it is all that well, or care to know. It’s a meaningless non-issue designed to gin up resentment and fear in your circles. I have my own ideas for how the media should be fixed and none of them have to do with forcing broadcasters to guarantee equal time. Does that make you feel better?

Don’t worry, Levi. I didn’t expect you to be rational, intellectually honest, or acknowledge any of the facts that make the story “relevant and timely.” All of the Leftist Democrats that are quoted in the story unapologetically praising the virtues of the Fairness Doctrine and expressing their support for its revival are still members of Congress. Their party has significant majorities in both the House and Senate. Obama is in the White House–a President who is on the record attacking Rush Limbaugh and telling Americans not to listen to his radio program. The head of the FCC was appointed by Obama.

By the way, Levi, your comment was limited to shrieking that only Republicans are talking about the Fairness Doctrine. Since it appears that you and I are suddenly talking about it, are you willing to go on the record and state truthfully whether you would support a revival of the doctrine? I’m genuinely curious–for or against, Levi?

P.S. Go fu*k yourself.

They took themselves way too seriously

Like I said, if you want to try explaining to me why having a totally unrestricted amount of corporate influence on our political process is a good thing that we should all be excited about, I’d love to hear it. The reasons that this is a bad decision for the future of the country are so plainly obvious that if you’re actually happy about it, there isn’t much else to say beyond “You are a useless moron.” We need more money changing hands in back rooms? We need more politicians beholden to their corporate sponsors? How is this a good idea? Do you have anything to say about it?

Ah yes, an article from a year ago, and on the Fox News website no less! How relevant and timely. I must admit, with this year old article from a shameless propaganda outlet, it is certainly true that everyone is really talking about the Fairness Doctrine!

Also note how he takes the typical attitude of “You disagree with me, so you’re stupid.”

Sorry Levi, despite you embodying George Will’s example of the column, we prefer not to have you think for us.

Ummm, Democrat politicians who want it reinstated.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/12/democrats-consider-reviving-fairness-doctrine/

And who is swinging the Fairness Doctrine noose? You bozos realize nobody is talking about that except the Republicans?

Would Air America Have Survived Even With “Fairness Doctrine”?

Heck, yes ……. once they narrowed all radio bandwidth to just Air America and then paid for the production costs with tax money. There would still be under 100 listeners, radio would be dead, but Air America would have survived.

Sort of like Obamacare, when you think about it.